FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Farage as leader of the opposition P2
Farage as leader of the opposition P2
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""They’re fleeing from one place to seek asylum in another, France happens to be in the middle. When you go for a drink do you always stop at the first pub you see?" If I was dying of thirst I would go into the first pub I could see. I wouldn't be walking past 5.." So if you’d arranged to be with family in pub 5 you would stop at pub 1 because there’s beer in pub 1 and that’s the important thing? People who risk their lives to cross the channel and claim asylum in the UK are generally doing it because they have a reason to, such as family or friend connections. It’s almost certainly not to stop in a shitty hotel with nothing to do and virtually no money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Farage is demanding a place on the upcoming QT Leader's Debate, alongside Conservatives, Labour, SNP and Lib Dems. Since Reform are polling above 3 of those, it seems reasonable, no?" They always give Farage extra airtime. So I assume they'll put him on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""They’re fleeing from one place to seek asylum in another, France happens to be in the middle. When you go for a drink do you always stop at the first pub you see?" If I was dying of thirst I would go into the first pub I could see. I wouldn't be walking past 5.. So if you’d arranged to be with family in pub 5 you would stop at pub 1 because there’s beer in pub 1 and that’s the important thing? People who risk their lives to cross the channel and claim asylum in the UK are generally doing it because they have a reason to, such as family or friend connections. It’s almost certainly not to stop in a shitty hotel with nothing to do and virtually no money." Do you have a source to prove that they are coming to UK because of family and friend connections? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Farage is demanding a place on the upcoming QT Leader's Debate, alongside Conservatives, Labour, SNP and Lib Dems. Since Reform are polling above 3 of those, it seems reasonable, no?" One poll… no national seats under this guise or their old UKIP guise.. or the Brexit party I wish the parties would go after farages for his piss poor attendance at the European Parliament (after all he made such a thing about Uk fishermen being hard by.. but might get more done if he had attended more than 1 of 115 committee meetings) And why they won’t release the names of big money donors ( reform isn’t a political party.. it’s actually a company.. so circumventing the rules all the others have to abide by) Make reform talk about everything else other than immigration | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""They’re fleeing from one place to seek asylum in another, France happens to be in the middle. When you go for a drink do you always stop at the first pub you see?" If I was dying of thirst I would go into the first pub I could see. I wouldn't be walking past 5.. So if you’d arranged to be with family in pub 5 you would stop at pub 1 because there’s beer in pub 1 and that’s the important thing? People who risk their lives to cross the channel and claim asylum in the UK are generally doing it because they have a reason to, such as family or friend connections. It’s almost certainly not to stop in a shitty hotel with nothing to do and virtually no money. Do you have a source to prove that they are coming to UK because of family and friend connections?" The Red Cross do. https://www.redcross.org.uk/stories/migration-and-displacement/refugees-and-asylum-seekers/5-reasons-people-cross-the-channel | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""They’re fleeing from one place to seek asylum in another, France happens to be in the middle. When you go for a drink do you always stop at the first pub you see?" If I was dying of thirst I would go into the first pub I could see. I wouldn't be walking past 5.. So if you’d arranged to be with family in pub 5 you would stop at pub 1 because there’s beer in pub 1 and that’s the important thing? People who risk their lives to cross the channel and claim asylum in the UK are generally doing it because they have a reason to, such as family or friend connections. It’s almost certainly not to stop in a shitty hotel with nothing to do and virtually no money. Do you have a source to prove that they are coming to UK because of family and friend connections? The Red Cross do. https://www.redcross.org.uk/stories/migration-and-displacement/refugees-and-asylum-seekers/5-reasons-people-cross-the-channel " I don't see statistics there. They just have a link to a single story and have written an essay like that's a trend. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""They’re fleeing from one place to seek asylum in another, France happens to be in the middle. When you go for a drink do you always stop at the first pub you see?" If I was dying of thirst I would go into the first pub I could see. I wouldn't be walking past 5.. So if you’d arranged to be with family in pub 5 you would stop at pub 1 because there’s beer in pub 1 and that’s the important thing? People who risk their lives to cross the channel and claim asylum in the UK are generally doing it because they have a reason to, such as family or friend connections. It’s almost certainly not to stop in a shitty hotel with nothing to do and virtually no money." That's just not true.. "explanation. Only 25 per cent of asylum applications in France receive positive decisions, 10 points lower than the average acceptance rate in the European Union as a whole, and significantly less than the 70 per cent of cases accepted in the UK. Asylum applications in France usually take around nine months to process, and before asylum seekers can even apply for refugee status, they have to register a fixed address with the local authorities. Without such an address they are not allowed to work, take French classes or benefit from the French health system. According to French law, registered asylum seekers have the right to accommodation in reception centres while their applications are being considered. In practice, however, barely a third of asylum seekers are able to access such shelters due to their limited capacity. France has responded to this situation by endeavouring to provide asylum seekers with emergency accommodation in the winter, while leaving asylum seekers to find their own housing arrangements in the summer months." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""They’re fleeing from one place to seek asylum in another, France happens to be in the middle. When you go for a drink do you always stop at the first pub you see?" If I was dying of thirst I would go into the first pub I could see. I wouldn't be walking past 5.. So if you’d arranged to be with family in pub 5 you would stop at pub 1 because there’s beer in pub 1 and that’s the important thing? People who risk their lives to cross the channel and claim asylum in the UK are generally doing it because they have a reason to, such as family or friend connections. It’s almost certainly not to stop in a shitty hotel with nothing to do and virtually no money. Do you have a source to prove that they are coming to UK because of family and friend connections? The Red Cross do. https://www.redcross.org.uk/stories/migration-and-displacement/refugees-and-asylum-seekers/5-reasons-people-cross-the-channel I don't see statistics there. They just have a link to a single story and have written an essay like that's a trend." Do you have reason to believe they aren’t being truthful? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Farage is demanding a place on the upcoming QT Leader's Debate, alongside Conservatives, Labour, SNP and Lib Dems. Since Reform are polling above 3 of those, it seems reasonable, no? One poll… no national seats under this guise or their old UKIP guise.. or the Brexit party I wish the parties would go after farages for his piss poor attendance at the European Parliament (after all he made such a thing about Uk fishermen being hard by.. but might get more done if he had attended more than 1 of 115 committee meetings) And why they won’t release the names of big money donors ( reform isn’t a political party.. it’s actually a company.. so circumventing the rules all the others have to abide by) Make reform talk about everything else other than immigration " Yes, if Reform want a place at the top table they need to show they're not a one trick pony. They have a manifesto out next week, so let's see what policies they have across the board. It's interesting that Reform are now polling way ahead of the LibDems overall, but set to get a handful of seats (1 to 7) to the LibDems 77. Not sure of that's a case for PR or FPTP is doing it's job. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""They’re fleeing from one place to seek asylum in another, France happens to be in the middle. When you go for a drink do you always stop at the first pub you see?" If I was dying of thirst I would go into the first pub I could see. I wouldn't be walking past 5.. So if you’d arranged to be with family in pub 5 you would stop at pub 1 because there’s beer in pub 1 and that’s the important thing? People who risk their lives to cross the channel and claim asylum in the UK are generally doing it because they have a reason to, such as family or friend connections. It’s almost certainly not to stop in a shitty hotel with nothing to do and virtually no money. Do you have a source to prove that they are coming to UK because of family and friend connections? The Red Cross do. https://www.redcross.org.uk/stories/migration-and-displacement/refugees-and-asylum-seekers/5-reasons-people-cross-the-channel I don't see statistics there. They just have a link to a single story and have written an essay like that's a trend. Do you have reason to believe they aren’t being truthful?" Yes without statistics, a truefull statement can be miss leading by omission. How meny are genuinely coming to reunite with relatives already here? 1%? 10% 50%? Given that we already know 25% last year where Albanians... a safe country in the process of becoming a EU member. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/" "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Farage is demanding a place on the upcoming QT Leader's Debate, alongside Conservatives, Labour, SNP and Lib Dems. Since Reform are polling above 3 of those, it seems reasonable, no? One poll… no national seats under this guise or their old UKIP guise.. or the Brexit party I wish the parties would go after farages for his piss poor attendance at the European Parliament (after all he made such a thing about Uk fishermen being hard by.. but might get more done if he had attended more than 1 of 115 committee meetings) And why they won’t release the names of big money donors ( reform isn’t a political party.. it’s actually a company.. so circumventing the rules all the others have to abide by) Make reform talk about everything else other than immigration " Easy money for lazy journalists though isn't it, they (and he) know he'll say something that will grab the headlines. The fact he doesn't have to back it up is irrelevant. The media won't do anything that takes away the potential to sell their wares, if something happened to end Farage's career in the public sphere they'd lose a clicks cow. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""They’re fleeing from one place to seek asylum in another, France happens to be in the middle. When you go for a drink do you always stop at the first pub you see?" If I was dying of thirst I would go into the first pub I could see. I wouldn't be walking past 5.. So if you’d arranged to be with family in pub 5 you would stop at pub 1 because there’s beer in pub 1 and that’s the important thing? People who risk their lives to cross the channel and claim asylum in the UK are generally doing it because they have a reason to, such as family or friend connections. It’s almost certainly not to stop in a shitty hotel with nothing to do and virtually no money. Do you have a source to prove that they are coming to UK because of family and friend connections? The Red Cross do. https://www.redcross.org.uk/stories/migration-and-displacement/refugees-and-asylum-seekers/5-reasons-people-cross-the-channel I don't see statistics there. They just have a link to a single story and have written an essay like that's a trend. Do you have reason to believe they aren’t being truthful?" Why should I trust these organisations at their face value? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/" Again, they are defending their views with one off stories instead of doing a proper research. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/" Again, no data on the reasons for people choosing the UK. I do note they have data on the demographics, with 70% being men. That's 70%.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ Again, no data on the reasons for people choosing the UK. I do note they have data on the demographics, with 70% being men. That's 70%...." Yeah that's a weird one. The usual excuse lefties give is that the single men first come and then bring their families which doesn't make any sense. Imagine a single man leaving his family in a war torn country to find asylum. He reaches France. Would he apply for asylum hoping to bring his family as soon as possible to France or would he wait in Calais for months waiting for an opportunity to cross while his family is languishing in danger back home? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 )
So people are getting angry at old news.
No party seems to have a view of what the "right" number is, in which areas, and what the consequences of reducing migration in the other areas are. Or any plan short or long-term to address the gaps.
For what some parties say is the biggest issue, they haven't gone past rhetoric. That's both a shame and possibly indicative.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thw problem this immigration issue is there is no consensus on what the issue is. In part 1 some were looking at ye total of 1m. Others said that wasn't the issue, it was the 40k "illegal" asylum seekers. I mentioned the NHS because Farage did. But clearly, asylum seekers aren't going to break the NHS. That's legal migration. Even with illegal migration, it seems that the story moves quick. Old numbers had a high percentage of Albanians. In the last 12 months, it's been Afghans and Vietnamese. (Credit here to the work done on managing the Alnabian situation )
So people are getting angry at old news.
No party seems to have a view of what the "right" number is, in which areas, and what the consequences of reducing migration in the other areas are. Or any plan short or long-term to address the gaps.
For what some parties say is the biggest issue, they haven't gone past rhetoric. That's both a shame and possibly indicative.
"Pretty much everyone against immigration wants to put an end to how the asylum system has been exploited to a point where we are practically having open borders. I am guessing a good percentage of people against immigration also have problems with the sheer amount of people who came in through legal immigration reasons being housing crisis and social stability. Both are different issues needing totally different solutions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.." You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thw problem this immigration issue is there is no consensus on what the issue is. In part 1 some were looking at ye total of 1m. Others said that wasn't the issue, it was the 40k "illegal" asylum seekers. I mentioned the NHS because Farage did. But clearly, asylum seekers aren't going to break the NHS. That's legal migration. Even with illegal migration, it seems that the story moves quick. Old numbers had a high percentage of Albanians. In the last 12 months, it's been Afghans and Vietnamese. (Credit here to the work done on managing the Alnabian situation )
So people are getting angry at old news.
No party seems to have a view of what the "right" number is, in which areas, and what the consequences of reducing migration in the other areas are. Or any plan short or long-term to address the gaps.
For what some parties say is the biggest issue, they haven't gone past rhetoric. That's both a shame and possibly indicative.
Pretty much everyone against immigration wants to put an end to how the asylum system has been exploited to a point where we are practically having open borders.
I am guessing a good percentage of people against immigration also have problems with the sheer amount of people who came in through legal immigration reasons being housing crisis and social stability.
Both are different issues needing totally different solutions."I may need you tomexplain how our asylum system practically makes open borders. Are you suggesting that we wave through cases that aren't true refugees? And if so, where have you taken that view. And I agree different problems, different solutions. But doesn't it seem to get conflated in any discussion migration? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thw problem this immigration issue is there is no consensus on what the issue is. In part 1 some were looking at ye total of 1m. Others said that wasn't the issue, it was the 40k "illegal" asylum seekers. I mentioned the NHS because Farage did. But clearly, asylum seekers aren't going to break the NHS. That's legal migration. Even with illegal migration, it seems that the story moves quick. Old numbers had a high percentage of Albanians. In the last 12 months, it's been Afghans and Vietnamese. (Credit here to the work done on managing the Alnabian situation )
So people are getting angry at old news.
No party seems to have a view of what the "right" number is, in which areas, and what the consequences of reducing migration in the other areas are. Or any plan short or long-term to address the gaps.
For what some parties say is the biggest issue, they haven't gone past rhetoric. That's both a shame and possibly indicative.
Pretty much everyone against immigration wants to put an end to how the asylum system has been exploited to a point where we are practically having open borders.
I am guessing a good percentage of people against immigration also have problems with the sheer amount of people who came in through legal immigration reasons being housing crisis and social stability.
Both are different issues needing totally different solutions.I may need you tomexplain how our asylum system practically makes open borders. Are you suggesting that we wave through cases that aren't true refugees? And if so, where have you taken that view.
And I agree different problems, different solutions. But doesn't it seem to get conflated in any discussion migration? "For that, we need to define open border is. For me, if anyone arrives within the country without permission and we don't take legal action against the person, it is an open border. The idiotic asylum laws have made it in such a way that if you get in here and claim asylum, you cannot be arrested. So anyone can show up and just say that they are claiming asylum. That's practically open borders. How do you know how many of these guys are terrorists and how many of them are seriously violent people running away after committing crime in their home countries? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why?" What's the fixation with numbers? The dinghy crossings are either legal or illegal. If the latter, it's got nothing to do with numbers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why?" You can say it is only 40% of 40K, but that is still 16000 young men in 2023, god knows how many before and to come, it is not a static figure. There are no houses, they are overwhelming councils and people already here in need are being overlooked. Surely you must be able see that we cannot keep accepting these people because they overwhelm the system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why?" I get worked up over plenty of things
This is the discussion at hand. I'm sorry if facts hurt your feelings but if you are going to make sweeping statements of fact and try and shame others for there opinions then maybe you should actually have some facts to back up what you say?
Also pretty low of you to insinuate racism with your "wonder why" comment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thw problem this immigration issue is there is no consensus on what the issue is. " They're foriegners. " In part 1 some were looking at ye total of 1m. Others said that wasn't the issue, it was the 40k "illegal" asylum seekers. I mentioned the NHS because Farage did. But clearly, asylum seekers aren't going to break the NHS. That's legal migration. Even with illegal migration, it seems that the story moves quick. Old numbers had a high percentage of Albanians. In the last 12 months, it's been Afghans and Vietnamese. (Credit here to the work done on managing the Alnabian situation )
So people are getting angry at old news.
No party seems to have a view of what the "right" number is, in which areas, and what the consequences of reducing migration in the other areas are. Or any plan short or long-term to address the gaps.
For what some parties say is the biggest issue, they haven't gone past rhetoric. That's both a shame and possibly indicative.
" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Farage is demanding a place on the upcoming QT Leader's Debate, alongside Conservatives, Labour, SNP and Lib Dems. Since Reform are polling above 3 of those, it seems reasonable, no? One poll… no national seats under this guise or their old UKIP guise.. or the Brexit party I wish the parties would go after farages for his piss poor attendance at the European Parliament (after all he made such a thing about Uk fishermen being hard by.. but might get more done if he had attended more than 1 of 115 committee meetings) And why they won’t release the names of big money donors ( reform isn’t a political party.. it’s actually a company.. so circumventing the rules all the others have to abide by) Make reform talk about everything else other than immigration Yes, if Reform want a place at the top table they need to show they're not a one trick pony. They have a manifesto out next week, so let's see what policies they have across the board. It's interesting that Reform are now polling way ahead of the LibDems overall, but set to get a handful of seats (1 to 7) to the LibDems 77. Not sure of that's a case for PR or FPTP is doing it's job." I had a look at their policy document, contract for the people, I expect a fair bit of that to make the manifesto. The ideas behind improving and reforming how the NHS operates, staffs, and trains was interesting. Immigration, there is mention of offshore facilities to process. There was one element in there about returning anyone crossing in small boats to their point of origin, that will boil some blood if it is makes the manifesto. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why? You can say it is only 40% of 40K, but that is still 16000 young men in 2023, god knows how many before and to come, it is not a static figure. There are no houses, they are overwhelming councils and people already here in need are being overlooked. Surely you must be able see that we cannot keep accepting these people because they overwhelm the system. " 16000 people are overwhelming councils? That’s 0.02% of the population. Councils are cutting services because government is cutting their funding, not because of a few thousand people spread across the entire UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thw problem this immigration issue is there is no consensus on what the issue is. In part 1 some were looking at ye total of 1m. Others said that wasn't the issue, it was the 40k "illegal" asylum seekers. I mentioned the NHS because Farage did. But clearly, asylum seekers aren't going to break the NHS. That's legal migration. Even with illegal migration, it seems that the story moves quick. Old numbers had a high percentage of Albanians. In the last 12 months, it's been Afghans and Vietnamese. (Credit here to the work done on managing the Alnabian situation )
So people are getting angry at old news.
No party seems to have a view of what the "right" number is, in which areas, and what the consequences of reducing migration in the other areas are. Or any plan short or long-term to address the gaps.
For what some parties say is the biggest issue, they haven't gone past rhetoric. That's both a shame and possibly indicative.
Pretty much everyone against immigration wants to put an end to how the asylum system has been exploited to a point where we are practically having open borders.
I am guessing a good percentage of people against immigration also have problems with the sheer amount of people who came in through legal immigration reasons being housing crisis and social stability.
Both are different issues needing totally different solutions.I may need you tomexplain how our asylum system practically makes open borders. Are you suggesting that we wave through cases that aren't true refugees? And if so, where have you taken that view.
And I agree different problems, different solutions. But doesn't it seem to get conflated in any discussion migration?
For that, we need to define open border is. For me, if anyone arrives within the country without permission and we don't take legal action against the person, it is an open border.
The idiotic asylum laws have made it in such a way that if you get in here and claim asylum, you cannot be arrested. So anyone can show up and just say that they are claiming asylum. That's practically open borders. How do you know how many of these guys are terrorists and how many of them are seriously violent people running away after committing crime in their home countries?"you can't be punished agreed. But will have your case reviewed. The issue is deportation of rejected cases. But that issue is there regardless. The only difference is do they do jail as part of open borders. (A Rwanda scheme for failed cases may be interesting) I don't know how many are terrorist or criminals. The former feels very unlikely given the percentage of people on the world are terrorists and there is probably much quicker and easier ways to get into the UK than the asylum system. Probably more likely to have a few criminals, as that's law of averages. So then there is a balance of helping no-one out of fear, or trying to help those in need, and risking bad apples come through. Where that line is, is subjective, I agree. But the only truely 100pc safe answer answer is to accept no one. Legal or asylum. Or tourists. Every new person is a risk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can't help thinking that if the 16000 were 36/24/38 blue eyed blondes there wouldn't be such a hysteric reaction " aryian race, innit. 
