| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle 16:15 - Aug 8 with 20793 views | baxterbasics |
Oh dear indeed. No wonder these hypocrites want to censor social media - they need to cover their tracks!
|  |
| |  |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 06:40 - Aug 11 with 3449 views | Swansea_Blue |
Given the numbers, I don’t think he’s talking about asylum seekers. Pecil’s just got a problem with anyone coming here. |  |
| |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 06:48 - Aug 11 with 3445 views | Benters |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 16:29 - Aug 8 by textbackup |
Best one is that Kent councillor stating ‘cut their throats’ and getting a massive cheer, at a peaceful rally…
Or that Narinder Kaur calling for mass riots when George Floyd was murdered. |
Now that was appalling. |  |
| |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 08:05 - Aug 11 with 3365 views | lowhouseblue |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 06:40 - Aug 11 by Swansea_Blue |
Given the numbers, I don’t think he’s talking about asylum seekers. Pecil’s just got a problem with anyone coming here. |
that's not true though is it. he says he wants net migration to be about 100,000. so given emigration, that's new long-term arrivals of over half a million a year. that's hardly a 'problem with anyone coming here'. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 12:01 - Aug 11 with 3284 views | bournemouthblue |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 06:40 - Aug 11 by Swansea_Blue |
Given the numbers, I don’t think he’s talking about asylum seekers. Pecil’s just got a problem with anyone coming here. |
The language seemed pretty clumsy on their part if that wasn't what they actually meant
I appreciate the right-wing gutter press, Tommeh, Nige and the Tory Party would have to believe that was the number of people coming in on small boats
I can't get my head around the Tories trying to make 'Stop the Boats' their key election pledge when they have made a total mess of that with the Rwanda scheme too
They were the ones who told you Brexit would control immigration, it has actually gone up as a result
It's almost like Brexit was a red herring, like the 'Remoaners' told people it would be |  |
| |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 14:33 - Aug 11 with 3200 views | DJR |
It is curious that people with concerns about immigration have misgivings about calling the protesters far right. If that were me, I would want to put as much distance between myself and them, and so would happily embrace the term to describe people being openly violent and racist and attacking mosques and hotels with asylum seekers, which is not the way to address concerns about immigration.
As it is, the Tories and UKIP didn't win a majority of the votes between them, even though they both made immigration a key election issue, so there is no real mandate for that issue to have achieved the prominence that it has.
"Let the old suffer!"
And as regards cutting down numbers further than is currently happening, some universities are apparently already on the brink of collapse, and there has already been a drop in the numbers coming for social care, not ideal with an aging population and a birth rate per woman of 1.41, and even lower in Scotland.
"What do we want? Cuts in social care! When do we want it? Now!"
[Post edited 11 Aug 2024 14:41]
|  | | |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 15:24 - Aug 11 with 3145 views | lowhouseblue |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 14:33 - Aug 11 by DJR |
It is curious that people with concerns about immigration have misgivings about calling the protesters far right. If that were me, I would want to put as much distance between myself and them, and so would happily embrace the term to describe people being openly violent and racist and attacking mosques and hotels with asylum seekers, which is not the way to address concerns about immigration.
As it is, the Tories and UKIP didn't win a majority of the votes between them, even though they both made immigration a key election issue, so there is no real mandate for that issue to have achieved the prominence that it has.
"Let the old suffer!"
And as regards cutting down numbers further than is currently happening, some universities are apparently already on the brink of collapse, and there has already been a drop in the numbers coming for social care, not ideal with an aging population and a birth rate per woman of 1.41, and even lower in Scotland.
"What do we want? Cuts in social care! When do we want it? Now!"