(Jk folks) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why? You can say it is only 40% of 40K, but that is still 16000 young men in 2023, god knows how many before and to come, it is not a static figure. There are no houses, they are overwhelming councils and people already here in need are being overlooked. Surely you must be able see that we cannot keep accepting these people because they overwhelm the system. 16000 people are overwhelming councils? That’s 0.02% of the population. Councils are cutting services because government is cutting their funding, not because of a few thousand people spread across the entire UK." It is 40K that overwhelmed the councils in 2023, 16000 mostly young men should not have been here at all. And that is 1 year we are talking about it is increasing year on year, and yes they are overwhelming the councils and the system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why? You can say it is only 40% of 40K, but that is still 16000 young men in 2023, god knows how many before and to come, it is not a static figure. There are no houses, they are overwhelming councils and people already here in need are being overlooked. Surely you must be able see that we cannot keep accepting these people because they overwhelm the system. 16000 people are overwhelming councils? That’s 0.02% of the population. Councils are cutting services because government is cutting their funding, not because of a few thousand people spread across the entire UK. It is 40K that overwhelmed the councils in 2023, 16000 mostly young men should not have been here at all. And that is 1 year we are talking about it is increasing year on year, and yes they are overwhelming the councils and the system." Really, you think 16000 had more effect than massive underfunding? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can't help thinking that if the 16000 were 36/24/38 blue eyed blondes there wouldn't be such a hysteric reaction " I can't help but think the same if it was 16000 women and children of any race or nationality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I may need you tomexplain how our asylum system practically makes open borders. Are you suggesting that we wave through cases that aren't true refugees? And if so, where have you taken that view. And I agree different problems, different solutions. But doesn't it seem to get conflated in any discussion migration? For that, we need to define open border is. For me, if anyone arrives within the country without permission and we don't take legal action against the person, it is an open border. The idiotic asylum laws have made it in such a way that if you get in here and claim asylum, you cannot be arrested. So anyone can show up and just say that they are claiming asylum. That's practically open borders. How do you know how many of these guys are terrorists and how many of them are seriously violent people running away after committing crime in their home countries?you can't be punished agreed. But will have your case reviewed. The issue is deportation of rejected cases. But that issue is there regardless. The only difference is do they do jail as part of open borders. (A Rwanda scheme for failed cases may be interesting) I don't know how many are terrorist or criminals. The former feels very unlikely given the percentage of people on the world are terrorists and there is probably much quicker and easier ways to get into the UK than the asylum system. Probably more likely to have a few criminals, as that's law of averages. So then there is a balance of helping no-one out of fear, or trying to help those in need, and risking bad apples come through. Where that line is, is subjective, I agree. But the only truely 100pc safe answer answer is to accept no one. Legal or asylum. Or tourists. Every new person is a risk. " Do you accept that we have open borders in that case? There is a huge difference between what's a law theory and what it is in practice. If there is a loophole in a law, it will be exploited. In theory, people who aren't suitable for asylum, should be deported. In practice, processing asylum is hard. And it's close to impossible to deport to many countries. We have had this discussion before. No country has infinite resources to help everyone around the world. We need to set cap on how many asylum seekers we can take, a cap that can be modified based on situation. Anyone showing up within the borders without permission must be arrested. We need to have a criteria to choose the refugees we want from other countries and get them in through a streamlined process. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why? You can say it is only 40% of 40K, but that is still 16000 young men in 2023, god knows how many before and to come, it is not a static figure. There are no houses, they are overwhelming councils and people already here in need are being overlooked. Surely you must be able see that we cannot keep accepting these people because they overwhelm the system. 16000 people are overwhelming councils? That’s 0.02% of the population. Councils are cutting services because government is cutting their funding, not because of a few thousand people spread across the entire UK. It is 40K that overwhelmed the councils in 2023, 16000 mostly young men should not have been here at all. And that is 1 year we are talking about it is increasing year on year, and yes they are overwhelming the councils and the system. Really, you think 16000 had more effect than massive underfunding?" It's not 16k though is it.. it nearly 10x that number since 2018 125,000 people needing housing by councils over a 6 year period is going to put a massive strain on the system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Farage is demanding a place on the upcoming QT Leader's Debate, alongside Conservatives, Labour, SNP and Lib Dems. Since Reform are polling above 3 of those, it seems reasonable, no? One poll… no national seats under this guise or their old UKIP guise.. or the Brexit party I wish the parties would go after farages for his piss poor attendance at the European Parliament (after all he made such a thing about Uk fishermen being hard by.. but might get more done if he had attended more than 1 of 115 committee meetings) And why they won’t release the names of big money donors ( reform isn’t a political party.. it’s actually a company.. so circumventing the rules all the others have to abide by) Make reform talk about everything else other than immigration Yes, if Reform want a place at the top table they need to show they're not a one trick pony. They have a manifesto out next week, so let's see what policies they have across the board. It's interesting that Reform are now polling way ahead of the LibDems overall, but set to get a handful of seats (1 to 7) to the LibDems 77. Not sure of that's a case for PR or FPTP is doing it's job. I had a look at their policy document, contract for the people, I expect a fair bit of that to make the manifesto. The ideas behind improving and reforming how the NHS operates, staffs, and trains was interesting. Immigration, there is mention of offshore facilities to process. There was one element in there about returning anyone crossing in small boats to their point of origin, that will boil some blood if it is makes the manifesto." they have some good ideas, albeit their answer is to throw money at it, it's just where they are throwing money that differs. 17bn pa. Almost twice that of labours total increases (using the Tory 200k number). Their contract falls down over costings. They think they can find £5 in every £100 saving and that will create 50bn in savings a year. My maths is this is close to 5pc of all spending. (Tho I may be a factor of ten out as I move from billion to trollion !) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I may need you tomexplain how our asylum system practically makes open borders. Are you suggesting that we wave through cases that aren't true refugees? And if so, where have you taken that view. And I agree different problems, different solutions. But doesn't it seem to get conflated in any discussion migration? For that, we need to define open border is. For me, if anyone arrives within the country without permission and we don't take legal action against the person, it is an open border. The idiotic asylum laws have made it in such a way that if you get in here and claim asylum, you cannot be arrested. So anyone can show up and just say that they are claiming asylum. That's practically open borders. How do you know how many of these guys are terrorists and how many of them are seriously violent people running away after committing crime in their home countries?you can't be punished agreed. But will have your case reviewed. The issue is deportation of rejected cases. But that issue is there regardless. The only difference is do they do jail as part of open borders. (A Rwanda scheme for failed cases may be interesting) I don't know how many are terrorist or criminals. The former feels very unlikely given the percentage of people on the world are terrorists and there is probably much quicker and easier ways to get into the UK than the asylum system. Probably more likely to have a few criminals, as that's law of averages. So then there is a balance of helping no-one out of fear, or trying to help those in need, and risking bad apples come through. Where that line is, is subjective, I agree. But the only truely 100pc safe answer answer is to accept no one. Legal or asylum. Or tourists. Every new person is a risk. Do you accept that we have open borders in that case? There is a huge difference between what's a law theory and what it is in practice. If there is a loophole in a law, it will be exploited. In theory, people who aren't suitable for asylum, should be deported. In practice, processing asylum is hard. And it's close to impossible to deport to many countries. We have had this discussion before. No country has infinite resources to help everyone around the world. We need to set cap on how many asylum seekers we can take, a cap that can be modified based on situation. Anyone showing up within the borders without permission must be arrested. We need to have a criteria to choose the refugees we want from other countries and get them in through a streamlined process. " for em an open border is when anyone can come and stay unchecked and uncontrolled, so no, I don't. I also don't know how we go about picking and choosing refugees from other countries. I'm in favour of having processing sites nearer hot spots, if that's what is being suggested. Or having more international cooperation. I'd also welcome discussions what a sensible cap is. I have no idea.. That seems like something sensible for politicians to discuss and debate. It's more than zero for me. But couldn't tell you an upper limit. Likewise "legal" migration. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why? You can say it is only 40% of 40K, but that is still 16000 young men in 2023, god knows how many before and to come, it is not a static figure. There are no houses, they are overwhelming councils and people already here in need are being overlooked. Surely you must be able see that we cannot keep accepting these people because they overwhelm the system. 16000 people are overwhelming councils? That’s 0.02% of the population. Councils are cutting services because government is cutting their funding, not because of a few thousand people spread across the entire UK. It is 40K that overwhelmed the councils in 2023, 16000 mostly young men should not have been here at all. And that is 1 year we are talking about it is increasing year on year, and yes they are overwhelming the councils and the system. Really, you think 16000 had more effect than massive underfunding? It's not 16k though is it.. it nearly 10x that number since 2018 125,000 people needing housing by councils over a 6 year period is going to put a massive strain on the system." But the councils aren’t paying to house them, it’s coming from the overseas aid budget. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why? You can say it is only 40% of 40K, but that is still 16000 young men in 2023, god knows how many before and to come, it is not a static figure. There are no houses, they are overwhelming councils and people already here in need are being overlooked. Surely you must be able see that we cannot keep accepting these people because they overwhelm the system. 16000 people are overwhelming councils? That’s 0.02% of the population. Councils are cutting services because government is cutting their funding, not because of a few thousand people spread across the entire UK. It is 40K that overwhelmed the councils in 2023, 16000 mostly young men should not have been here at all. And that is 1 year we are talking about it is increasing year on year, and yes they are overwhelming the councils and the system. Really, you think 16000 had more effect than massive underfunding? It's not 16k though is it.. it nearly 10x that number since 2018 125,000 people needing housing by councils over a 6 year period is going to put a massive strain on the system." 40k pa is about net Brit migration. Councils would be fine and the some. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why? You can say it is only 40% of 40K, but that is still 16000 young men in 2023, god knows how many before and to come, it is not a static figure. There are no houses, they are overwhelming councils and people already here in need are being overlooked. Surely you must be able see that we cannot keep accepting these people because they overwhelm the system. 16000 people are overwhelming councils? That’s 0.02% of the population. Councils are cutting services because government is cutting their funding, not because of a few thousand people spread across the entire UK. It is 40K that overwhelmed the councils in 2023, 16000 mostly young men should not have been here at all. And that is 1 year we are talking about it is increasing year on year, and yes they are overwhelming the councils and the system. Really, you think 16000 had more effect than massive underfunding? It's not 16k though is it.. it nearly 10x that number since 2018 125,000 people needing housing by councils over a 6 year period is going to put a massive strain on the system. But the councils aren’t paying to house them, it’s coming from the overseas aid budget." tbf that's only while their claim is being processed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why? You can say it is only 40% of 40K, but that is still 16000 young men in 2023, god knows how many before and to come, it is not a static figure. There are no houses, they are overwhelming councils and people already here in need are being overlooked. Surely you must be able see that we cannot keep accepting these people because they overwhelm the system. 16000 people are overwhelming councils? That’s 0.02% of the population. Councils are cutting services because government is cutting their funding, not because of a few thousand people spread across the entire UK. It is 40K that overwhelmed the councils in 2023, 16000 mostly young men should not have been here at all. And that is 1 year we are talking about it is increasing year on year, and yes they are overwhelming the councils and the system. Really, you think 16000 had more effect than massive underfunding? It's not 16k though is it.. it nearly 10x that number since 2018 125,000 people needing housing by councils over a 6 year period is going to put a massive strain on the system. But the councils aren’t paying to house them, it’s coming from the overseas aid budget.tbf that's only while their claim is being processed. " If their claim is rejected then they aren’t entitled to anything, so they still wouldn’t cost the councils anything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had a moment last year - I was coming through an airport. I was at the arrivals, the British border. And I was like 'wow, there's a lot of people coming in here'. Then when I went outside they were even laying on taxis and a train...a bloody express train no less for them" I bet some of them turned up at hotels and there was a man there to open the door for them, a literal open door. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why? You can say it is only 40% of 40K, but that is still 16000 young men in 2023, god knows how many before and to come, it is not a static figure. There are no houses, they are overwhelming councils and people already here in need are being overlooked. Surely you must be able see that we cannot keep accepting these people because they overwhelm the system. 16000 people are overwhelming councils? That’s 0.02% of the population. Councils are cutting services because government is cutting their funding, not because of a few thousand people spread across the entire UK. It is 40K that overwhelmed the councils in 2023, 16000 mostly young men should not have been here at all. And that is 1 year we are talking about it is increasing year on year, and yes they are overwhelming the councils and the system. Really, you think 16000 had more effect than massive underfunding? It's not 16k though is it.. it nearly 10x that number since 2018 125,000 people needing housing by councils over a 6 year period is going to put a massive strain on the system. But the councils aren’t paying to house them, it’s coming from the overseas aid budget.tbf that's only while their claim is being processed. If their claim is rejected then they aren’t entitled to anything, so they still wouldn’t cost the councils anything." fair. You were talking about those that failed. My bag. I can't multitask threads ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not 16k though is it.. it nearly 10x that number since 2018 125,000 people needing housing by councils over a 6 year period is going to put a massive strain on the system." TAKE BACK CONTROL! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why? You can say it is only 40% of 40K, but that is still 16000 young men in 2023, god knows how many before and to come, it is not a static figure. There are no houses, they are overwhelming councils and people already here in need are being overlooked. Surely you must be able see that we cannot keep accepting these people because they overwhelm the system. 16000 people are overwhelming councils? That’s 0.02% of the population. Councils are cutting services because government is cutting their funding, not because of a few thousand people spread across the entire UK. It is 40K that overwhelmed the councils in 2023, 16000 mostly young men should not have been here at all. And that is 1 year we are talking about it is increasing year on year, and yes they are overwhelming the councils and the system. Really, you think 16000 had more effect than massive underfunding? It's not 16k though is it.. it nearly 10x that number since 2018 125,000 people needing housing by councils over a 6 year period is going to put a massive strain on the system. But the councils aren’t paying to house them, it’s coming from the overseas aid budget." It’s not just the housing, other council services, interpreters, legal, other agencies, the school places, med, welfare, asylum claims etc A lot of other costs, not obfuscated, but not publicly made available either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why? You can say it is only 40% of 40K, but that is still 16000 young men in 2023, god knows how many before and to come, it is not a static figure. There are no houses, they are overwhelming councils and people already here in need are being overlooked. Surely you must be able see that we cannot keep accepting these people because they overwhelm the system. 16000 people are overwhelming councils? That’s 0.02% of the population. Councils are cutting services because government is cutting their funding, not because of a few thousand people spread across the entire UK. It is 40K that overwhelmed the councils in 2023, 16000 mostly young men should not have been here at all. And that is 1 year we are talking about it is increasing year on year, and yes they are overwhelming the councils and the system. Really, you think 16000 had more effect than massive underfunding? It's not 16k though is it.. it nearly 10x that number since 2018 125,000 people needing housing by councils over a 6 year period is going to put a massive strain on the system. But the councils aren’t paying to house them, it’s coming from the overseas aid budget.tbf that's only while their claim is being processed. If their claim is rejected then they aren’t entitled to anything, so they still wouldn’t cost the councils anything." No one mentioned cost. Apart from you, of course. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why? You can say it is only 40% of 40K, but that is still 16000 young men in 2023, god knows how many before and to come, it is not a static figure. There are no houses, they are overwhelming councils and people already here in need are being overlooked. Surely you must be able see that we cannot keep accepting these people because they overwhelm the system. 16000 people are overwhelming councils? That’s 0.02% of the population. Councils are cutting services because government is cutting their funding, not because of a few thousand people spread across the entire UK. It is 40K that overwhelmed the councils in 2023, 16000 mostly young men should not have been here at all. And that is 1 year we are talking about it is increasing year on year, and yes they are overwhelming the councils and the system. Really, you think 16000 had more effect than massive underfunding? It's not 16k though is it.. it nearly 10x that number since 2018 125,000 people needing housing by councils over a 6 year period is going to put a massive strain on the system. But the councils aren’t paying to house them, it’s coming from the overseas aid budget. It’s not just the housing, other council services, interpreters, legal, other agencies, the school places, med, welfare, asylum claims etc A lot of other costs, not obfuscated, but not publicly made available either. " Which of those services are paid for by local councils? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why? You can say it is only 40% of 40K, but that is still 16000 young men in 2023, god knows how many before and to come, it is not a static figure. There are no houses, they are overwhelming councils and people already here in need are being overlooked. Surely you must be able see that we cannot keep accepting these people because they overwhelm the system. 16000 people are overwhelming councils? That’s 0.02% of the population. Councils are cutting services because government is cutting their funding, not because of a few thousand people spread across the entire UK. It is 40K that overwhelmed the councils in 2023, 16000 mostly young men should not have been here at all. And that is 1 year we are talking about it is increasing year on year, and yes they are overwhelming the councils and the system. Really, you think 16000 had more effect than massive underfunding? It's not 16k though is it.. it nearly 10x that number since 2018 125,000 people needing housing by councils over a 6 year period is going to put a massive strain on the system. But the councils aren’t paying to house them, it’s coming from the overseas aid budget.tbf that's only while their claim is being processed. If their claim is rejected then they aren’t entitled to anything, so they still wouldn’t cost the councils anything. No one mentioned cost. Apart from you, of course. " My assertion was that councils aren’t overwhelmed because of a few thousand extra people, but because of underfunding. You do understand that things cost money, yes? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Weird isn’t it how one of the main arguments for Brexit was to get control over immigration. Ironic and weird!" tAkE bAcK cOnTrOl! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why? You can say it is only 40% of 40K, but that is still 16000 young men in 2023, god knows how many before and to come, it is not a static figure. There are no houses, they are overwhelming councils and people already here in need are being overlooked. Surely you must be able see that we cannot keep accepting these people because they overwhelm the system. 16000 people are overwhelming councils? That’s 0.02% of the population. Councils are cutting services because government is cutting their funding, not because of a few thousand people spread across the entire UK. It is 40K that overwhelmed the councils in 2023, 16000 mostly young men should not have been here at all. And that is 1 year we are talking about it is increasing year on year, and yes they are overwhelming the councils and the system. Really, you think 16000 had more effect than massive underfunding? It's not 16k though is it.. it nearly 10x that number since 2018 125,000 people needing housing by councils over a 6 year period is going to put a massive strain on the system. But the councils aren’t paying to house them, it’s coming from the overseas aid budget.tbf that's only while their claim is being processed. If their claim is rejected then they aren’t entitled to anything, so they still wouldn’t cost the councils anything. No one mentioned cost. Apart from you, of course. My assertion was that councils aren’t overwhelmed because of a few thousand extra people, but because of underfunding. You do understand that things cost money, yes?" Why can't it be a mixture of the 2? You've been given a list of a whole host of things, yet all you have is 'money'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" for em an open border is when anyone can come and stay unchecked and uncontrolled, so no, I don't. " But it is uncontrolled in practice because you don't have control over who can stay in the country. And what's the point of just checking the people coming in? " I also don't know how we go about picking and choosing refugees from other countries. I'm in favour of having processing sites nearer hot spots, if that's what is being suggested. Or having more international cooperation. I'd also welcome discussions what a sensible cap is. I have no idea.. " A sensible cap is whatever the people in the country decide it to be. If people decide it has to be 0, it has to be 0. You can't force your values on other people. That's authoritarianism. Compassion must come from self, it must never be forced. Picking and choosing can be easily done like we did with Ukraine and Hong Kong, countries where we have more reason to support. Beyond that, we can always go by women and children first. Of course when the cap for a year is reached, we shut down all applications. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why? You can say it is only 40% of 40K, but that is still 16000 young men in 2023, god knows how many before and to come, it is not a static figure. There are no houses, they are overwhelming councils and people already here in need are being overlooked. Surely you must be able see that we cannot keep accepting these people because they overwhelm the system. 