[Post edited 11 Aug 2024 14:41]
|
"And as regards cutting down numbers further than is currently happening" ... net migration was some 2 million in the last 3 years. no sane person can claim that is sustainable. and education doesn't drive big changes in net migration - students come in, they graduate, and eventually a similar number go out again - netting arrivals against departures means the number studying here is not driving the big changes in net migration. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 16:41 - Aug 11 with 3071 views | DJR |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 15:24 - Aug 11 by lowhouseblue |
"And as regards cutting down numbers further than is currently happening" ... net migration was some 2 million in the last 3 years. no sane person can claim that is sustainable. and education doesn't drive big changes in net migration - students come in, they graduate, and eventually a similar number go out again - netting arrivals against departures means the number studying here is not driving the big changes in net migration. |
This a good explainer of the position, and indicates the 2 million figure is a fair degree out.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-internationa
Perhaps the bizarre thing is that since Johnson came to power, the brakes have been released but that just shows how much of a conman Johnson was because he was always someone who favoured immigration. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 20:10 - Aug 11 with 2950 views | lowhouseblue |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 16:41 - Aug 11 by DJR |
This a good explainer of the position, and indicates the 2 million figure is a fair degree out.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-internationa
Perhaps the bizarre thing is that since Johnson came to power, the brakes have been released but that just shows how much of a conman Johnson was because he was always someone who favoured immigration. |
the 3 year net migration total comes form the ons - ie the uk's national statistics body:
it's very odd that people don't want to engage with this number. it clearly is not sustainable. but there's an 'immigration good, therefore the number doesn't matter' mentality. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 21:16 - Aug 11 with 2839 views | lowhouseblue |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 20:36 - Aug 11 by DJR |
There clearly is a debate to be had but it's a far from straightforward area (what do we do about social care if British people aren't prepared to work in it?), and demonising migrants (including people who've been here for decades) isn't the answer and doesn't permit reasoned debate.
But those responsible for the situation are those who voted Tory in 2019, which led to the Tory party taking off the breaks, and at the same time not planning for an increase in population.
And with Australia having double the number of foreign born inhabitants than the UK, it shows that it iss possible to plan for such things. [Post edited 11 Aug 2024 21:02]
|
is australia really a sensible comparison? a country with a small population, a huge land mass and a long term (from it's very early non-indigenous days) strategy to grow through migration. demonising migrants is very very bad. but discussing public policy isn't demonising anyone. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 10:37 - Aug 12 with 2657 views | DJR |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 21:16 - Aug 11 by lowhouseblue |
is australia really a sensible comparison? a country with a small population, a huge land mass and a long term (from it's very early non-indigenous days) strategy to grow through migration. demonising migrants is very very bad. but discussing public policy isn't demonising anyone. |
But the demonisation has been going on since the turn of the century in the right wing media and with politicians on the right, and it featured strongly in the Brexit vote with both Vote Leave and Leave EU putting out disgraceful posters suggesting we were going to be invaded by millions of Muslims.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=SCra2sdo&id=8EFC3C
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=JYlnbx%2BD&id=5275
With such a background, rational debate is rather difficult, and such debate is necessary with it emerging today that there had been a drop of over 10% in applications to medical school. | | | |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 11:15 - Aug 12 with 2589 views | eireblue |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 20:10 - Aug 11 by lowhouseblue |
the 3 year net migration total comes form the ons - ie the uk's national statistics body:
it's very odd that people don't want to engage with this number. it clearly is not sustainable. but there's an 'immigration good, therefore the number doesn't matter' mentality. |
Maybe it is too simplistic a number.
Pre and post Brexit, was the number a result of free movement of labour, and now it is non-EU permanent migration or fixed length work visa’s.
And I believe, net EU migration is negative.
It sure is a good number to stir emotions, and as we saw earlier on this thread, people are not necessarily aware of what the immigration number is or means. |  | | |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 12:07 - Aug 12 with 2536 views | lowhouseblue |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 11:15 - Aug 12 by eireblue |
Maybe it is too simplistic a number.
Pre and post Brexit, was the number a result of free movement of labour, and now it is non-EU permanent migration or fixed length work visa’s.
And I believe, net EU migration is negative.