16000 people are overwhelming councils? That’s 0.02% of the population. Councils are cutting services because government is cutting their funding, not because of a few thousand people spread across the entire UK. It is 40K that overwhelmed the councils in 2023, 16000 mostly young men should not have been here at all. And that is 1 year we are talking about it is increasing year on year, and yes they are overwhelming the councils and the system. Really, you think 16000 had more effect than massive underfunding? It's not 16k though is it.. it nearly 10x that number since 2018 125,000 people needing housing by councils over a 6 year period is going to put a massive strain on the system. But the councils aren’t paying to house them, it’s coming from the overseas aid budget.tbf that's only while their claim is being processed. If their claim is rejected then they aren’t entitled to anything, so they still wouldn’t cost the councils anything. No one mentioned cost. Apart from you, of course. My assertion was that councils aren’t overwhelmed because of a few thousand extra people, but because of underfunding. You do understand that things cost money, yes? Why can't it be a mixture of the 2? You've been given a list of a whole host of things, yet all you have is 'money'. " I haven’t been given a whole list of things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Weird isn’t it how one of the main arguments for Brexit was to get control over immigration. Ironic and weird! tAkE bAcK cOnTrOl!" We do have control over legal immigration now. The problem is the political parties didn't use the control wisely. As for illegal migrantion, getting out of the lame old refugee conventions is the only way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When is the UK expected to be 'full'? After the Caribbean migration of the 50's? After the Asian migration of the 60's? After the Kenya/Uganda migration of the 70's? After the renewed Irish migration of the 80's? " We were full in the 30s when the Jews were fleeing persecution, apparently. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When is the UK expected to be 'full'? After the Caribbean migration of the 50's? After the Asian migration of the 60's? After the Kenya/Uganda migration of the 70's? After the renewed Irish migration of the 80's? " Never, it's far too effective as a tactic for right wing parties to keep blaming immigrants, and to keep pointing at that distraction of those people in that small boat over there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why? You can say it is only 40% of 40K, but that is still 16000 young men in 2023, god knows how many before and to come, it is not a static figure. There are no houses, they are overwhelming councils and people already here in need are being overlooked. Surely you must be able see that we cannot keep accepting these people because they overwhelm the system. 16000 people are overwhelming councils? That’s 0.02% of the population. Councils are cutting services because government is cutting their funding, not because of a few thousand people spread across the entire UK. It is 40K that overwhelmed the councils in 2023, 16000 mostly young men should not have been here at all. And that is 1 year we are talking about it is increasing year on year, and yes they are overwhelming the councils and the system. Really, you think 16000 had more effect than massive underfunding? It's not 16k though is it.. it nearly 10x that number since 2018 125,000 people needing housing by councils over a 6 year period is going to put a massive strain on the system. But the councils aren’t paying to house them, it’s coming from the overseas aid budget.tbf that's only while their claim is being processed. If their claim is rejected then they aren’t entitled to anything, so they still wouldn’t cost the councils anything. No one mentioned cost. Apart from you, of course. My assertion was that councils aren’t overwhelmed because of a few thousand extra people, but because of underfunding. You do understand that things cost money, yes? Why can't it be a mixture of the 2? You've been given a list of a whole host of things, yet all you have is 'money'. I haven’t been given a whole list of things." Yeah OK mate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" for em an open border is when anyone can come and stay unchecked and uncontrolled, so no, I don't. But it is uncontrolled in practice because you don't have control over who can stay in the country. And what's the point of just checking the people coming in? I also don't know how we go about picking and choosing refugees from other countries. I'm in favour of having processing sites nearer hot spots, if that's what is being suggested. Or having more international cooperation. I'd also welcome discussions what a sensible cap is. I have no idea.. A sensible cap is whatever the people in the country decide it to be. If people decide it has to be 0, it has to be 0. You can't force your values on other people. That's authoritarianism. Compassion must come from self, it must never be forced. Picking and choosing can be easily done like we did with Ukraine and Hong Kong, countries where we have more reason to support. Beyond that, we can always go by women and children first. Of course when the cap for a year is reached, we shut down all applications. " but if we didn't grant asylum we'd still not be able to get rid of people as that's the same case as we are today for failed cases. Or is there something I'm missing on failed cases that mean they are different to other cases ? Politicans are our representatives. We can't have the people directly decide everything. I'm not forcing my values on anyone. But when labour get in I fully expect people to keep demanding lower migration than labour set, even though they were democratically elected. Debate is good ! HK and Ukraine aren't refugees. But account for 450k of immigration. That's a lot of strain if 40k is a strain! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" for em an open border is when anyone can come and stay unchecked and uncontrolled, so no, I don't. But it is uncontrolled in practice because you don't have control over who can stay in the country. And what's the point of just checking the people coming in? I also don't know how we go about picking and choosing refugees from other countries. I'm in favour of having processing sites nearer hot spots, if that's what is being suggested. Or having more international cooperation. I'd also welcome discussions what a sensible cap is. I have no idea.. A sensible cap is whatever the people in the country decide it to be. If people decide it has to be 0, it has to be 0. You can't force your values on other people. That's authoritarianism. Compassion must come from self, it must never be forced. Picking and choosing can be easily done like we did with Ukraine and Hong Kong, countries where we have more reason to support. Beyond that, we can always go by women and children first. Of course when the cap for a year is reached, we shut down all applications. " Heaven forbid the ordinary man/woman in the street might have a say on immigration policy. Just ignore them. What would they do anyway, reach out to a right wing party or something? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" for em an open border is when anyone can come and stay unchecked and uncontrolled, so no, I don't. But it is uncontrolled in practice because you don't have control over who can stay in the country. And what's the point of just checking the people coming in? I also don't know how we go about picking and choosing refugees from other countries. I'm in favour of having processing sites nearer hot spots, if that's what is being suggested. Or having more international cooperation. I'd also welcome discussions what a sensible cap is. I have no idea.. A sensible cap is whatever the people in the country decide it to be. If people decide it has to be 0, it has to be 0. You can't force your values on other people. That's authoritarianism. Compassion must come from self, it must never be forced. Picking and choosing can be easily done like we did with Ukraine and Hong Kong, countries where we have more reason to support. Beyond that, we can always go by women and children first. Of course when the cap for a year is reached, we shut down all applications. Heaven forbid the ordinary man/woman in the street might have a say on immigration policy. Just ignore them. What would they do anyway, reach out to a right wing party or something?" at what point have I shut down the man in the street ? Or, indeed, anyone ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" for em an open border is when anyone can come and stay unchecked and uncontrolled, so no, I don't. But it is uncontrolled in practice because you don't have control over who can stay in the country. And what's the point of just checking the people coming in? I also don't know how we go about picking and choosing refugees from other countries. I'm in favour of having processing sites nearer hot spots, if that's what is being suggested. Or having more international cooperation. I'd also welcome discussions what a sensible cap is. I have no idea.. A sensible cap is whatever the people in the country decide it to be. If people decide it has to be 0, it has to be 0. You can't force your values on other people. That's authoritarianism. Compassion must come from self, it must never be forced. Picking and choosing can be easily done like we did with Ukraine and Hong Kong, countries where we have more reason to support. Beyond that, we can always go by women and children first. Of course when the cap for a year is reached, we shut down all applications. Heaven forbid the ordinary man/woman in the street might have a say on immigration policy. Just ignore them. What would they do anyway, reach out to a right wing party or something?" We do have a say, we get to vote in elections. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" but if we didn't grant asylum we'd still not be able to get rid of people as that's the same case as we are today for failed cases. Or is there something I'm missing on failed cases that mean they are different to other cases ? " No. I am saying arrest them and put them in prisons. They committed a crime by entering another country without permission. That's how you handle criminals. If news spreads, people will stop coming in. Have you ever heard of people getting into Chinese borders like they get in here? " Politicans are our representatives. We can't have the people directly decide everything. I'm not forcing my values on anyone. But when labour get in I fully expect people to keep demanding lower migration than labour set, even though they were democratically elected. Debate is good ! " But even politicians can't change anything because we are being controlled by refugee convention and foreign courts in this matter. It's not an issue of democracy as things stand. This is the reason why people are moving far and far right. " HK and Ukraine aren't refugees. But account for 450k of immigration. That's a lot of strain if 40k is a strain! " Why are Ukrainians not refugees? Either way that's not my point. There are numerous ways to prioritise people. First year need to admit that this country doesn't have infinite resources. This means we need a cap on number of people we can take. That automatically implies we need to prioritise, pick and choose who we take and who we don't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why? You can say it is only 40% of 40K, but that is still 16000 young men in 2023, god knows how many before and to come, it is not a static figure. There are no houses, they are overwhelming councils and people already here in need are being overlooked. Surely you must be able see that we cannot keep accepting these people because they overwhelm the system. 16000 people are overwhelming councils? That’s 0.02% of the population. Councils are cutting services because government is cutting their funding, not because of a few thousand people spread across the entire UK. It is 40K that overwhelmed the councils in 2023, 16000 mostly young men should not have been here at all. And that is 1 year we are talking about it is increasing year on year, and yes they are overwhelming the councils and the system. Really, you think 16000 had more effect than massive underfunding? It's not 16k though is it.. it nearly 10x that number since 2018 125,000 people needing housing by councils over a 6 year period is going to put a massive strain on the system. But the councils aren’t paying to house them, it’s coming from the overseas aid budget." where are the council housing them? You seem to be ignoring the facts of the whole situation, it could be deliberately or you really can't see the full breadth of services needed to house, feed and support 10's of thousands of people who should not be here and that number will continue to increase, it is not a single figure you keep glossing over. By playing down the impact of illegal migration you are perpetuating the existence of the very thing you despise, right wing influence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When is the UK expected to be 'full'? After the Caribbean migration of the 50's? After the Asian migration of the 60's? After the Kenya/Uganda migration of the 70's? After the renewed Irish migration of the 80's? " I don't know when exactly we would be "full" it's mad to even compare. More people have entered the country from the year 2000 untill today then the previous 500 years combined.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why? You can say it is only 40% of 40K, but that is still 16000 young men in 2023, god knows how many before and to come, it is not a static figure. There are no houses, they are overwhelming councils and people already here in need are being overlooked. Surely you must be able see that we cannot keep accepting these people because they overwhelm the system. 16000 people are overwhelming councils? That’s 0.02% of the population. Councils are cutting services because government is cutting their funding, not because of a few thousand people spread across the entire UK. It is 40K that overwhelmed the councils in 2023, 16000 mostly young men should not have been here at all. And that is 1 year we are talking about it is increasing year on year, and yes they are overwhelming the councils and the system. Really, you think 16000 had more effect than massive underfunding? It's not 16k though is it.. it nearly 10x that number since 2018 125,000 people needing housing by councils over a 6 year period is going to put a massive strain on the system. But the councils aren’t paying to house them, it’s coming from the overseas aid budget. where are the council housing them? You seem to be ignoring the facts of the whole situation, it could be deliberately or you really can't see the full breadth of services needed to house, feed and support 10's of thousands of people who should not be here and that number will continue to increase, it is not a single figure you keep glossing over. By playing down the impact of illegal migration you are perpetuating the existence of the very thing you despise, right wing influence. " When people are granted refugee status they have same opportunity to work as anyone else, they can also receive benefits, and the council has the same responsibility to house them as they would anyone else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Farage is demanding a place on the upcoming QT Leader's Debate, alongside Conservatives, Labour, SNP and Lib Dems. Since Reform are polling above 3 of those, it seems reasonable, no? One poll… no national seats under this guise or their old UKIP guise.. or the Brexit party I wish the parties would go after farages for his piss poor attendance at the European Parliament (after all he made such a thing about Uk fishermen being hard by.. but might get more done if he had attended more than 1 of 115 committee meetings) And why they won’t release the names of big money donors ( reform isn’t a political party.. it’s actually a company.. so circumventing the rules all the others have to abide by) Make reform talk about everything else other than immigration Yes, if Reform want a place at the top table they need to show they're not a one trick pony. They have a manifesto out next week, so let's see what policies they have across the board. It's interesting that Reform are now polling way ahead of the LibDems overall, but set to get a handful of seats (1 to 7) to the LibDems 77. Not sure of that's a case for PR or FPTP is doing it's job. I had a look at their policy document, contract for the people, I expect a fair bit of that to make the manifesto. The ideas behind improving and reforming how the NHS operates, staffs, and trains was interesting. Immigration, there is mention of offshore facilities to process. There was one element in there about returning anyone crossing in small boats to their point of origin, that will boil some blood if it is makes the manifesto.they have some good ideas, albeit their answer is to throw money at it, it's just where they are throwing money that differs. 17bn pa. Almost twice that of labours total increases (using the Tory 200k number). Their contract falls down over costings. They think they can find £5 in every £100 saving and that will create 50bn in savings a year. My maths is this is close to 5pc of all spending. (Tho I may be a factor of ten out as I move from billion to trollion !)" I would think they will get their numbers tuned for the manifesto, and I agree they have some good ideas, which I was surprised about, judging a book by its cover springs to mind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why? You can say it is only 40% of 40K, but that is still 16000 young men in 2023, god knows how many before and to come, it is not a static figure. There are no houses, they are overwhelming councils and people already here in need are being overlooked. Surely you must be able see that we cannot keep accepting these people because they overwhelm the system. 16000 people are overwhelming councils? That’s 0.02% of the population. Councils are cutting services because government is cutting their funding, not because of a few thousand people spread across the entire UK. It is 40K that overwhelmed the councils in 2023, 16000 mostly young men should not have been here at all. And that is 1 year we are talking about it is increasing year on year, and yes they are overwhelming the councils and the system. Really, you think 16000 had more effect than massive underfunding? It's not 16k though is it.. it nearly 10x that number since 2018 125,000 people needing housing by councils over a 6 year period is going to put a massive strain on the system. But the councils aren’t paying to house them, it’s coming from the overseas aid budget. where are the council housing them? You seem to be ignoring the facts of the whole situation, it could be deliberately or you really can't see the full breadth of services needed to house, feed and support 10's of thousands of people who should not be here and that number will continue to increase, it is not a single figure you keep glossing over. By playing down the impact of illegal migration you are perpetuating the existence of the very thing you despise, right wing influence. " It's all just a case of money and under funding..  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why? You can say it is only 40% of 40K, but that is still 16000 young men in 2023, god knows how many before and to come, it is not a static figure. There are no houses, they are overwhelming councils and people already here in need are being overlooked. Surely you must be able see that we cannot keep accepting these people because they overwhelm the system. 16000 people are overwhelming councils? That’s 0.02% of the population. Councils are cutting services because government is cutting their funding, not because of a few thousand people spread across the entire UK. It is 40K that overwhelmed the councils in 2023, 16000 mostly young men should not have been here at all. And that is 1 year we are talking about it is increasing year on year, and yes they are overwhelming the councils and the system. Really, you think 16000 had more effect than massive underfunding? It's not 16k though is it.. it nearly 10x that number since 2018 125,000 people needing housing by councils over a 6 year period is going to put a massive strain on the system. But the councils aren’t paying to house them, it’s coming from the overseas aid budget. It’s not just the housing, other council services, interpreters, legal, other agencies, the school places, med, welfare, asylum claims etc A lot of other costs, not obfuscated, but not publicly made available either. Which of those services are paid for by local councils?" Social workers, housing officers, council back office, Start (resettlement agency), help with children, education, resettlement, removers, furniture, bin collections, free (discounted) council tax, health and safety checks on the properties, accounting time/staff of benefits. Other council resources | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By playing down the impact of illegal migration you are perpetuating the existence of the very thing you despise, right wing influence. " No issue in my lifetime has been so ridiculously overblown and exaggerated and used as a tool by political parties to influence voters. Just look at how many people on here bang on and on and on about immigrants. Or look how it was used to get people to vote for Brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why? You can say it is only 40% of 40K, but that is still 16000 young men in 2023, god knows how many before and to come, it is not a static figure. There are no houses, they are overwhelming councils and people already here in need are being overlooked. Surely you must be able see that we cannot keep accepting these people because they overwhelm the system. 16000 people are overwhelming councils? That’s 0.02% of the population. Councils are cutting services because government is cutting their funding, not because of a few thousand people spread across the entire UK. It is 40K that overwhelmed the councils in 2023, 16000 mostly young men should not have been here at all. And that is 1 year we are talking about it is increasing year on year, and yes they are overwhelming the councils and the system. Really, you think 16000 had more effect than massive underfunding? It's not 16k though is it.. it nearly 10x that number since 2018 125,000 people needing housing by councils over a 6 year period is going to put a massive strain on the system. But the councils aren’t paying to house them, it’s coming from the overseas aid budget. where are the council housing them? You seem to be ignoring the facts of the whole situation, it could be deliberately or you really can't see the full breadth of services needed to house, feed and support 10's of thousands of people who should not be here and that number will continue to increase, it is not a single figure you keep glossing over. By playing down the impact of illegal migration you are perpetuating the existence of the very thing you despise, right wing influence. When people are granted refugee status they have same opportunity to work as anyone else, they can also receive benefits, and the council has the same responsibility to house them as they would anyone else." Where are the council going to house them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By playing down the impact of illegal migration you are perpetuating the existence of the very thing you despise, right wing influence. No issue in my lifetime has been so ridiculously overblown and exaggerated and used as a tool by political parties to influence voters. Just look at how many people on here bang on and on and on about immigrants. Or look how it was used to get people to vote for Brexit. " Eight million pounds a day housing these folk, £400 million given to Rwanda soon to be written off, processing 215,500 home office asylum claims, lawyers, courts, interpreters is not overblown or exaggerated if the costs are to be believed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" but if we didn't grant asylum we'd still not be able to get rid of people as that's the same case as we are today for failed cases. Or is there something I'm missing on failed cases that mean they are different to other cases ? No. I am saying arrest them and put them in prisons. They committed a crime by entering another country without permission. That's how you handle criminals. If news spreads, people will stop coming in. Have you ever heard of people getting into Chinese borders like they get in here? Politicans are our representatives. We can't have the people directly decide everything. I'm not forcing my values on anyone. But when labour get in I fully expect people to keep demanding lower migration than labour set, even though they were democratically elected. Debate is good ! But even politicians can't change anything because we are being controlled by refugee convention and foreign courts in this matter. It's not an issue of democracy as things stand. This is the reason why people are moving far and far right. HK and Ukraine aren't refugees. But account for 450k of immigration. That's a lot of strain if 40k is a strain! Why are Ukrainians not refugees? Either way that's not my point. There are numerous ways to prioritise people. First year need to admit that this country doesn't have infinite resources. This means we need a cap on number of people we can take. That automatically implies we need to prioritise, pick and choose who we take and who we don't." Ukrainians are here on leave to remain. Possibly semantics. However there's been very little mention of Ukrainians or Hong Konger causing strain. But a lot (say this thread) on the 40k. I'm not saying this is your view, just showing that people tend to focus where they want to focus. I see your point on caps. I thought you were pointing a finger at me ! The migration act puts a cap on it no? Has this bit been shown to be unlawful or under threat of being challenged ? I agree there are other ways to prioritise and this would be better if there were actual safe routes. I'm a big fan of this being done via international cooperation. We are possibly on similar pages here, tho we may differ on numbers. (Although I don't have a view on the right level. That needs more analysis than I can muster !) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The refugee council also has some stuff. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/understanding-channel-crossings/ "analysis has shown that over 25,000 men, women and children who crossed the channel in 2022 – six out of ten of all those who made the crossing – would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications." Even your source admits 40% don't meet the definition of refugee.. You need to stop watching so much Ben Shapiro, and desperately trying to make everything a ‘gotcha’. 40% of the 40,000 people who cross the channel don’t fit the criteria to be a refugee, and you’re getting yourself so worked up over it. That’s the equivalent of 10 days of births in the UK. Of all the things to get so worked up over you choose that, I wonder why? You can say it is only 40% of 40K, but that is still 16000 young men in 2023, god knows how many before and to come, it is not a static figure. There are no houses, they are overwhelming councils and people already here in need are being overlooked. Surely you must be able see that we cannot keep accepting these people because they overwhelm the system. 