It sure is a good number to stir emotions, and as we saw earlier on this thread, people are not necessarily aware of what the immigration number is or means. |
why is a number published by the office of national statistics "too simplistic" and "a good number to stir emotions"? normally we consider national statistics to be facts around which policy is discussed. do you have some alternative facts that you prefer?
of course after brexit migration from the eu has been reversed and migration from the rest of the world has risen. i haven't made any point about where migrants are coming from - i'm just pointing out the total number for net migration over the most recent period.
i find it really odd that people want to reject a number published by the office of national statistics - it's all a bit trumpian. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 12:12 - Aug 12 with 2513 views | eireblue |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 12:07 - Aug 12 by lowhouseblue |
why is a number published by the office of national statistics "too simplistic" and "a good number to stir emotions"? normally we consider national statistics to be facts around which policy is discussed. do you have some alternative facts that you prefer?
of course after brexit migration from the eu has been reversed and migration from the rest of the world has risen. i haven't made any point about where migrants are coming from - i'm just pointing out the total number for net migration over the most recent period.
i find it really odd that people want to reject a number published by the office of national statistics - it's all a bit trumpian. |
I didn’t say reject stats did I? | | | |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 12:26 - Aug 12 with 2487 views | lowhouseblue |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 12:12 - Aug 12 by eireblue |
I didn’t say reject stats did I? |
no you didn't. you just said the ons stat was "too simplistic" and "a good number to stir emotions". but others on the thread have had a go at denying the number. weird isn't it. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 12:34 - Aug 12 with 2450 views | eireblue |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 12:26 - Aug 12 by lowhouseblue |
no you didn't. you just said the ons stat was "too simplistic" and "a good number to stir emotions". but others on the thread have had a go at denying the number. weird isn't it. |
You forgot the maybe.
So a debating point not an absolute statement.
And it does stir emotions, is that not true? People do get angry at the numbers, don’t they? | | | |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 12:46 - Aug 12 with 2423 views | lowhouseblue |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 12:34 - Aug 12 by eireblue |
You forgot the maybe.
So a debating point not an absolute statement.
And it does stir emotions, is that not true? People do get angry at the numbers, don’t they? |
i agree it shouldn't be an emotive discussion, it shouldn't dehumanise or demonise anyone. for me it should start from the well evidenced assertion that immigration is a beneficial thing. but what number is sustainable? and can the number become too large to integrate new people successfully? historically, socially, culturally we are currently seeing an unprecedented event in terms of the numbers arriving over a short period. and the liberal media and people on the left generally don't want to engage with it. you can be very positive about immigration but still think that the actual number matters. [Post edited 12 Aug 2024 12:47]
| |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 13:40 - Aug 12 with 2367 views | eireblue |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 12:46 - Aug 12 by lowhouseblue |
i agree it shouldn't be an emotive discussion, it shouldn't dehumanise or demonise anyone. for me it should start from the well evidenced assertion that immigration is a beneficial thing. but what number is sustainable? and can the number become too large to integrate new people successfully? historically, socially, culturally we are currently seeing an unprecedented event in terms of the numbers arriving over a short period. and the liberal media and people on the left generally don't want to engage with it. you can be very positive about immigration but still think that the actual number matters. [Post edited 12 Aug 2024 12:47]
|
Yes and that is not unreasonable.
What I would add is when immigration was much lower, there was still lots of anti-immigration rhetoric. E.g. No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish.
I think the idea of integration vs being accepting of a multi-cultural society is also important.
And in terms of numbers, consequences of having immigration below a number should be acknowledged as well as demographics.
I know I maybe slightly misquoting, the sentiment, it is better to be poorer and have less immigration is good, has been expressed by people before. People proposing much lower immigration, should be clear about consequences, and allow a proper informed democratic decision.
Personally if 2 or 100 Zoroastrians turned up near where I lived, it wouldn’t really bother me at all.
Quite happy for them to follow the teachings of Zorro (I thinks thats right, must check one day), follow the U.K. Law, attempt to be productive members of society, but not enforce me to wear a silky black hat and eye mask in the heat.
I appreciate the phrase “attempt to be productive members of society” is carrying a lot, e.g. it wouldn’t be productive if 100 local fencing instructors became unemployed due to an influx of fancy dan swashbucklers. [Post edited 12 Aug 2024 14:15]
| | | |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 14:35 - Aug 12 with 2304 views | Buhrer |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 14:11 - Aug 10 by reusersfreekicks |
Planned on social media to trick and divert police.