16000 people are overwhelming councils? That’s 0.02% of the population. Councils are cutting services because government is cutting their funding, not because of a few thousand people spread across the entire UK. It is 40K that overwhelmed the councils in 2023, 16000 mostly young men should not have been here at all. And that is 1 year we are talking about it is increasing year on year, and yes they are overwhelming the councils and the system. Really, you think 16000 had more effect than massive underfunding? It's not 16k though is it.. it nearly 10x that number since 2018 125,000 people needing housing by councils over a 6 year period is going to put a massive strain on the system. But the councils aren’t paying to house them, it’s coming from the overseas aid budget. where are the council housing them? You seem to be ignoring the facts of the whole situation, it could be deliberately or you really can't see the full breadth of services needed to house, feed and support 10's of thousands of people who should not be here and that number will continue to increase, it is not a single figure you keep glossing over. By playing down the impact of illegal migration you are perpetuating the existence of the very thing you despise, right wing influence. When people are granted refugee status they have same opportunity to work as anyone else, they can also receive benefits, and the council has the same responsibility to house them as they would anyone else. Where are the council going to house them? " Where do the council house anyone else? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By playing down the impact of illegal migration you are perpetuating the existence of the very thing you despise, right wing influence. No issue in my lifetime has been so ridiculously overblown and exaggerated and used as a tool by political parties to influence voters. Just look at how many people on here bang on and on and on about immigrants. Or look how it was used to get people to vote for Brexit. " overblown wtf why don’t you give us a bunch of positives to 700 thousand migrants a year then ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By playing down the impact of illegal migration you are perpetuating the existence of the very thing you despise, right wing influence. No issue in my lifetime has been so ridiculously overblown and exaggerated and used as a tool by political parties to influence voters. Just look at how many people on here bang on and on and on about immigrants. Or look how it was used to get people to vote for Brexit. " It goes both ways though, some are banging on about how illegal migration is not really a problem, and others who bang on about it being a problem. The polls are clear that the general public are concerned about it, enough for all parties to have plan to stop the boats as they say. Farage and the tories will attack labour at every opportunity if they do not manage to bring this issue under control, I think the topic will be hotter than it has ever been post the GE. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When people are granted refugee status they have same opportunity to work as anyone else, they can also receive benefits, and the council has the same responsibility to house them as they would anyone else. Where are the council going to house them? " Social housing waiting lists were 1.1m in 2010 In 2012 the tories used the localism act to remove 137,000 from those lists and prevent some people being added under ‘no reasonable prospect of being housed’’ Currently the social housing waiting lists are 1.6m ( 50% higher than 2010) Social housing starts and completions are low and for every six right to buy sales, only one new social housing unit is built None of this the fault of migrants. But they add to the acute housing problems | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By playing down the impact of illegal migration you are perpetuating the existence of the very thing you despise, right wing influence. No issue in my lifetime has been so ridiculously overblown and exaggerated and used as a tool by political parties to influence voters. Just look at how many people on here bang on and on and on about immigrants. Or look how it was used to get people to vote for Brexit. overblown wtf why don’t you give us a bunch of positives to 700 thousand migrants a year then ?" In a recent study, the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society at the University of Oxford estimated the unemployment rate for refugees at 18 per cent, three times greater than for the UK-born. Their average earnings were substantially lower than for other groups ( UNHCR) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By playing down the impact of illegal migration you are perpetuating the existence of the very thing you despise, right wing influence. No issue in my lifetime has been so ridiculously overblown and exaggerated and used as a tool by political parties to influence voters. Just look at how many people on here bang on and on and on about immigrants. Or look how it was used to get people to vote for Brexit. It goes both ways though, some are banging on about how illegal migration is not really a problem, and others who bang on about it being a problem. The polls are clear that the general public are concerned about it, enough for all parties to have plan to stop the boats as they say. Farage and the tories will attack labour at every opportunity if they do not manage to bring this issue under control, I think the topic will be hotter than it has ever been post the GE. " As of June 2023, 81.3% of NHS staff in England are British. 8.6% report an Asian nationality and 5.2% are EU nationals. This varies in different parts of the country. In London, 30% of staff report a non-British nationality. (Parliamentary briefing 20 Nov 2023) Proof that migrants are needed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By playing down the impact of illegal migration you are perpetuating the existence of the very thing you despise, right wing influence. No issue in my lifetime has been so ridiculously overblown and exaggerated and used as a tool by political parties to influence voters. Just look at how many people on here bang on and on and on about immigrants. Or look how it was used to get people to vote for Brexit. It goes both ways though, some are banging on about how illegal migration is not really a problem, and others who bang on about it being a problem. The polls are clear that the general public are concerned about it, enough for all parties to have plan to stop the boats as they say. Farage and the tories will attack labour at every opportunity if they do not manage to bring this issue under control, I think the topic will be hotter than it has ever been post the GE. As of June 2023, 81.3% of NHS staff in England are British. 8.6% report an Asian nationality and 5.2% are EU nationals. This varies in different parts of the country. In London, 30% of staff report a non-British nationality. (Parliamentary briefing 20 Nov 2023) Proof that migrants are needed. " even reform agree that. They will only stop non-essential our country doesn't need. They are silent on how many essential migrants we need. And whether this group can bring their families. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By playing down the impact of illegal migration you are perpetuating the existence of the very thing you despise, right wing influence. No issue in my lifetime has been so ridiculously overblown and exaggerated and used as a tool by political parties to influence voters. Just look at how many people on here bang on and on and on about immigrants. Or look how it was used to get people to vote for Brexit. Eight million pounds a day housing these folk, £400 million given to Rwanda soon to be written off, processing 215,500 home office asylum claims, lawyers, courts, interpreters is not overblown or exaggerated if the costs are to be believed. " Definitely all the fault of immigrants, nothing to do with the government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" HK and Ukraine aren't refugees. But account for 450k of immigration. That's a lot of strain if 40k is a strain! " Because Ukrainian and HK immigration is actually controlled unlike the rest of the folks. Not to mention that HK people are highly skilled and can easily get jobs and people from both these countries can assimilate easily. " I see your point on caps. I thought you were pointing a finger at me ! The migration act puts a cap on it no? Has this bit been shown to be unlawful or under threat of being challenged ? " What's the point of a cap if it cannot be enforced in practice? We have open borders and we have no way to send people back. So how are you going to enforce this cap? " I agree there are other ways to prioritise and this would be better if there were actual safe routes. I'm a big fan of this being done via international cooperation. We are possibly on similar pages here, tho we may differ on numbers. (Although I don't have a view on the right level. That needs more analysis than I can muster !) " That's why I suggest this - Modify asylum conventions or get out of it - Make it a criminal offence to show up in the country's border without permission - Set an asylum cap and a priority model - THEN make safe Asylum routes by opening processing centre Opening asylum centre in other countries when we still have an open border like many lefties suggest isn't going to solve the refugee problem | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By playing down the impact of illegal migration you are perpetuating the existence of the very thing you despise, right wing influence. No issue in my lifetime has been so ridiculously overblown and exaggerated and used as a tool by political parties to influence voters. Just look at how many people on here bang on and on and on about immigrants. Or look how it was used to get people to vote for Brexit. It goes both ways though, some are banging on about how illegal migration is not really a problem, and others who bang on about it being a problem. The polls are clear that the general public are concerned about it, enough for all parties to have plan to stop the boats as they say. Farage and the tories will attack labour at every opportunity if they do not manage to bring this issue under control, I think the topic will be hotter than it has ever been post the GE. " It's definitely an issue that needs tackling. But it's blown out of all proportion to the point that people vote for stuff like Brexit and reform. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By playing down the impact of illegal migration you are perpetuating the existence of the very thing you despise, right wing influence. No issue in my lifetime has been so ridiculously overblown and exaggerated and used as a tool by political parties to influence voters. Just look at how many people on here bang on and on and on about immigrants. Or look how it was used to get people to vote for Brexit. overblown wtf why don’t you give us a bunch of positives to 700 thousand migrants a year then ?" Exhibit A. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" HK and Ukraine aren't refugees. But account for 450k of immigration. That's a lot of strain if 40k is a strain! Because Ukrainian and HK immigration is actually controlled unlike the rest of the folks. Not to mention that HK people are highly skilled and can easily get jobs and people from both these countries can assimilate easily. I see your point on caps. I thought you were pointing a finger at me ! The migration act puts a cap on it no? Has this bit been shown to be unlawful or under threat of being challenged ? What's the point of a cap if it cannot be enforced in practice? We have open borders and we have no way to send people back. So how are you going to enforce this cap? I agree there are other ways to prioritise and this would be better if there were actual safe routes. I'm a big fan of this being done via international cooperation. We are possibly on similar pages here, tho we may differ on numbers. (Although I don't have a view on the right level. That needs more analysis than I can muster !) That's why I suggest this - Modify asylum conventions or get out of it - Make it a criminal offence to show up in the country's border without permission - Set an asylum cap and a priority model - THEN make safe Asylum routes by opening processing centre Opening asylum centre in other countries when we still have an open border like many lefties suggest isn't going to solve the refugee problem " I'd do it in a different order but largely agree ! And I'm a lefty ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By playing down the impact of illegal migration you are perpetuating the existence of the very thing you despise, right wing influence. No issue in my lifetime has been so ridiculously overblown and exaggerated and used as a tool by political parties to influence voters. Just look at how many people on here bang on and on and on about immigrants. Or look how it was used to get people to vote for Brexit. It goes both ways though, some are banging on about how illegal migration is not really a problem, and others who bang on about it being a problem. The polls are clear that the general public are concerned about it, enough for all parties to have plan to stop the boats as they say. Farage and the tories will attack labour at every opportunity if they do not manage to bring this issue under control, I think the topic will be hotter than it has ever been post the GE. It's definitely an issue that needs tackling. But it's blown out of all proportion to the point that people vote for stuff like Brexit and reform. " Many voters believed Brexit would address these woes for them. And now 19% poll to reform. Brexit and Reform offer no solutions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By playing down the impact of illegal migration you are perpetuating the existence of the very thing you despise, right wing influence. No issue in my lifetime has been so ridiculously overblown and exaggerated and used as a tool by political parties to influence voters. Just look at how many people on here bang on and on and on about immigrants. Or look how it was used to get people to vote for Brexit. It goes both ways though, some are banging on about how illegal migration is not really a problem, and others who bang on about it being a problem. The polls are clear that the general public are concerned about it, enough for all parties to have plan to stop the boats as they say. Farage and the tories will attack labour at every opportunity if they do not manage to bring this issue under control, I think the topic will be hotter than it has ever been post the GE. It's definitely an issue that needs tackling. But it's blown out of all proportion to the point that people vote for stuff like Brexit and reform. Many voters believed Brexit would address these woes for them. And now 19% poll to reform. Brexit and Reform offer no solutions. " Of course not. Why would they, then they lose their biggest driver in support. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By playing down the impact of illegal migration you are perpetuating the existence of the very thing you despise, right wing influence. No issue in my lifetime has been so ridiculously overblown and exaggerated and used as a tool by political parties to influence voters. Just look at how many people on here bang on and on and on about immigrants. Or look how it was used to get people to vote for Brexit. overblown wtf why don’t you give us a bunch of positives to 700 thousand migrants a year then ? Exhibit A. " so you can’t show a bunch of benifits to mass migration then there’s a shock lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By playing down the impact of illegal migration you are perpetuating the existence of the very thing you despise, right wing influence. No issue in my lifetime has been so ridiculously overblown and exaggerated and used as a tool by political parties to influence voters. Just look at how many people on here bang on and on and on about immigrants. Or look how it was used to get people to vote for Brexit. overblown wtf why don’t you give us a bunch of positives to 700 thousand migrants a year then ? Exhibit A. so you can’t show a bunch of benifits to mass migration then there’s a shock lol" non UK men are more likwly to be employed than UK men. Non UK people are more.likwly to be over qualified, are more likely to work night shifts, and on average earn more than a Brit. They are less likely to claim unemployment benefits. Their unemployment is higher but I think that means they are less likely to be economically inactive. HTH. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By playing down the impact of illegal migration you are perpetuating the existence of the very thing you despise, right wing influence. No issue in my lifetime has been so ridiculously overblown and exaggerated and used as a tool by political parties to influence voters. Just look at how many people on here bang on and on and on about immigrants. Or look how it was used to get people to vote for Brexit. overblown wtf why don’t you give us a bunch of positives to 700 thousand migrants a year then ? Exhibit A. so you can’t show a bunch of benifits to mass migration then there’s a shock lolnon UK men are more likwly to be employed than UK men. Non UK people are more.likwly to be over qualified, are more likely to work night shifts, and on average earn more than a Brit. They are less likely to claim unemployment benefits. Their unemployment is higher but I think that means they are less likely to be economically inactive. HTH. " That puts both legal and illegal migrants in the same category. If you look at asylum seekers who have been given refugee status and hence right to work, their employment rate is 52%. Even the ones who work do less hours and earn less than the average British citizen. They are a net negative to the country. Legal immigrants obviously will be above average because you need to have a job to immigrate in the first place and minimum salary requirements means they will also earn higher on average | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By playing down the impact of illegal migration you are perpetuating the existence of the very thing you despise, right wing influence. No issue in my lifetime has been so ridiculously overblown and exaggerated and used as a tool by political parties to influence voters. Just look at how many people on here bang on and on and on about immigrants. Or look how it was used to get people to vote for Brexit. overblown wtf why don’t you give us a bunch of positives to 700 thousand migrants a year then ? Exhibit A. so you can’t show a bunch of benifits to mass migration then there’s a shock lolnon UK men are more likwly to be employed than UK men. Non UK people are more.likwly to be over qualified, are more likely to work night shifts, and on average earn more than a Brit. They are less likely to claim unemployment benefits. Their unemployment is higher but I think that means they are less likely to be economically inactive. HTH. That puts both legal and illegal migrants in the same category. If you look at asylum seekers who have been given refugee status and hence right to work, their employment rate is 52%. Even the ones who work do less hours and earn less than the average British citizen. They are a net negative to the country. Legal immigrants obviously will be above average because you need to have a job to immigrate in the first place and minimum salary requirements means they will also earn higher on average " they wanted the benefits of the 700k a year migrants. That's everyone | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is Labour's plan to beef up or change border police good enough to stop the small boats. Can they smash the criminal gangs as they claim?" The UN predicts another 1.2bn migrants into Europe We’ve seen nothing yet | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That's why I suggest this - Modify asylum conventions or get out of it - Make it a criminal offence to show up in the country's border without permission - Set an asylum cap and a priority model - THEN make safe Asylum routes by opening processing centre Opening asylum centre in other countries when we still have an open border like many lefties suggest isn't going to solve the refugee problem I'd do it in a different order but largely agree ! And I'm a lefty !" What order would you prefer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That's why I suggest this - Modify asylum conventions or get out of it - Make it a criminal offence to show up in the country's border without permission - Set an asylum cap and a priority model - THEN make safe Asylum routes by opening processing centre Opening asylum centre in other countries when we still have an open border like many lefties suggest isn't going to solve the refugee problem I'd do it in a different order but largely agree ! And I'm a lefty ! What order would you prefer? "processing centres first (or at same time). I don't think it's fair to ban irregular entry without these in place. It also is needed from priority processing. I'd also add: work with UN to create an international solution built on current relocation process. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That's why I suggest this - Modify asylum conventions or get out of it - Make it a criminal offence to show up in the country's border without permission - Set an asylum cap and a priority model - THEN make safe Asylum routes by opening processing centre Opening asylum centre in other countries when we still have an open border like many lefties suggest isn't going to solve the refugee problem I'd do it in a different order but largely agree ! And I'm a lefty ! What order would you prefer? processing centres first (or at same time). I don't think it's fair to ban irregular entry without these in place.
It also is needed from priority processing.
I'd also add: work with UN to create an international solution built on current relocation process. "People are already pissed off with the number of asylum seekers. Opening processing centres without setting a cap would make the situation lot worse and is downright anti-democratic. What exactly would that international solution look like? Building an international solution for what should be a country's sovereign decision is the reason why we are at this state. A country's refugee policy should be a decision that country alone makes, not what some lame international organisation makes. We can't force our morals on other countries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By playing down the impact of illegal migration you are perpetuating the existence of the very thing you despise, right wing influence. No issue in my lifetime has been so ridiculously overblown and exaggerated and used as a tool by political parties to influence voters. Just look at how many people on here bang on and on and on about immigrants. Or look how it was used to get people to vote for Brexit. overblown wtf why don’t you give us a bunch of positives to 700 thousand migrants a year then ? Exhibit A. so you can’t show a bunch of benifits to mass migration then there’s a shock lol" ************************************** He can't back anything up with any kind of rational explanation, debating skills are poor. Some people would never survive in a live, face to face discussion. Complete anonimity is a downside of the internet in some cases, cowardly in others and really dangerous in a few. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By playing down the impact of illegal migration you are perpetuating the existence of the very thing you despise, right wing influence. No issue in my lifetime has been so ridiculously overblown and exaggerated and used as a tool by political parties to influence voters. Just look at how many people on here bang on and on and on about immigrants. Or look how it was used to get people to vote for Brexit. It goes both ways though, some are banging on about how illegal migration is not really a problem, and others who bang on about it being a problem. The polls are clear that the general public are concerned about it, enough for all parties to have plan to stop the boats as they say. Farage and the tories will attack labour at every opportunity if they do not manage to bring this issue under control, I think the topic will be hotter than it has ever been post the GE. It's definitely an issue that needs tackling. But it's blown out of all proportion to the point that people vote for stuff like Brexit and reform. " It's not blown out of proportion at all. We do need immigration but not to the tune of 700k+ a year. Meny of which are unskilled, low paid workers and there dependants. You fail to take people's concerns seriously and then act all confused when people blame the left for voters lurching to the right.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is Labour's plan to beef up or change border police good enough to stop the small boats. Can they smash the criminal gangs as they claim?" No, but alot of the drivers of high imagination legal and illegal have peaked. So they can just sit back do nothing and take the credit as the numbers come down towards the back end of this year and next year. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Farage is demanding a place on the upcoming QT Leader's Debate, alongside Conservatives, Labour, SNP and Lib Dems. Since Reform are polling above 3 of those, it seems reasonable, no?" But he is not the leader of reform ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Farage is demanding a place on the upcoming QT Leader's Debate, alongside Conservatives, Labour, SNP and Lib Dems. Since Reform are polling above 3 of those, it seems reasonable, no? But he is not the leader of reform ? " He is... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" By playing down the impact of illegal migration you are perpetuating the existence of the very thing you despise, right wing influence. No issue in my lifetime has been so ridiculously overblown and exaggerated and used as a tool by political parties to influence voters. Just look at how many people on here bang on and on and on about immigrants. Or look how it was used to get people to vote for Brexit. It goes both ways though, some are banging on about how illegal migration is not really a problem, and others who bang on about it being a problem. The polls are clear that the general public are concerned about it, enough for all parties to have plan to stop the boats as they say. Farage and the tories will attack labour at every opportunity if they do not manage to bring this issue under control, I think the topic will be hotter than it has ever been post the GE. It's definitely an issue that needs tackling. But it's blown out of all proportion to the point that people vote for stuff like Brexit and reform. It's not blown out of proportion at all. We do need immigration but not to the tune of 700k+ a year. Meny of which are unskilled, low paid workers and there dependants. " Excellent example of what the other chap was talking about, mixing various issues. Illegal immigration, legal immigration.
" You fail to take people's concerns seriously " Because they're massively overblown and over the top " and then act all confused when people blame the left for voters lurching to the right.." So I keep hearing, that this is the fault of the left. Yet no one is able to elaborate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias?" It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE." I’m confused, do you think the media has an influence on people’s thinking or not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias?" Immigration is a problem pretty much everywhere. In India, people from one state complain about immigration from other states within the country and that hardly has anything to do with media because media doesn't cover anything like that. The idea that people with vastly different cultural values can magically live together without any issues is a pipe dream that only lefties can imagine. Instead of blaming right wing media or anything else, if the left could actually understand people's concerns, things wouldn't be this bad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? Immigration is a problem pretty much everywhere. In India, people from one state complain about immigration from other states within the country and that hardly has anything to do with media because media doesn't cover anything like that. The idea that people with vastly different cultural values can magically live together without any issues is a pipe dream that only lefties can imagine. Instead of blaming right wing media or anything else, if the left could actually understand people's concerns, things wouldn't be this bad." So you don’t believe media influences people’s perception of things? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? Immigration is a problem pretty much everywhere. In India, people from one state complain about immigration from other states within the country and that hardly has anything to do with media because media doesn't cover anything like that. The idea that people with vastly different cultural values can magically live together without any issues is a pipe dream that only lefties can imagine. Instead of blaming right wing media or anything else, if the left could actually understand people's concerns, things wouldn't be this bad. So you don’t believe media influences people’s perception of things?" Do you believe only right wing media influences people? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? Immigration is a problem pretty much everywhere. In India, people from one state complain about immigration from other states within the country and that hardly has anything to do with media because media doesn't cover anything like that. The idea that people with vastly different cultural values can magically live together without any issues is a pipe dream that only lefties can imagine. Instead of blaming right wing media or anything else, if the left could actually understand people's concerns, things wouldn't be this bad. So you don’t believe media influences people’s perception of things? Do you believe only right wing media influences people?" Absolutely not, all media influences. Now, do you believe media influences people? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? Immigration is a problem pretty much everywhere. In India, people from one state complain about immigration from other states within the country and that hardly has anything to do with media because media doesn't cover anything like that. The idea that people with vastly different cultural values can magically live together without any issues is a pipe dream that only lefties can imagine. Instead of blaming right wing media or anything else, if the left could actually understand people's concerns, things wouldn't be this bad. So you don’t believe media influences people’s perception of things? Do you believe only right wing media influences people? Absolutely not, all media influences. Now, do you believe media influences people?" If the both sides of the media influence people, how do you explain the left wing of it having more consumption than the right wing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The international conventions on immigration were framed in the post-war years and are no longer fit for purpose. At some point, western countries will have to modify or withdraw from these conventions as the numbers increase and their populations become ever more hostile to uncontrolled immigration. It is easy to traverse Europe, but Britain has the huge advantage of being an island, with supposedly robust policing. Yet illegal immigration is barely challenged. When migrants seek to overturn the rule of law by paying money to criminal smugglers, they are entering into a conspiracy to break immigration laws and should be prosecutedfor this offence. I don't know why this avenue has not been tried." Because under international law it is not illegal to claim asylum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? Immigration is a problem pretty much everywhere. In India, people from one state complain about immigration from other states within the country and that hardly has anything to do with media because media doesn't cover anything like that. The idea that people with vastly different cultural values can magically live together without any issues is a pipe dream that only lefties can imagine. Instead of blaming right wing media or anything else, if the left could actually understand people's concerns, things wouldn't be this bad. So you don’t believe media influences people’s perception of things? Do you believe only right wing media influences people? Absolutely not, all media influences. Now, do you believe media influences people? If the both sides of the media influence people, how do you explain the left wing of it having more consumption than the right wing?" I’m not sure what you mean. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? Immigration is a problem pretty much everywhere. In India, people from one state complain about immigration from other states within the country and that hardly has anything to do with media because media doesn't cover anything like that. The idea that people with vastly different cultural values can magically live together without any issues is a pipe dream that only lefties can imagine. Instead of blaming right wing media or anything else, if the left could actually understand people's concerns, things wouldn't be this bad. So you don’t believe media influences people’s perception of things? Do you believe only right wing media influences people? Absolutely not, all media influences. Now, do you believe media influences people? If the both sides of the media influence people, how do you explain the left wing of it having more consumption than the right wing? I’m not sure what you mean." Of you're not. The left wing media has a higher consumption rate than the right wing media. If the left wing media have spent years telling us immigration is wonderful, why don't we have a higher proportion of people who actually think that way? If, of course, the media has the influence you believe it does. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE. I’m confused, do you think the media has an influence on people’s thinking or not?" Of course it does, but you portray people as swallowing right-wing media stories hook, line and sinker. As if leftists have some kind of higher wisdom that allows them to glean the truth. It's a bit of a one-eyed view. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? Immigration is a problem pretty much everywhere. In India, people from one state complain about immigration from other states within the country and that hardly has anything to do with media because media doesn't cover anything like that. The idea that people with vastly different cultural values can magically live together without any issues is a pipe dream that only lefties can imagine. Instead of blaming right wing media or anything else, if the left could actually understand people's concerns, things wouldn't be this bad. So you don’t believe media influences people’s perception of things? Do you believe only right wing media influences people? Absolutely not, all media influences. Now, do you believe media influences people? If the both sides of the media influence people, how do you explain the left wing of it having more consumption than the right wing? I’m not sure what you mean. Of you're not. The left wing media has a higher consumption rate than the right wing media. If the left wing media have spent years telling us immigration is wonderful, why don't we have a higher proportion of people who actually think that way? If, of course, the media has the influence you believe it does. " Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that left wing media has a higher consumption rate? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? Immigration is a problem pretty much everywhere. In India, people from one state complain about immigration from other states within the country and that hardly has anything to do with media because media doesn't cover anything like that. The idea that people with vastly different cultural values can magically live together without any issues is a pipe dream that only lefties can imagine. Instead of blaming right wing media or anything else, if the left could actually understand people's concerns, things wouldn't be this bad. So you don’t believe media influences people’s perception of things? Do you believe only right wing media influences people? Absolutely not, all media influences. Now, do you believe media influences people? If the both sides of the media influence people, how do you explain the left wing of it having more consumption than the right wing? I’m not sure what you mean. Of you're not. The left wing media has a higher consumption rate than the right wing media. If the left wing media have spent years telling us immigration is wonderful, why don't we have a higher proportion of people who actually think that way? If, of course, the media has the influence you believe it does. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that left wing media has a higher consumption rate?" You're free to go look up the figures. Then check against media bias check. Yes, there is evidence. It seems you don't have an answer so will now try to discredit. That's typical of the left. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE. I’m confused, do you think the media has an influence on people’s thinking or not? Of course it does, but you portray people as swallowing right-wing media stories hook, line and sinker. As if leftists have some kind of higher wisdom that allows them to glean the truth. It's a bit of a one-eyed view." It’s not about swallowing things hook line and sinker, it’s about a constant stream over decades. The more something is talked about in the media the more it filters into people’s consciousness, and immigration has been blamed for the nation’s ills for decades. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The international conventions on immigration were framed in the post-war years and are no longer fit for purpose. At some point, western countries will have to modify or withdraw from these conventions as the numbers increase and their populations become ever more hostile to uncontrolled immigration. It is easy to traverse Europe, but Britain has the huge advantage of being an island, with supposedly robust policing. Yet illegal immigration is barely challenged. When migrants seek to overturn the rule of law by paying money to criminal smugglers, they are entering into a conspiracy to break immigration laws and should be prosecutedfor this offence. I don't know why this avenue has not been tried. Because under international law it is not illegal to claim asylum." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? Immigration is a problem pretty much everywhere. In India, people from one state complain about immigration from other states within the country and that hardly has anything to do with media because media doesn't cover anything like that. The idea that people with vastly different cultural values can magically live together without any issues is a pipe dream that only lefties can imagine. Instead of blaming right wing media or anything else, if the left could actually understand people's concerns, things wouldn't be this bad. So you don’t believe media influences people’s perception of things? Do you believe only right wing media influences people? Absolutely not, all media influences. Now, do you believe media influences people? If the both sides of the media influence people, how do you explain the left wing of it having more consumption than the right wing? I’m not sure what you mean. Of you're not. The left wing media has a higher consumption rate than the right wing media. If the left wing media have spent years telling us immigration is wonderful, why don't we have a higher proportion of people who actually think that way? If, of course, the media has the influence you believe it does. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that left wing media has a higher consumption rate? You're free to go look up the figures. Then check against media bias check. Yes, there is evidence. It seems you don't have an answer so will now try to discredit. That's typical of the left. " So you’ve no evidence then. Thanks for playing but try harder next time x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The international conventions on immigration were framed in the post-war years and are no longer fit for purpose. At some point, western countries will have to modify or withdraw from these conventions as the numbers increase and their populations become ever more hostile to uncontrolled immigration. It is easy to traverse Europe, but Britain has the huge advantage of being an island, with supposedly robust policing. Yet illegal immigration is barely challenged. When migrants seek to overturn the rule of law by paying money to criminal smugglers, they are entering into a conspiracy to break immigration laws and should be prosecutedfor this offence. I don't know why this avenue has not been tried. Because under international law it is not illegal to claim asylum." They are, however, entering into a conspiracy with the smugglers, so should be equally liable to prosecution for the smugglers' crimes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? Immigration is a problem pretty much everywhere. In India, people from one state complain about immigration from other states within the country and that hardly has anything to do with media because media doesn't cover anything like that. The idea that people with vastly different cultural values can magically live together without any issues is a pipe dream that only lefties can imagine. Instead of blaming right wing media or anything else, if the left could actually understand people's concerns, things wouldn't be this bad. So you don’t believe media influences people’s perception of things? Do you believe only right wing media influences people? Absolutely not, all media influences. Now, do you believe media influences people? If the both sides of the media influence people, how do you explain the left wing of it having more consumption than the right wing? I’m not sure what you mean. Of you're not. The left wing media has a higher consumption rate than the right wing media. If the left wing media have spent years telling us immigration is wonderful, why don't we have a higher proportion of people who actually think that way? If, of course, the media has the influence you believe it does. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that left wing media has a higher consumption rate? You're free to go look up the figures. Then check against media bias check. Yes, there is evidence. It seems you don't have an answer so will now try to discredit. That's typical of the left. So you’ve no evidence then. Thanks for playing but try harder next time x" There is evidence. Check Press Gazette for consumption figures and then check media bias for which way those publications lean. If you can't be arsed to go find it, and see for yourself, you could attempt to at least answer the question I posed. I'm not here to spoon feed you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE. I’m confused, do you think the media has an influence on people’s thinking or not? Of course it does, but you portray people as swallowing right-wing media stories hook, line and sinker. As if leftists have some kind of higher wisdom that allows them to glean the truth. It's a bit of a one-eyed view. It’s not about swallowing things hook line and sinker, it’s about a constant stream over decades. The more something is talked about in the media the more it filters into people’s consciousness, and immigration has been blamed for the nation’s ills for decades." Issues are talked about because they are important to people. We have a free press that is a cornerstone of our democracy. People are free to fact check stories or hear counter arguments. What would you prefer, a censored press taking the government line like China? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The international conventions on immigration were framed in the post-war years and are no longer fit for purpose. At some point, western countries will have to modify or withdraw from these conventions as the numbers increase and their populations become ever more hostile to uncontrolled immigration. It is easy to traverse Europe, but Britain has the huge advantage of being an island, with supposedly robust policing. Yet illegal immigration is barely challenged. When migrants seek to overturn the rule of law by paying money to criminal smugglers, they are entering into a conspiracy to break immigration laws and should be prosecutedfor this offence. I don't know why this avenue has not been tried. Because under international law it is not illegal to claim asylum. They are, however, entering into a conspiracy with the smugglers, so should be equally liable to prosecution for the smugglers' crimes." I strongly suspect that if it were possible to prosecute for such a thing the government would have done it. I think we have probably moved away from prosecuting people for being exploited though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? Immigration is a problem pretty much everywhere. In India, people from one state complain about immigration from other states within the country and that hardly has anything to do with media because media doesn't cover anything like that. The idea that people with vastly different cultural values can magically live together without any issues is a pipe dream that only lefties can imagine. Instead of blaming right wing media or anything else, if the left could actually understand people's concerns, things wouldn't be this bad. So you don’t believe media influences people’s perception of things? Do you believe only right wing media influences people? Absolutely not, all media influences. Now, do you believe media influences people? If the both sides of the media influence people, how do you explain the left wing of it having more consumption than the right wing? I’m not sure what you mean. Of you're not. The left wing media has a higher consumption rate than the right wing media. If the left wing media have spent years telling us immigration is wonderful, why don't we have a higher proportion of people who actually think that way? If, of course, the media has the influence you believe it does. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that left wing media has a higher consumption rate? You're free to go look up the figures. Then check against media bias check. Yes, there is evidence. It seems you don't have an answer so will now try to discredit. That's typical of the left. So you’ve no evidence then. Thanks for playing but try harder next time x There is evidence. Check Press Gazette for consumption figures and then check media bias for which way those publications lean. If you can't be arsed to go find it, and see for yourself, you could attempt to at least answer the question I posed. I'm not here to spoon feed you. " You made the claim, you need to back it up. You don’t just get to make shit up and challenge people to disprove it, toots x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE. I’m confused, do you think the media has an influence on people’s thinking or not? Of course it does, but you portray people as swallowing right-wing media stories hook, line and sinker. As if leftists have some kind of higher wisdom that allows them to glean the truth. It's a bit of a one-eyed view. It’s not about swallowing things hook line and sinker, it’s about a constant stream over decades. The more something is talked about in the media the more it filters into people’s consciousness, and immigration has been blamed for the nation’s ills for decades. Issues are talked about because they are important to people. We have a free press that is a cornerstone of our democracy. People are free to fact check stories or hear counter arguments. What would you prefer, a censored press taking the government line like China?" Are they? Or are they talked about because they are useful to the people who own the media? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? Immigration is a problem pretty much everywhere. In India, people from one state complain about immigration from other states within the country and that hardly has anything to do with media because media doesn't cover anything like that. The idea that people with vastly different cultural values can magically live together without any issues is a pipe dream that only lefties can imagine. Instead of blaming right wing media or anything else, if the left could actually understand people's concerns, things wouldn't be this bad. So you don’t believe media influences people’s perception of things? Do you believe only right wing media influences people? Absolutely not, all media influences. Now, do you believe media influences people? If the both sides of the media influence people, how do you explain the left wing of it having more consumption than the right wing? I’m not sure what you mean. Of you're not. The left wing media has a higher consumption rate than the right wing media. If the left wing media have spent years telling us immigration is wonderful, why don't we have a higher proportion of people who actually think that way? If, of course, the media has the influence you believe it does. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that left wing media has a higher consumption rate? You're free to go look up the figures. Then check against media bias check. Yes, there is evidence. It seems you don't have an answer so will now try to discredit. That's typical of the left. So you’ve no evidence then. Thanks for playing but try harder next time x There is evidence. Check Press Gazette for consumption figures and then check media bias for which way those publications lean. If you can't be arsed to go find it, and see for yourself, you could attempt to at least answer the question I posed. I'm not here to spoon feed you. You made the claim, you need to back it up. You don’t just get to make shit up and challenge people to disprove it, toots x" I've told you where to find the information. It's really easy. I'm not challenging you to disprove anything, I'm challenging you to answer the question posed. Looks like you do need spoon fed  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE. I’m confused, do you think the media has an influence on people’s thinking or not? Of course it does, but you portray people as swallowing right-wing media stories hook, line and sinker. As if leftists have some kind of higher wisdom that allows them to glean the truth. It's a bit of a one-eyed view. It’s not about swallowing things hook line and sinker, it’s about a constant stream over decades. The more something is talked about in the media the more it filters into people’s consciousness, and immigration has been blamed for the nation’s ills for decades. Issues are talked about because they are important to people. We have a free press that is a cornerstone of our democracy. People are free to fact check stories or hear counter arguments. What would you prefer, a censored press taking the government line like China? Are they? Or are they talked about because they are useful to the people who own the media?" Yes they are. If I look at media outlets, they are pretty much covering the same stories of the day, albeit with a different slant. Most of us are capable of picking the wheat from the chaff and forming a balanced view. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. " Because it's a big factor. " It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. " Brexit and the rise in popularity of Reform are evidence against this. " Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. Because it's a big factor. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Brexit and the rise in popularity of Reform are evidence against this. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE. "But again, you are positing that Brexit/Reform supporters are dullards incapable of making informed decisions. If they're so dumb how come they won the Brexit vote and now seeing Reform surpass the Tories? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m confused, do you think the media has an influence on people’s thinking or not? Of course it does, but you portray people as swallowing right-wing media stories hook, line and sinker. As if leftists have some kind of higher wisdom that allows them to glean the truth. It's a bit of a one-eyed view." I think this is spot on, leftists unconsciously are the mouthpiece for the media they consume. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. Because it's a big factor. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Brexit and the rise in popularity of Reform are evidence against this. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE.
But again, you are positing that Brexit/Reform supporters are dullards incapable of making informed decisions. If they're so dumb how come they won the Brexit vote and now seeing Reform surpass the Tories?"What do you mean "won the Brexit vote"? They just happened to vote the same way as a slim majority of others. I don't understand your argument. Both Brexit and Reform are popular. But both demonstrably a bad idea. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. Because it's a big factor. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Brexit and the rise in popularity of Reform are evidence against this. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE.
But again, you are positing that Brexit/Reform supporters are dullards incapable of making informed decisions. If they're so dumb how come they won the Brexit vote and now seeing Reform surpass the Tories?
What do you mean "won the Brexit vote"? They just happened to vote the same way as a slim majority of others.
I don't understand your argument. Both Brexit and Reform are popular. But both demonstrably a bad idea."What I was referring to was a referendum in 2016 which resulted in the UK leaving the EU. It was called Brexit.