Rest of what you say is mostly nonsense.
Southport thugs were largely not from Southport.
But hey keep rationalising if that's your thing |
I only saw this re Southport, all fairly local tbh; "A 31-year-old man from St Helens was arrested on suspicion of violent disorder. A man, 31, from West Derby, Liverpool was arrested on suspicion of violent disorder. A 39-year-old man from Southport was arrested on suspicion of violent disorder and a 32-year-old man from Manchester with a probation address in Southport was arrested on suspicion of affray and possession of a bladed article." |  | | |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 19:50 - Aug 12 with 2206 views | lowhouseblue |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 13:40 - Aug 12 by eireblue |
Yes and that is not unreasonable.
What I would add is when immigration was much lower, there was still lots of anti-immigration rhetoric. E.g. No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish.
I think the idea of integration vs being accepting of a multi-cultural society is also important.
And in terms of numbers, consequences of having immigration below a number should be acknowledged as well as demographics.
I know I maybe slightly misquoting, the sentiment, it is better to be poorer and have less immigration is good, has been expressed by people before. People proposing much lower immigration, should be clear about consequences, and allow a proper informed democratic decision.
Personally if 2 or 100 Zoroastrians turned up near where I lived, it wouldn’t really bother me at all.
Quite happy for them to follow the teachings of Zorro (I thinks thats right, must check one day), follow the U.K. Law, attempt to be productive members of society, but not enforce me to wear a silky black hat and eye mask in the heat.
I appreciate the phrase “attempt to be productive members of society” is carrying a lot, e.g. it wouldn’t be productive if 100 local fencing instructors became unemployed due to an influx of fancy dan swashbucklers. [Post edited 12 Aug 2024 14:15]
|
great, as long as the people who actually live in the places where an extra 2 million people have arrived since 2020 agree with you then we don't have a problem. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 12:05 - Aug 13 with 2049 views | jayessess |
| Lauren Edwards MP: chortle on 12:46 - Aug 12 by lowhouseblue |
i agree it shouldn't be an emotive discussion, it shouldn't dehumanise or demonise anyone. for me it should start from the well evidenced assertion that immigration is a beneficial thing. but what number is sustainable? and can the number become too large to integrate new people successfully? historically, socially, culturally we are currently seeing an unprecedented event in terms of the numbers arriving over a short period. and the liberal media and people on the left generally don't want to engage with it. you can be very positive about immigration but still think that the actual number matters. [Post edited 12 Aug 2024 12:47]
|
I think the numbers are just an abstract for me and for most people. Is 700,000 a lot of people? Don't know, depends on the context. It's one reason why that raw number is often lobbed into a toxic mix with illegal immigration, intangible stuff like cultural change, over-simplified arguments about pressure on services and housing or fixated on particular individuals unrepresentative of most migrants (like criminals or large families receiving enormous welfare resources).
Maybe 700k is "unsustainable" but I don't think that can be straightforwardly read off the figure. It contained a big drop in international students, which has reduced the financial resources available to universities, resources they need in order to cross-subsidise the education of domestic students. So, ideally the 600k we dole out to students would be bigger not smaller.
There's been an almost entirely unwelcome 82% drop in visa applications to work in Health and Social Care this year, which again might suggest we want the work visa figures to be going up rather than down. Talk about pressure on services!
One thing that strikes me is that the immigration discussion has rumbled on for decades and decades and decades. It has done so even as net migration has varied massively over time. We had negative net migration in this country in the 1960s and 1970s, but we've arguably never talked more about immigrants than we did in those two decades. Net migration and asylum seekers were down in the 2010s but the tenor of public discussion about it barely changed. To me that feels like "there are too many immigrants" is a general intangible ~feeling~ that hums along in the background. It's an orientation towards how life in Britain feels and looks. The meaning of rest of the discussion, including the material things, the small boats stuff and the abstract numbers, all proceed from that starting place. [Post edited 13 Aug 2024 12:07]
|  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