A bad idea in your opinion that is. Fair enough, but don't portray it as fact. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. Because it's a big factor. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Brexit and the rise in popularity of Reform are evidence against this. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE.
But again, you are positing that Brexit/Reform supporters are dullards incapable of making informed decisions. If they're so dumb how come they won the Brexit vote and now seeing Reform surpass the Tories?
What do you mean "won the Brexit vote"? They just happened to vote the same way as a slim majority of others.
I don't understand your argument. Both Brexit and Reform are popular. But both demonstrably a bad idea.
What I was referring to was a referendum in 2016 which resulted in the UK leaving the EU. It was called Brexit.
A bad idea in your opinion that is. Fair enough, but don't portray it as fact."I'm aware of Brexit. I just didn't understand your point about it. I mean, it's nothing to do with my opinion. Brexit has been shit for the country, in every measure. Voting for a party that blames foreigners for everything, thinks climate science isn't real, and that teachers have to be exclusively unaware of social injustice, especially racism. Is a shit idea. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. Because it's a big factor. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Brexit and the rise in popularity of Reform are evidence against this. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE.
But again, you are positing that Brexit/Reform supporters are dullards incapable of making informed decisions. If they're so dumb how come they won the Brexit vote and now seeing Reform surpass the Tories?
What do you mean "won the Brexit vote"? They just happened to vote the same way as a slim majority of others.
I don't understand your argument. Both Brexit and Reform are popular. But both demonstrably a bad idea.
What I was referring to was a referendum in 2016 which resulted in the UK leaving the EU. It was called Brexit.
A bad idea in your opinion that is. Fair enough, but don't portray it as fact.
I'm aware of Brexit. I just didn't understand your point about it.
I mean, it's nothing to do with my opinion. Brexit has been shit for the country, in every measure. Voting for a party that blames foreigners for everything, thinks climate science isn't real, and that teachers have to be exclusively unaware of social injustice, especially racism. Is a shit idea.
"C'mon you must see how cliched that statement is? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. Because it's a big factor. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Brexit and the rise in popularity of Reform are evidence against this. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE.
But again, you are positing that Brexit/Reform supporters are dullards incapable of making informed decisions. If they're so dumb how come they won the Brexit vote and now seeing Reform surpass the Tories?
What do you mean "won the Brexit vote"? They just happened to vote the same way as a slim majority of others.
I don't understand your argument. Both Brexit and Reform are popular. But both demonstrably a bad idea.
What I was referring to was a referendum in 2016 which resulted in the UK leaving the EU. It was called Brexit.
A bad idea in your opinion that is. Fair enough, but don't portray it as fact.
I'm aware of Brexit. I just didn't understand your point about it.
I mean, it's nothing to do with my opinion. Brexit has been shit for the country, in every measure. Voting for a party that blames foreigners for everything, thinks climate science isn't real, and that teachers have to be exclusively unaware of social injustice, especially racism. Is a shit idea.
C'mon you must see how cliched that statement is?"Pretty sure that statement gets repeated more than 5 times in every thread in this forum  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. Because it's a big factor. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Brexit and the rise in popularity of Reform are evidence against this. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE.
But again, you are positing that Brexit/Reform supporters are dullards incapable of making informed decisions. If they're so dumb how come they won the Brexit vote and now seeing Reform surpass the Tories?
What do you mean "won the Brexit vote"? They just happened to vote the same way as a slim majority of others.
I don't understand your argument. Both Brexit and Reform are popular. But both demonstrably a bad idea.
What I was referring to was a referendum in 2016 which resulted in the UK leaving the EU. It was called Brexit.
A bad idea in your opinion that is. Fair enough, but don't portray it as fact.
I'm aware of Brexit. I just didn't understand your point about it.
I mean, it's nothing to do with my opinion. Brexit has been shit for the country, in every measure. Voting for a party that blames foreigners for everything, thinks climate science isn't real, and that teachers have to be exclusively unaware of social injustice, especially racism. Is a shit idea.
"I know you are no fan of Farage or Reform, the immigration policy you call racist, but I read in their policy that they accept immigration is required, what is in the policy you disagree with and makes it racist? I have also read the NHS policy and thought it had some very interesting views in how to tackle recruitment, training and improve the service for those on waiting lists. On the education policy they have mirrored the direction taken on teaching children about gender identity. I think you may be referring in your above post to the idea that they would ban critical race theory in the classroom? Is that part of their policy you disagree with? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d say the “look over here immigrants” rhetoric works just fine. This forum is proof. Two weeks of virtual tumblew33d and relatively light levels of posting in manifesto threads. But mention immigrants and the thread soon starts getting active and argumentative. Look at this one! Of course it is an issue but it suits the political aims of some to make it THE issue. 1. Legal migration can be tackled by adopting a points system to encourage welcome skills and discourage others. 2. Tighter control over student and spousal visas needed. 3. Illegal migration and bogus asylum seekers could be tackled by improved, well financed and resourced Borders and Immigration organisation (speed up processing) but why isn’t it properly funded? Why isn’t there sufficient money to tackle this? Why isn’t the Home Office a protected department for spending review? Who is making money out of the chaotic situation as it stands? Those are the questions people should be focused on. " Manifesto threads need people to have the time to sift through the actual manifestos to understand what they're talking about (it's the reason I haven’t engaged in any of them). 'Immigration threads' don't require that same time, because it's mostly already known, so much easier to discuss. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d say the “look over here immigrants” rhetoric works just fine. This forum is proof. Two weeks of virtual tumblew33d and relatively light levels of posting in manifesto threads. But mention immigrants and the thread soon starts getting active and argumentative. Look at this one! Of course it is an issue but it suits the political aims of some to make it THE issue. 1. Legal migration can be tackled by adopting a points system to encourage welcome skills and discourage others. 2. Tighter control over student and spousal visas needed. 3. Illegal migration and bogus asylum seekers could be tackled by improved, well financed and resourced Borders and Immigration organisation (speed up processing) but why isn’t it properly funded? Why isn’t there sufficient money to tackle this? Why isn’t the Home Office a protected department for spending review? Who is making money out of the chaotic situation as it stands? Those are the questions people should be focused on. Manifesto threads need people to have the time to sift through the actual manifestos to understand what they're talking about (it's the reason I haven’t engaged in any of them). 'Immigration threads' don't require that same time, because it's mostly already known, so much easier to discuss. " However, your 3 points there are sensible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is Labour's plan to beef up or change border police good enough to stop the small boats. Can they smash the criminal gangs as they claim? No, but alot of the drivers of high imagination legal and illegal have peaked. So they can just sit back do nothing and take the credit as the numbers come down towards the back end of this year and next year." I will take your word that the drivers of high legal immigration has peaked despite not being sure. However I don't agree illegal immigration has peaked, in fact if what many say is correct, it could get a lot worse. The Labour plan on border control relates to illegal immigration and if it's not effective will see a bad problem get even worse | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d say the “look over here immigrants” rhetoric works just fine. This forum is proof. Two weeks of virtual tumblew33d and relatively light levels of posting in manifesto threads. But mention immigrants and the thread soon starts getting active and argumentative. Look at this one! Of course it is an issue but it suits the political aims of some to make it THE issue. 1. Legal migration can be tackled by adopting a points system to encourage welcome skills and discourage others. 2. Tighter control over student and spousal visas needed. 3. Illegal migration and bogus asylum seekers could be tackled by improved, well financed and resourced Borders and Immigration organisation (speed up processing) but why isn’t it properly funded? Why isn’t there sufficient money to tackle this? Why isn’t the Home Office a protected department for spending review? Who is making money out of the chaotic situation as it stands? Those are the questions people should be focused on. Manifesto threads need people to have the time to sift through the actual manifestos to understand what they're talking about (it's the reason I haven’t engaged in any of them). 'Immigration threads' don't require that same time, because it's mostly already known, so much easier to discuss. However, your 3 points there are sensible." High praise indeed 
Just a friendly (not in the mood to argue this morning as simply cannot be arsed) don’t fully agree response to the point on “because it's mostly already known” as I believe many posters haven’t done more than scratch the surface and only understand the emotive superficial argument. I think this is all highly complex and there are bad agents/players st work to ensure we avoid talking about the real and underlying issues.
It is really easy to point at immigrants (legal or illegal) and blame them for things like stretched public services but that means we aren’t discussing the bigger/main reasons. Increased immigration/increased population is a contributing factor but it is not THE factor and yet you’d think it was.
To paraphrase a clever but evil German “the more you keep repeating a lie the easier it is to convince people it is true” and “the best lies are the ones with an element of truth to them”. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. Because it's a big factor. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Brexit and the rise in popularity of Reform are evidence against this. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE.
But again, you are positing that Brexit/Reform supporters are dullards incapable of making informed decisions. If they're so dumb how come they won the Brexit vote and now seeing Reform surpass the Tories?
What do you mean "won the Brexit vote"? They just happened to vote the same way as a slim majority of others.
I don't understand your argument. Both Brexit and Reform are popular. But both demonstrably a bad idea.
What I was referring to was a referendum in 2016 which resulted in the UK leaving the EU. It was called Brexit.
A bad idea in your opinion that is. Fair enough, but don't portray it as fact.
I'm aware of Brexit. I just didn't understand your point about it.
I mean, it's nothing to do with my opinion. Brexit has been shit for the country, in every measure. Voting for a party that blames foreigners for everything, thinks climate science isn't real, and that teachers have to be exclusively unaware of social injustice, especially racism. Is a shit idea.
I know you are no fan of Farage or Reform,"Of course. " the immigration policy you call racist, " I haven't called their immigration policy racist. " but I read in their policy that they accept immigration is required, what is in the policy you disagree with and makes it racist? " I haven't called their immigration policy racist. " I have also read the NHS policy and thought it had some very interesting views in how to tackle recruitment, training and improve the service for those on waiting lists. " As soon as their policies said that they think climate science isn't real, I couldn't be arsed to read anything else, because that trumps everything else. (Pun intended) " On the education policy they have mirrored the direction taken on teaching children about gender identity. I think you may be referring in your above post to the idea that they would ban critical race theory in the classroom? Is that part of their policy you disagree with? " No, they said very clearly that awareness of social injustice, especially racism, should be kept out of schools. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. Because it's a big factor. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Brexit and the rise in popularity of Reform are evidence against this. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE.
But again, you are positing that Brexit/Reform supporters are dullards incapable of making informed decisions. If they're so dumb how come they won the Brexit vote and now seeing Reform surpass the Tories?
What do you mean "won the Brexit vote"? They just happened to vote the same way as a slim majority of others.
I don't understand your argument. Both Brexit and Reform are popular. But both demonstrably a bad idea.
What I was referring to was a referendum in 2016 which resulted in the UK leaving the EU. It was called Brexit.
A bad idea in your opinion that is. Fair enough, but don't portray it as fact.
I'm aware of Brexit. I just didn't understand your point about it.
I mean, it's nothing to do with my opinion. Brexit has been shit for the country, in every measure. Voting for a party that blames foreigners for everything, thinks climate science isn't real, and that teachers have to be exclusively unaware of social injustice, especially racism. Is a shit idea.
C'mon you must see how cliched that statement is?"Maybe. Not wrong though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d say the “look over here immigrants” rhetoric works just fine. This forum is proof. Two weeks of virtual tumblew33d and relatively light levels of posting in manifesto threads. But mention immigrants and the thread soon starts getting active and argumentative. Look at this one! Of course it is an issue but it suits the political aims of some to make it THE issue. 1. Legal migration can be tackled by adopting a points system to encourage welcome skills and discourage others. 2. Tighter control over student and spousal visas needed. 3. Illegal migration and bogus asylum seekers could be tackled by improved, well financed and resourced Borders and Immigration organisation (speed up processing) but why isn’t it properly funded? Why isn’t there sufficient money to tackle this? Why isn’t the Home Office a protected department for spending review? Who is making money out of the chaotic situation as it stands? Those are the questions people should be focused on. Manifesto threads need people to have the time to sift through the actual manifestos to understand what they're talking about (it's the reason I haven’t engaged in any of them). 'Immigration threads' don't require that same time, because it's mostly already known, so much easier to discuss. However, your 3 points there are sensible. High praise indeed
Just a friendly (not in the mood to argue this morning as simply cannot be arsed) don’t fully agree response to the point on “because it's mostly already known” as I believe many posters haven’t done more than scratch the surface and only understand the emotive superficial argument. I think this is all highly complex and there are bad agents/players st work to ensure we avoid talking about the real and underlying issues.
It is really easy to point at immigrants (legal or illegal) and blame them for things like stretched public services but that means we aren’t discussing the bigger/main reasons. Increased immigration/increased population is a contributing factor but it is not THE factor and yet you’d think it was.
To paraphrase a clever but evil German “the more you keep repeating a lie the easier it is to convince people it is true” and “the best lies are the ones with an element of truth to them”."A scratch of the surface or a more in depth understand of immigration matters not, people have views. They don't have views on manifestos they haven't read. I said in another thread 'There needs to be a balance, not 'oh shit, we've let in 2m people, so now we need to go find another 2000 doctors'. If we turn to immigration to find those 2000 doctors then the issue exacerbates. Higher immigration leads to nothing but higher immigration. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d say the “look over here immigrants” rhetoric works just fine. This forum is proof. Two weeks of virtual tumblew33d and relatively light levels of posting in manifesto threads. But mention immigrants and the thread soon starts getting active and argumentative. Look at this one! Of course it is an issue but it suits the political aims of some to make it THE issue. 1. Legal migration can be tackled by adopting a points system to encourage welcome skills and discourage others. 2. Tighter control over student and spousal visas needed. 3. Illegal migration and bogus asylum seekers could be tackled by improved, well financed and resourced Borders and Immigration organisation (speed up processing) but why isn’t it properly funded? Why isn’t there sufficient money to tackle this? Why isn’t the Home Office a protected department for spending review? Who is making money out of the chaotic situation as it stands? Those are the questions people should be focused on. " Agree with the first two but the third one not completely. Even if we process them, we can't send the failed asylum seekers back because there is no way to deport someone who doesn't have papers and whose home country isn't willing to take them back anyway. I do agree that there are people making money out of this. An easier guess would obviously be the hotels. Remember that the budget for these hotels comes from foreign aid budget. In other words, money that would have been otherwise used to donate to poor countries is being redirected within the country to the hotels. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. Because it's a big factor. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Brexit and the rise in popularity of Reform are evidence against this. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE.
But again, you are positing that Brexit/Reform supporters are dullards incapable of making informed decisions. If they're so dumb how come they won the Brexit vote and now seeing Reform surpass the Tories?
What do you mean "won the Brexit vote"? They just happened to vote the same way as a slim majority of others.
I don't understand your argument. Both Brexit and Reform are popular. But both demonstrably a bad idea.
What I was referring to was a referendum in 2016 which resulted in the UK leaving the EU. It was called Brexit.
A bad idea in your opinion that is. Fair enough, but don't portray it as fact.
I'm aware of Brexit. I just didn't understand your point about it.
I mean, it's nothing to do with my opinion. Brexit has been shit for the country, in every measure. Voting for a party that blames foreigners for everything, thinks climate science isn't real, and that teachers have to be exclusively unaware of social injustice, especially racism. Is a shit idea.
I know you are no fan of Farage or Reform,
Of course.
the immigration policy you call racist,
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
but I read in their policy that they accept immigration is required, what is in the policy you disagree with and makes it racist?
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
I have also read the NHS policy and thought it had some very interesting views in how to tackle recruitment, training and improve the service for those on waiting lists.
As soon as their policies said that they think climate science isn't real, I couldn't be arsed to read anything else, because that trumps everything else. (Pun intended)
On the education policy they have mirrored the direction taken on teaching children about gender identity. I think you may be referring in your above post to the idea that they would ban critical race theory in the classroom? Is that part of their policy you disagree with?
No, they said very clearly that awareness of social injustice, especially racism, should be kept out of schools."This is the only statement I can see in the education policy that mentions race: "Ban Critical Race Theory in Primary and Secondary Schools. It is unacceptable to divide children on grounds of race and teach them to be ashamed of their country." I can see you might consider this as promoting bygone wrongs, but I don't think that is the message. The message is stop using tools that create divide, I guess the question should be do you want critical race theory taught in classes? The environment policy, doesn't deny warming or CO2 increases, it challenges net zero impacts on the economy and whether human intervention can really slow warming and bring it under control, when history shows us we have seen fluctuations like we are having today. I don't know if that is denying the science or challenging the science. Thin line. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d say the “look over here immigrants” rhetoric works just fine. This forum is proof. Two weeks of virtual tumblew33d and relatively light levels of posting in manifesto threads. But mention immigrants and the thread soon starts getting active and argumentative. Look at this one! Of course it is an issue but it suits the political aims of some to make it THE issue. 1. Legal migration can be tackled by adopting a points system to encourage welcome skills and discourage others. 2. Tighter control over student and spousal visas needed. 3. Illegal migration and bogus asylum seekers could be tackled by improved, well financed and resourced Borders and Immigration organisation (speed up processing) but why isn’t it properly funded? Why isn’t there sufficient money to tackle this? Why isn’t the Home Office a protected department for spending review? Who is making money out of the chaotic situation as it stands? Those are the questions people should be focused on. Agree with the first two but the third one not completely. Even if we process them, we can't send the failed asylum seekers back because there is no way to deport someone who doesn't have papers and whose home country isn't willing to take them back anyway. I do agree that there are people making money out of this. An easier guess would obviously be the hotels. Remember that the budget for these hotels comes from foreign aid budget. In other words, money that would have been otherwise used to donate to poor countries is being redirected within the country to the hotels." Genuine question as I don’t know enough. If we can establish someone’s nationality and then ascertain if their asylum claim is genuine, ie are they in danger in their home country. Then if they are not in danger, why can’t we return them? Isn’t that what we did with lots of Albanians? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. Because it's a big factor. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Brexit and the rise in popularity of Reform are evidence against this. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE.
But again, you are positing that Brexit/Reform supporters are dullards incapable of making informed decisions. If they're so dumb how come they won the Brexit vote and now seeing Reform surpass the Tories?
What do you mean "won the Brexit vote"? They just happened to vote the same way as a slim majority of others.
I don't understand your argument. Both Brexit and Reform are popular. But both demonstrably a bad idea.
What I was referring to was a referendum in 2016 which resulted in the UK leaving the EU. It was called Brexit.
A bad idea in your opinion that is. Fair enough, but don't portray it as fact.
I'm aware of Brexit. I just didn't understand your point about it.
I mean, it's nothing to do with my opinion. Brexit has been shit for the country, in every measure. Voting for a party that blames foreigners for everything, thinks climate science isn't real, and that teachers have to be exclusively unaware of social injustice, especially racism. Is a shit idea.
I know you are no fan of Farage or Reform,
Of course.
the immigration policy you call racist,
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
but I read in their policy that they accept immigration is required, what is in the policy you disagree with and makes it racist?
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
I have also read the NHS policy and thought it had some very interesting views in how to tackle recruitment, training and improve the service for those on waiting lists.
As soon as their policies said that they think climate science isn't real, I couldn't be arsed to read anything else, because that trumps everything else. (Pun intended)
On the education policy they have mirrored the direction taken on teaching children about gender identity. I think you may be referring in your above post to the idea that they would ban critical race theory in the classroom? Is that part of their policy you disagree with?
No, they said very clearly that awareness of social injustice, especially racism, should be kept out of schools.
This is the only statement I can see in the education policy that mentions race: "Ban Critical Race Theory in Primary and Secondary Schools.
It is unacceptable to divide children on grounds of race and teach them to be ashamed of their country."
I can see you might consider this as promoting bygone wrongs, but I don't think that is the message. The message is stop using tools that create divide, I guess the question should be do you want critical race theory taught in classes?
The environment policy, doesn't deny warming or CO2 increases, it challenges net zero impacts on the economy and whether human intervention can really slow warming and bring it under control, when history shows us we have seen fluctuations like we are having today.
I don't know if that is denying the science or challenging the science. Thin line."If what you say about how schools teach is true then I would agree it should be stopped. It seems to go against treating everyone equally and telling children to be ashamed of their country is pure madness. For climate I support the notion of science being challenged as this is very important to new discoveries. That said we can only go on the most up to date proven data available. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. Because it's a big factor. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Brexit and the rise in popularity of Reform are evidence against this. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE.
But again, you are positing that Brexit/Reform supporters are dullards incapable of making informed decisions. If they're so dumb how come they won the Brexit vote and now seeing Reform surpass the Tories?
What do you mean "won the Brexit vote"? They just happened to vote the same way as a slim majority of others.
I don't understand your argument. Both Brexit and Reform are popular. But both demonstrably a bad idea.
What I was referring to was a referendum in 2016 which resulted in the UK leaving the EU. It was called Brexit.
A bad idea in your opinion that is. Fair enough, but don't portray it as fact.
I'm aware of Brexit. I just didn't understand your point about it.
I mean, it's nothing to do with my opinion. Brexit has been shit for the country, in every measure. Voting for a party that blames foreigners for everything, thinks climate science isn't real, and that teachers have to be exclusively unaware of social injustice, especially racism. Is a shit idea.
I know you are no fan of Farage or Reform,
Of course.
the immigration policy you call racist,
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
but I read in their policy that they accept immigration is required, what is in the policy you disagree with and makes it racist?
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
I have also read the NHS policy and thought it had some very interesting views in how to tackle recruitment, training and improve the service for those on waiting lists.
As soon as their policies said that they think climate science isn't real, I couldn't be arsed to read anything else, because that trumps everything else. (Pun intended)
On the education policy they have mirrored the direction taken on teaching children about gender identity. I think you may be referring in your above post to the idea that they would ban critical race theory in the classroom? Is that part of their policy you disagree with?
No, they said very clearly that awareness of social injustice, especially racism, should be kept out of schools.
This is the only statement I can see in the education policy that mentions race: "Ban Critical Race Theory in Primary and Secondary Schools.
It is unacceptable to divide children on grounds of race and teach them to be ashamed of their country."
"Looks like they've removed the stuff I was referring to. We'll see if it comes back with their manifesto. " I can see you might consider this as promoting bygone wrongs, but I don't think that is the message. The message is stop using tools that create divide, I guess the question should be do you want critical race theory taught in classes? " No, the message is to spread fear and misinformation amongst the electorate. " The environment policy, doesn't deny warming or CO2 increases, it challenges net zero impacts on the economy and whether human intervention can really slow warming and bring it under control, when history shows us we have seen fluctuations like we are having today. I don't know if that is denying the science or challenging the science. Thin line." Very much denying the science, there is no doubt. Plus the individuals within their party have consistently spread misinformation about climate change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. Because it's a big factor. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Brexit and the rise in popularity of Reform are evidence against this. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE.
But again, you are positing that Brexit/Reform supporters are dullards incapable of making informed decisions. If they're so dumb how come they won the Brexit vote and now seeing Reform surpass the Tories?
What do you mean "won the Brexit vote"? They just happened to vote the same way as a slim majority of others.
I don't understand your argument. Both Brexit and Reform are popular. But both demonstrably a bad idea.
What I was referring to was a referendum in 2016 which resulted in the UK leaving the EU. It was called Brexit.
A bad idea in your opinion that is. Fair enough, but don't portray it as fact.
I'm aware of Brexit. I just didn't understand your point about it.
I mean, it's nothing to do with my opinion. Brexit has been shit for the country, in every measure. Voting for a party that blames foreigners for everything, thinks climate science isn't real, and that teachers have to be exclusively unaware of social injustice, especially racism. Is a shit idea.
I know you are no fan of Farage or Reform,
Of course.
the immigration policy you call racist,
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
but I read in their policy that they accept immigration is required, what is in the policy you disagree with and makes it racist?
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
I have also read the NHS policy and thought it had some very interesting views in how to tackle recruitment, training and improve the service for those on waiting lists.
As soon as their policies said that they think climate science isn't real, I couldn't be arsed to read anything else, because that trumps everything else. (Pun intended)
On the education policy they have mirrored the direction taken on teaching children about gender identity. I think you may be referring in your above post to the idea that they would ban critical race theory in the classroom? Is that part of their policy you disagree with?
No, they said very clearly that awareness of social injustice, especially racism, should be kept out of schools.
This is the only statement I can see in the education policy that mentions race: "Ban Critical Race Theory in Primary and Secondary Schools.
It is unacceptable to divide children on grounds of race and teach them to be ashamed of their country."
I can see you might consider this as promoting bygone wrongs, but I don't think that is the message. The message is stop using tools that create divide, I guess the question should be do you want critical race theory taught in classes?
The environment policy, doesn't deny warming or CO2 increases, it challenges net zero impacts on the economy and whether human intervention can really slow warming and bring it under control, when history shows us we have seen fluctuations like we are having today.
I don't know if that is denying the science or challenging the science. Thin line.
If what you say about how schools teach is true then I would agree it should be stopped. It seems to go against treating everyone equally and telling children to be ashamed of their country is pure madness. For climate I support the notion of science being challenged as this is very important to new discoveries. That said we can only go on the most up to date proven data available."That's the whole point of science. As scientists evolve their understanding, we refine what we know. This doesn't include non-scientists challenging it based on bollocks/religious beliefs/other non-science based opinions. For a political party to promote a non-scientific view over what has been extremely well understood since the 80s. Is frankly alarming. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. Because it's a big factor. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Brexit and the rise in popularity of Reform are evidence against this. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE.
But again, you are positing that Brexit/Reform supporters are dullards incapable of making informed decisions. If they're so dumb how come they won the Brexit vote and now seeing Reform surpass the Tories?
What do you mean "won the Brexit vote"? They just happened to vote the same way as a slim majority of others.
I don't understand your argument. Both Brexit and Reform are popular. But both demonstrably a bad idea.
What I was referring to was a referendum in 2016 which resulted in the UK leaving the EU. It was called Brexit.
A bad idea in your opinion that is. Fair enough, but don't portray it as fact.
I'm aware of Brexit. I just didn't understand your point about it.
I mean, it's nothing to do with my opinion. Brexit has been shit for the country, in every measure. Voting for a party that blames foreigners for everything, thinks climate science isn't real, and that teachers have to be exclusively unaware of social injustice, especially racism. Is a shit idea.
I know you are no fan of Farage or Reform,
Of course.
the immigration policy you call racist,
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
but I read in their policy that they accept immigration is required, what is in the policy you disagree with and makes it racist?
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
I have also read the NHS policy and thought it had some very interesting views in how to tackle recruitment, training and improve the service for those on waiting lists.
As soon as their policies said that they think climate science isn't real, I couldn't be arsed to read anything else, because that trumps everything else. (Pun intended)
On the education policy they have mirrored the direction taken on teaching children about gender identity. I think you may be referring in your above post to the idea that they would ban critical race theory in the classroom? Is that part of their policy you disagree with?
No, they said very clearly that awareness of social injustice, especially racism, should be kept out of schools.
This is the only statement I can see in the education policy that mentions race: "Ban Critical Race Theory in Primary and Secondary Schools.
It is unacceptable to divide children on grounds of race and teach them to be ashamed of their country."
I can see you might consider this as promoting bygone wrongs, but I don't think that is the message. The message is stop using tools that create divide, I guess the question should be do you want critical race theory taught in classes?
The environment policy, doesn't deny warming or CO2 increases, it challenges net zero impacts on the economy and whether human intervention can really slow warming and bring it under control, when history shows us we have seen fluctuations like we are having today.
I don't know if that is denying the science or challenging the science. Thin line.
If what you say about how schools teach is true then I would agree it should be stopped. It seems to go against treating everyone equally and telling children to be ashamed of their country is pure madness. For climate I support the notion of science being challenged as this is very important to new discoveries. That said we can only go on the most up to date proven data available.
That's the whole point of science. As scientists evolve their understanding, we refine what we know. This doesn't include non-scientists challenging it based on bollocks/religious beliefs/other non-science based opinions.
For a political party to promote a non-scientific view over what has been extremely well understood since the 80s. Is frankly alarming. "like with covid you mean that worked well didnt it maybe why trust in the science as dwindled | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d say the “look over here immigrants” rhetoric works just fine. This forum is proof. Two weeks of virtual tumblew33d and relatively light levels of posting in manifesto threads. But mention immigrants and the thread soon starts getting active and argumentative. Look at this one! Of course it is an issue but it suits the political aims of some to make it THE issue. 1. Legal migration can be tackled by adopting a points system to encourage welcome skills and discourage others. 2. Tighter control over student and spousal visas needed. 3. Illegal migration and bogus asylum seekers could be tackled by improved, well financed and resourced Borders and Immigration organisation (speed up processing) but why isn’t it properly funded? Why isn’t there sufficient money to tackle this? Why isn’t the Home Office a protected department for spending review? Who is making money out of the chaotic situation as it stands? Those are the questions people should be focused on. Manifesto threads need people to have the time to sift through the actual manifestos to understand what they're talking about (it's the reason I haven’t engaged in any of them). 'Immigration threads' don't require that same time, because it's mostly already known, so much easier to discuss. However, your 3 points there are sensible. High praise indeed
Just a friendly (not in the mood to argue this morning as simply cannot be arsed) don’t fully agree response to the point on “because it's mostly already known” as I believe many posters haven’t done more than scratch the surface and only understand the emotive superficial argument. I think this is all highly complex and there are bad agents/players st work to ensure we avoid talking about the real and underlying issues.
It is really easy to point at immigrants (legal or illegal) and blame them for things like stretched public services but that means we aren’t discussing the bigger/main reasons. Increased immigration/increased population is a contributing factor but it is not THE factor and yet you’d think it was.
To paraphrase a clever but evil German “the more you keep repeating a lie the easier it is to convince people it is true” and “the best lies are the ones with an element of truth to them”.
A scratch of the surface or a more in depth understand of immigration matters not, people have views. They don't have views on manifestos they haven't read.
I said in another thread 'There needs to be a balance, not 'oh shit, we've let in 2m people, so now we need to go find another 2000 doctors'. If we turn to immigration to find those 2000 doctors then the issue exacerbates. Higher immigration leads to nothing but higher immigration. "On the surface that is an eminently sensible statement but it lacks the broader context. For example (not exhaustive): - We have negative population growth amongst the indigenous population of the UK. - Having kids is expensive and successive Govts have done little to incentivise. - We have a state pension system that acts like a Ponzi pyramid scheme needing ever more young people to pay in for those claiming at the top. - We have too many job vacancies. - The indigenous population seems to either lack the skills (education) or the will to do these jobs. - Some say the jobs do not pay enough to attract British workers but if we increase salaries it leads to inflation and we are all worse off. Etc etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. Because it's a big factor. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Brexit and the rise in popularity of Reform are evidence against this. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE.
But again, you are positing that Brexit/Reform supporters are dullards incapable of making informed decisions. If they're so dumb how come they won the Brexit vote and now seeing Reform surpass the Tories?
What do you mean "won the Brexit vote"? They just happened to vote the same way as a slim majority of others.
I don't understand your argument. Both Brexit and Reform are popular. But both demonstrably a bad idea.
What I was referring to was a referendum in 2016 which resulted in the UK leaving the EU. It was called Brexit.
A bad idea in your opinion that is. Fair enough, but don't portray it as fact.
I'm aware of Brexit. I just didn't understand your point about it.
I mean, it's nothing to do with my opinion. Brexit has been shit for the country, in every measure. Voting for a party that blames foreigners for everything, thinks climate science isn't real, and that teachers have to be exclusively unaware of social injustice, especially racism. Is a shit idea.
I know you are no fan of Farage or Reform,
Of course.
the immigration policy you call racist,
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
but I read in their policy that they accept immigration is required, what is in the policy you disagree with and makes it racist?
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
I have also read the NHS policy and thought it had some very interesting views in how to tackle recruitment, training and improve the service for those on waiting lists.
As soon as their policies said that they think climate science isn't real, I couldn't be arsed to read anything else, because that trumps everything else. (Pun intended)
On the education policy they have mirrored the direction taken on teaching children about gender identity. I think you may be referring in your above post to the idea that they would ban critical race theory in the classroom? Is that part of their policy you disagree with?
No, they said very clearly that awareness of social injustice, especially racism, should be kept out of schools.
This is the only statement I can see in the education policy that mentions race: "Ban Critical Race Theory in Primary and Secondary Schools.
It is unacceptable to divide children on grounds of race and teach them to be ashamed of their country."
I can see you might consider this as promoting bygone wrongs, but I don't think that is the message. The message is stop using tools that create divide, I guess the question should be do you want critical race theory taught in classes?
The environment policy, doesn't deny warming or CO2 increases, it challenges net zero impacts on the economy and whether human intervention can really slow warming and bring it under control, when history shows us we have seen fluctuations like we are having today.
I don't know if that is denying the science or challenging the science. Thin line."have we ever seen such changes in such short space of time ? "research shows that the current climate is changing more rapidly than shown in geological records." British Geological Survey. Can we bring it under control? As we've never been here before we can't give a definitive answer. Yet the ozone layer gives us some indication we can reverse man made damage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. Because it's a big factor. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Brexit and the rise in popularity of Reform are evidence against this. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE.
But again, you are positing that Brexit/Reform supporters are dullards incapable of making informed decisions. If they're so dumb how come they won the Brexit vote and now seeing Reform surpass the Tories?
What do you mean "won the Brexit vote"? They just happened to vote the same way as a slim majority of others.
I don't understand your argument. Both Brexit and Reform are popular. But both demonstrably a bad idea.
What I was referring to was a referendum in 2016 which resulted in the UK leaving the EU. It was called Brexit.
A bad idea in your opinion that is. Fair enough, but don't portray it as fact.
I'm aware of Brexit. I just didn't understand your point about it.
I mean, it's nothing to do with my opinion. Brexit has been shit for the country, in every measure. Voting for a party that blames foreigners for everything, thinks climate science isn't real, and that teachers have to be exclusively unaware of social injustice, especially racism. Is a shit idea.
I know you are no fan of Farage or Reform,
Of course.
the immigration policy you call racist,
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
but I read in their policy that they accept immigration is required, what is in the policy you disagree with and makes it racist?
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
I have also read the NHS policy and thought it had some very interesting views in how to tackle recruitment, training and improve the service for those on waiting lists.
As soon as their policies said that they think climate science isn't real, I couldn't be arsed to read anything else, because that trumps everything else. (Pun intended)
On the education policy they have mirrored the direction taken on teaching children about gender identity. I think you may be referring in your above post to the idea that they would ban critical race theory in the classroom? Is that part of their policy you disagree with?
No, they said very clearly that awareness of social injustice, especially racism, should be kept out of schools.
This is the only statement I can see in the education policy that mentions race: "Ban Critical Race Theory in Primary and Secondary Schools.
It is unacceptable to divide children on grounds of race and teach them to be ashamed of their country."
I can see you might consider this as promoting bygone wrongs, but I don't think that is the message. The message is stop using tools that create divide, I guess the question should be do you want critical race theory taught in classes?
The environment policy, doesn't deny warming or CO2 increases, it challenges net zero impacts on the economy and whether human intervention can really slow warming and bring it under control, when history shows us we have seen fluctuations like we are having today.
I don't know if that is denying the science or challenging the science. Thin line.
If what you say about how schools teach is true then I would agree it should be stopped. It seems to go against treating everyone equally and telling children to be ashamed of their country is pure madness. For climate I support the notion of science being challenged as this is very important to new discoveries. That said we can only go on the most up to date proven data available.
That's the whole point of science. As scientists evolve their understanding, we refine what we know. This doesn't include non-scientists challenging it based on bollocks/religious beliefs/other non-science based opinions.
For a political party to promote a non-scientific view over what has been extremely well understood since the 80s. Is frankly alarming. like with covid you mean that worked well didnt it maybe why trust in the science as dwindled "Exactly, some people don't even know what science is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d say the “look over here immigrants” rhetoric works just fine. This forum is proof. Two weeks of virtual tumblew33d and relatively light levels of posting in manifesto threads. But mention immigrants and the thread soon starts getting active and argumentative. Look at this one! Of course it is an issue but it suits the political aims of some to make it THE issue. 1. Legal migration can be tackled by adopting a points system to encourage welcome skills and discourage others. 2. Tighter control over student and spousal visas needed. 3. Illegal migration and bogus asylum seekers could be tackled by improved, well financed and resourced Borders and Immigration organisation (speed up processing) but why isn’t it properly funded? Why isn’t there sufficient money to tackle this? Why isn’t the Home Office a protected department for spending review? Who is making money out of the chaotic situation as it stands? Those are the questions people should be focused on. Agree with the first two but the third one not completely. Even if we process them, we can't send the failed asylum seekers back because there is no way to deport someone who doesn't have papers and whose home country isn't willing to take them back anyway. I do agree that there are people making money out of this. An easier guess would obviously be the hotels. Remember that the budget for these hotels comes from foreign aid budget. In other words, money that would have been otherwise used to donate to poor countries is being redirected within the country to the hotels." if we can't get rid of someone without papers, how would we get rid of someone if we accepted a hard line ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d say the “look over here immigrants” rhetoric works just fine. This forum is proof. Two weeks of virtual tumblew33d and relatively light levels of posting in manifesto threads. But mention immigrants and the thread soon starts getting active and argumentative. Look at this one! Of course it is an issue but it suits the political aims of some to make it THE issue. 1. Legal migration can be tackled by adopting a points system to encourage welcome skills and discourage others. 2. Tighter control over student and spousal visas needed. 3. Illegal migration and bogus asylum seekers could be tackled by improved, well financed and resourced Borders and Immigration organisation (speed up processing) but why isn’t it properly funded? Why isn’t there sufficient money to tackle this? Why isn’t the Home Office a protected department for spending review? Who is making money out of the chaotic situation as it stands? Those are the questions people should be focused on. Manifesto threads need people to have the time to sift through the actual manifestos to understand what they're talking about (it's the reason I haven’t engaged in any of them). 'Immigration threads' don't require that same time, because it's mostly already known, so much easier to discuss. However, your 3 points there are sensible. High praise indeed
Just a friendly (not in the mood to argue this morning as simply cannot be arsed) don’t fully agree response to the point on “because it's mostly already known” as I believe many posters haven’t done more than scratch the surface and only understand the emotive superficial argument. I think this is all highly complex and there are bad agents/players st work to ensure we avoid talking about the real and underlying issues.
It is really easy to point at immigrants (legal or illegal) and blame them for things like stretched public services but that means we aren’t discussing the bigger/main reasons. Increased immigration/increased population is a contributing factor but it is not THE factor and yet you’d think it was.
To paraphrase a clever but evil German “the more you keep repeating a lie the easier it is to convince people it is true” and “the best lies are the ones with an element of truth to them”.
A scratch of the surface or a more in depth understand of immigration matters not, people have views. They don't have views on manifestos they haven't read.
I said in another thread 'There needs to be a balance, not 'oh shit, we've let in 2m people, so now we need to go find another 2000 doctors'. If we turn to immigration to find those 2000 doctors then the issue exacerbates. Higher immigration leads to nothing but higher immigration.
On the surface that is an eminently sensible statement but it lacks the broader context. For example (not exhaustive):
- We have negative population growth amongst the indigenous population of the UK.
- Having kids is expensive and successive Govts have done little to incentivise.
- We have a state pension system that acts like a Ponzi pyramid scheme needing ever more young people to pay in for those claiming at the top.
- We have too many job vacancies.
- The indigenous population seems to either lack the skills (education) or the will to do these jobs.
- Some say the jobs do not pay enough to attract British workers but if we increase salaries it leads to inflation and we are all worse off.
Etc etc "Which leads me squarely back to 'balanced approach'. I'm not against immigration, but I am against immigration that doesn't have a net positive impact on the country (exc. some asylum seekers, for which I feel we need more robust criteria). This should tie in with being stricter in terms of indigenous population receiving unemployment benefits. No one should be unemployed unless physically unable to work, and even then, there would be jobs most can do. I'll be accused of target the ill no doubt, but the whole country is fucked for a wide variety of reasons, and we need some drastic measures to fix it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. Because it's a big factor. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Brexit and the rise in popularity of Reform are evidence against this. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE.
But again, you are positing that Brexit/Reform supporters are dullards incapable of making informed decisions. If they're so dumb how come they won the Brexit vote and now seeing Reform surpass the Tories?
What do you mean "won the Brexit vote"? They just happened to vote the same way as a slim majority of others.
I don't understand your argument. Both Brexit and Reform are popular. But both demonstrably a bad idea.
What I was referring to was a referendum in 2016 which resulted in the UK leaving the EU. It was called Brexit.
A bad idea in your opinion that is. Fair enough, but don't portray it as fact.
I'm aware of Brexit. I just didn't understand your point about it.
I mean, it's nothing to do with my opinion. Brexit has been shit for the country, in every measure. Voting for a party that blames foreigners for everything, thinks climate science isn't real, and that teachers have to be exclusively unaware of social injustice, especially racism. Is a shit idea.
I know you are no fan of Farage or Reform,
Of course.
the immigration policy you call racist,
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
but I read in their policy that they accept immigration is required, what is in the policy you disagree with and makes it racist?
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
I have also read the NHS policy and thought it had some very interesting views in how to tackle recruitment, training and improve the service for those on waiting lists.
As soon as their policies said that they think climate science isn't real, I couldn't be arsed to read anything else, because that trumps everything else. (Pun intended)
On the education policy they have mirrored the direction taken on teaching children about gender identity. I think you may be referring in your above post to the idea that they would ban critical race theory in the classroom? Is that part of their policy you disagree with?
No, they said very clearly that awareness of social injustice, especially racism, should be kept out of schools.
This is the only statement I can see in the education policy that mentions race: "Ban Critical Race Theory in Primary and Secondary Schools.
It is unacceptable to divide children on grounds of race and teach them to be ashamed of their country."
I can see you might consider this as promoting bygone wrongs, but I don't think that is the message. The message is stop using tools that create divide, I guess the question should be do you want critical race theory taught in classes?
The environment policy, doesn't deny warming or CO2 increases, it challenges net zero impacts on the economy and whether human intervention can really slow warming and bring it under control, when history shows us we have seen fluctuations like we are having today.
I don't know if that is denying the science or challenging the science. Thin line.have we ever seen such changes in such short space of time ?
"research shows that the current climate is changing more rapidly than shown in geological records."
British Geological Survey.
Can we bring it under control?
As we've never been here before we can't give a definitive answer. Yet the ozone layer gives us some indication we can reverse man made damage. "Research also shows we're fed from the media 'bright red' maps for temperatures over 20°c. What was it said earlier about the media influence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. Because it's a big factor. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Brexit and the rise in popularity of Reform are evidence against this. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE.
But again, you are positing that Brexit/Reform supporters are dullards incapable of making informed decisions. If they're so dumb how come they won the Brexit vote and now seeing Reform surpass the Tories?
What do you mean "won the Brexit vote"? They just happened to vote the same way as a slim majority of others.
I don't understand your argument. Both Brexit and Reform are popular. But both demonstrably a bad idea.
What I was referring to was a referendum in 2016 which resulted in the UK leaving the EU. It was called Brexit.
A bad idea in your opinion that is. Fair enough, but don't portray it as fact.
I'm aware of Brexit. I just didn't understand your point about it.
I mean, it's nothing to do with my opinion. Brexit has been shit for the country, in every measure. Voting for a party that blames foreigners for everything, thinks climate science isn't real, and that teachers have to be exclusively unaware of social injustice, especially racism. Is a shit idea.
I know you are no fan of Farage or Reform,
Of course.
the immigration policy you call racist,
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
but I read in their policy that they accept immigration is required, what is in the policy you disagree with and makes it racist?
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
I have also read the NHS policy and thought it had some very interesting views in how to tackle recruitment, training and improve the service for those on waiting lists.
As soon as their policies said that they think climate science isn't real, I couldn't be arsed to read anything else, because that trumps everything else. (Pun intended)
On the education policy they have mirrored the direction taken on teaching children about gender identity. I think you may be referring in your above post to the idea that they would ban critical race theory in the classroom? Is that part of their policy you disagree with?
No, they said very clearly that awareness of social injustice, especially racism, should be kept out of schools.
This is the only statement I can see in the education policy that mentions race: "Ban Critical Race Theory in Primary and Secondary Schools.
It is unacceptable to divide children on grounds of race and teach them to be ashamed of their country."
I can see you might consider this as promoting bygone wrongs, but I don't think that is the message. The message is stop using tools that create divide, I guess the question should be do you want critical race theory taught in classes?
The environment policy, doesn't deny warming or CO2 increases, it challenges net zero impacts on the economy and whether human intervention can really slow warming and bring it under control, when history shows us we have seen fluctuations like we are having today.
I don't know if that is denying the science or challenging the science. Thin line.have we ever seen such changes in such short space of time ?
"research shows that the current climate is changing more rapidly than shown in geological records."
British Geological Survey.
Can we bring it under control?
As we've never been here before we can't give a definitive answer. Yet the ozone layer gives us some indication we can reverse man made damage.
Research also shows we're fed from the media 'bright red' maps for temperatures over 20°c. What was it said earlier about the media influence. "I'm not sure how that links to my points? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. Because it's a big factor. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Brexit and the rise in popularity of Reform are evidence against this. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE.
But again, you are positing that Brexit/Reform supporters are dullards incapable of making informed decisions. If they're so dumb how come they won the Brexit vote and now seeing Reform surpass the Tories?
What do you mean "won the Brexit vote"? They just happened to vote the same way as a slim majority of others.
I don't understand your argument. Both Brexit and Reform are popular. But both demonstrably a bad idea.
What I was referring to was a referendum in 2016 which resulted in the UK leaving the EU. It was called Brexit.
A bad idea in your opinion that is. Fair enough, but don't portray it as fact.
I'm aware of Brexit. I just didn't understand your point about it.
I mean, it's nothing to do with my opinion. Brexit has been shit for the country, in every measure. Voting for a party that blames foreigners for everything, thinks climate science isn't real, and that teachers have to be exclusively unaware of social injustice, especially racism. Is a shit idea.
I know you are no fan of Farage or Reform,
Of course.
the immigration policy you call racist,
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
but I read in their policy that they accept immigration is required, what is in the policy you disagree with and makes it racist?
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
I have also read the NHS policy and thought it had some very interesting views in how to tackle recruitment, training and improve the service for those on waiting lists.
As soon as their policies said that they think climate science isn't real, I couldn't be arsed to read anything else, because that trumps everything else. (Pun intended)
On the education policy they have mirrored the direction taken on teaching children about gender identity. I think you may be referring in your above post to the idea that they would ban critical race theory in the classroom? Is that part of their policy you disagree with?
No, they said very clearly that awareness of social injustice, especially racism, should be kept out of schools.
This is the only statement I can see in the education policy that mentions race: "Ban Critical Race Theory in Primary and Secondary Schools.
It is unacceptable to divide children on grounds of race and teach them to be ashamed of their country."
I can see you might consider this as promoting bygone wrongs, but I don't think that is the message. The message is stop using tools that create divide, I guess the question should be do you want critical race theory taught in classes?
The environment policy, doesn't deny warming or CO2 increases, it challenges net zero impacts on the economy and whether human intervention can really slow warming and bring it under control, when history shows us we have seen fluctuations like we are having today.
I don't know if that is denying the science or challenging the science. Thin line.have we ever seen such changes in such short space of time ?
"research shows that the current climate is changing more rapidly than shown in geological records."
British Geological Survey.
Can we bring it under control?
As we've never been here before we can't give a definitive answer. Yet the ozone layer gives us some indication we can reverse man made damage.
Research also shows we're fed from the media 'bright red' maps for temperatures over 20°c. What was it said earlier about the media influence. "Interesting point. It was widely reported that May was the hottest month ever. As a grower I thought this odd because growth was clearly held back by low temperatures. Turns out the figures presented were mean values of day + night. In fact daytime temperatures were way below average for May. All in the numbers and how they're presented. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. Because it's a big factor. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Brexit and the rise in popularity of Reform are evidence against this. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE.
But again, you are positing that Brexit/Reform supporters are dullards incapable of making informed decisions. If they're so dumb how come they won the Brexit vote and now seeing Reform surpass the Tories?
What do you mean "won the Brexit vote"? They just happened to vote the same way as a slim majority of others.
I don't understand your argument. Both Brexit and Reform are popular. But both demonstrably a bad idea.
What I was referring to was a referendum in 2016 which resulted in the UK leaving the EU. It was called Brexit.
A bad idea in your opinion that is. Fair enough, but don't portray it as fact.
I'm aware of Brexit. I just didn't understand your point about it.
I mean, it's nothing to do with my opinion. Brexit has been shit for the country, in every measure. Voting for a party that blames foreigners for everything, thinks climate science isn't real, and that teachers have to be exclusively unaware of social injustice, especially racism. Is a shit idea.
I know you are no fan of Farage or Reform,
Of course.
the immigration policy you call racist,
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
but I read in their policy that they accept immigration is required, what is in the policy you disagree with and makes it racist?
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
I have also read the NHS policy and thought it had some very interesting views in how to tackle recruitment, training and improve the service for those on waiting lists.
As soon as their policies said that they think climate science isn't real, I couldn't be arsed to read anything else, because that trumps everything else. (Pun intended)
On the education policy they have mirrored the direction taken on teaching children about gender identity. I think you may be referring in your above post to the idea that they would ban critical race theory in the classroom? Is that part of their policy you disagree with?
No, they said very clearly that awareness of social injustice, especially racism, should be kept out of schools.
This is the only statement I can see in the education policy that mentions race: "Ban Critical Race Theory in Primary and Secondary Schools.
It is unacceptable to divide children on grounds of race and teach them to be ashamed of their country."
I can see you might consider this as promoting bygone wrongs, but I don't think that is the message. The message is stop using tools that create divide, I guess the question should be do you want critical race theory taught in classes?
The environment policy, doesn't deny warming or CO2 increases, it challenges net zero impacts on the economy and whether human intervention can really slow warming and bring it under control, when history shows us we have seen fluctuations like we are having today.
I don't know if that is denying the science or challenging the science. Thin line.have we ever seen such changes in such short space of time ?
"research shows that the current climate is changing more rapidly than shown in geological records."
British Geological Survey.
Can we bring it under control?
As we've never been here before we can't give a definitive answer. Yet the ozone layer gives us some indication we can reverse man made damage.
Research also shows we're fed from the media 'bright red' maps for temperatures over 20°c. What was it said earlier about the media influence. I'm not sure how that links to my points?"It links to how 'science' is presented to us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. Because it's a big factor. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Brexit and the rise in popularity of Reform are evidence against this. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE.
But again, you are positing that Brexit/Reform supporters are dullards incapable of making informed decisions. If they're so dumb how come they won the Brexit vote and now seeing Reform surpass the Tories?
What do you mean "won the Brexit vote"? They just happened to vote the same way as a slim majority of others.
I don't understand your argument. Both Brexit and Reform are popular. But both demonstrably a bad idea.
What I was referring to was a referendum in 2016 which resulted in the UK leaving the EU. It was called Brexit.
A bad idea in your opinion that is. Fair enough, but don't portray it as fact.
I'm aware of Brexit. I just didn't understand your point about it.
I mean, it's nothing to do with my opinion. Brexit has been shit for the country, in every measure. Voting for a party that blames foreigners for everything, thinks climate science isn't real, and that teachers have to be exclusively unaware of social injustice, especially racism. Is a shit idea.
I know you are no fan of Farage or Reform,
Of course.
the immigration policy you call racist,
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
but I read in their policy that they accept immigration is required, what is in the policy you disagree with and makes it racist?
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
I have also read the NHS policy and thought it had some very interesting views in how to tackle recruitment, training and improve the service for those on waiting lists.
As soon as their policies said that they think climate science isn't real, I couldn't be arsed to read anything else, because that trumps everything else. (Pun intended)
On the education policy they have mirrored the direction taken on teaching children about gender identity. I think you may be referring in your above post to the idea that they would ban critical race theory in the classroom? Is that part of their policy you disagree with?
No, they said very clearly that awareness of social injustice, especially racism, should be kept out of schools.
This is the only statement I can see in the education policy that mentions race: "Ban Critical Race Theory in Primary and Secondary Schools.
It is unacceptable to divide children on grounds of race and teach them to be ashamed of their country."
I can see you might consider this as promoting bygone wrongs, but I don't think that is the message. The message is stop using tools that create divide, I guess the question should be do you want critical race theory taught in classes?
The environment policy, doesn't deny warming or CO2 increases, it challenges net zero impacts on the economy and whether human intervention can really slow warming and bring it under control, when history shows us we have seen fluctuations like we are having today.
I don't know if that is denying the science or challenging the science. Thin line.have we ever seen such changes in such short space of time ?
"research shows that the current climate is changing more rapidly than shown in geological records."
British Geological Survey.
Can we bring it under control?
As we've never been here before we can't give a definitive answer. Yet the ozone layer gives us some indication we can reverse man made damage. "I’m not going to pretend to be an expert in global warming, but I’m also not going to simply take the word of loudest voice either. The above policies and thinking are not mine and I’m not supporting or rejecting the Reform parties views either. I think they are challenging people who are steadfast in their ways, and this is why Farage is making gains, he is offering another voice to the saturated over promise and under deliver politics we have today. I can see he speaks in a way that will rub up people like Johnny who is a climate change ambassador, or people who want their children to have gender choice in schools, however there are opinions that have been buried under the eagerness to appear to be politically correct. I say politically correct because that is how I have seen the tories and the rest of the EU on issues such as net zero, throwing out arbitrary dates that are not achievable, nobody in their right mind thought we would meet the Electric car dates. There has now been a swing away from these promises and the directions things were going across the board and this is why the right are making ground and why Farage will be listened to, he has been here before and got what he wanted, he has the t-shirt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? Immigration is a problem pretty much everywhere. In India, people from one state complain about immigration from other states within the country and that hardly has anything to do with media because media doesn't cover anything like that. The idea that people with vastly different cultural values can magically live together without any issues is a pipe dream that only lefties can imagine. Instead of blaming right wing media or anything else, if the left could actually understand people's concerns, things wouldn't be this bad. So you don’t believe media influences people’s perception of things? Do you believe only right wing media influences people? Absolutely not, all media influences. Now, do you believe media influences people? If the both sides of the media influence people, how do you explain the left wing of it having more consumption than the right wing? I’m not sure what you mean. Of you're not. The left wing media has a higher consumption rate than the right wing media. If the left wing media have spent years telling us immigration is wonderful, why don't we have a higher proportion of people who actually think that way? If, of course, the media has the influence you believe it does. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that left wing media has a higher consumption rate? You're free to go look up the figures. Then check against media bias check. Yes, there is evidence. It seems you don't have an answer so will now try to discredit. That's typical of the left. So you’ve no evidence then. Thanks for playing but try harder next time x" Bit rich when as soon as someone post evidence you acuse them of being Ben Shipiro and trying to get "gotcha moments " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how concerned about immigration people would be if the right wing media hadn’t been blaming it for all the nation’s woes for the last 20 years. Availability bias? It's a favourite tactic of the left to blame the 'right wing media' for people's opinions. Because it's a big factor. It's both patronising and wrong - people are far more informed than that, and able to sift information. Brexit and the rise in popularity of Reform are evidence against this. Apart from which, what about the hysterical leftist stories we see in the Guardian? They're as bad, if not worse, than the DM and DE.
But again, you are positing that Brexit/Reform supporters are dullards incapable of making informed decisions. If they're so dumb how come they won the Brexit vote and now seeing Reform surpass the Tories?
What do you mean "won the Brexit vote"? They just happened to vote the same way as a slim majority of others.
I don't understand your argument. Both Brexit and Reform are popular. But both demonstrably a bad idea.
What I was referring to was a referendum in 2016 which resulted in the UK leaving the EU. It was called Brexit.
A bad idea in your opinion that is. Fair enough, but don't portray it as fact.
I'm aware of Brexit. I just didn't understand your point about it.
I mean, it's nothing to do with my opinion. Brexit has been shit for the country, in every measure. Voting for a party that blames foreigners for everything, thinks climate science isn't real, and that teachers have to be exclusively unaware of social injustice, especially racism. Is a shit idea.
I know you are no fan of Farage or Reform,
Of course.
the immigration policy you call racist,
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
but I read in their policy that they accept immigration is required, what is in the policy you disagree with and makes it racist?
I haven't called their immigration policy racist.
I have also read the NHS policy and thought it had some very interesting views in how to tackle recruitment, training and improve the service for those on waiting lists.
As soon as their policies said that they think climate science isn't real, I couldn't be arsed to read anything else, because that trumps everything else. (Pun intended)
On the education policy they have mirrored the direction taken on teaching children about gender identity. I think you may be referring in your above post to the idea that they would ban critical race theory in the classroom? Is that part of their policy you disagree with?
No, they said very clearly that awareness of social injustice, especially racism, should be kept out of schools.
This is the only statement I can see in the education policy that mentions race: "Ban Critical Race Theory in Primary and Secondary Schools.
It is unacceptable to divide children on grounds of race and teach them to be ashamed of their country."
I can see you might consider this as promoting bygone wrongs, but I don't think that is the message. The message is stop using tools that create divide, I guess the question should be do you want critical race theory taught in classes?
The environment policy, doesn't deny warming or CO2 increases, it challenges net zero impacts on the economy and whether human intervention can really slow warming and bring it under control, when history shows us we have seen fluctuations like we are having today.
I don't know if that is denying the science or challenging the science. Thin line.have we ever seen such changes in such short space of time ?
"research shows that the current climate is changing more rapidly than shown in geological records."
British Geological Survey.
Can we bring it under control?
As we've never been here before we can't give a definitive answer. Yet the ozone layer gives us some indication we can reverse man made damage. "we have just been told April and may this year was hottest since records began what a load of bollocks science like everything is for sale covid proved that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
