| Reform 06:58 - May 2 with 18525 views | Benters |
Well done.
They don’t like it up em 👍🇬🇧 |  |
| |  |
| Reform on 23:45 - May 2 with 1355 views | Herbivore |
| Reform on 23:43 - May 2 by NeedhamChris |
He's not said that though, has he.
Lowhouse has rightly pointed out the relatively higher support for Reform UK within the working class compared to other classes. If people say voting Reform = racist, then on that logic the working class are more likely to be racist too.
In fairness, you have correctly pointed out that the majority of working-class voters still support other major parties. Reassuringly, you're right.
Neither of your points is necessarily contradictory with each other - but only one of you is being an abusive, sanctimonious troll, and it's not Lowhouse. |
I am right, thanks. And as for being a sanctimonious troll, please don't break my irony meter. I've only just replaced it. |  |
| |
| Reform on 23:48 - May 2 with 1342 views | brazil1982 |
| Reform on 21:48 - May 2 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Bluebudgie, care to explain which of these is not an accurate representation of everything that Farage stands for?
Or to offer anything else that he stands for? |
When has Farrage said what you quote here? |  | | |
| Reform on 23:49 - May 2 with 1325 views | brazil1982 |
| Reform on 17:29 - May 2 by lowhouseblue |
you never have any answers just unpleasant contempt for anyone who doesn't share your views. do you ever look at yourself? you don't debate just sneer in an incredibly unself-aware manner. if you were quite as all knowing as you clearly believe you would actually have some reasoned responses. hey ho. |
Student union politics. | | | |
| Reform on 23:52 - May 2 with 1282 views | NeedhamChris |
| Reform on 23:49 - May 2 by brazil1982 |
Student union politics. |
Talk about being fancy. In my primary school they just called it playtime. |  |
| |
| Reform on 23:53 - May 2 with 1285 views | Herbivore |
| Reform on 23:52 - May 2 by NeedhamChris |
Talk about being fancy. In my primary school they just called it playtime. |
And yet it's still way above your level. | |
| |
| Reform on 01:05 - May 3 with 1089 views | reusersfreekicks |
| Reform on 23:22 - May 2 by BlueRobin |
He didn't say it was "the entire working class". He gave you the figures. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Red card, 4 game ban. Don't post again. |
WTAF. Who do you think you are? |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Reform on 02:48 - May 3 with 1041 views | Kropotkin123 |
| Reform on 08:19 - May 2 by Lord_Lucan |
Like it or lump it Herbivore but the reason people are voting Reform is because of people like you.
Whenever people question the amount and speed of uncontrolled immigration they are called racist or idiotic schoolboy comments about a dislike of “Brown people”
You and your ilk have enabled the likes of Nigel Farage so suck it up baby.
…..downvoters will underline blindness. |
Sorry purists, I wrote out a response to this and it was pretty messy, so I asked ChatGPT to tidy it up...
What I don’t understand about the immigration debate is how it’s fundamentally a supply and demand issue — yet the public and policymakers obsess over the supply side while completely ignoring the demand side.
We had 14 years of Conservative government, with reducing immigration front and centre. We left the EU partly to “take back control” and manage immigration. Rishi Sunak even agreed to pay France nearly half a billion pounds over three years to prevent about 30,000 people annually from crossing the Channel.
And yet, immigration has gone up. In 2009, before the Conservatives took office, net immigration was around 200,000. By the time they left, it was roughly 700,000.
Now we have the growth in popularity of Reform, with Nigel Farage positioning himself as the champion of immigration control — even though he doesn't actually care, hence why he's missed the majority of immigration votes in Parliament.
Why did the conservative government pour resources into the supply side, yet still preside over record immigration levels? If net immigration had been capped at 2009 levels, the total immigration over the last two years would have taken seven years to accumulate. With the amount of effort put into the legally-doomed Rwanda deportation strategy, it's telling that they wouldn't do something so simple as to introduce a yearly net cap.
The answer is: the demand side is harder. Tackling it means dealing with the structural reasons why we "need" immigration. It means fixing the housing market so young people can afford to start families. It means paying health and social care workers properly so these jobs can be filled from the national workforce. It means reforming education so it actually prepares people for industry. None of this is simple, and all of it costs money — money that has steadily been taken from the working and middle classes over the last 50 years through economic policies that protect the capital of the richest in society.
The wealthy — Etonians like Cameron and Johnson, heirs to billionaires like Sunak, millionaires like Farage and Starmer — aren’t going to fix the demand side. They have no incentive to. So we keep up a pretense of treating immigration as a border enforcement issue, while letting in people in record numbers so our institutions and businesses don't fail.
There is racism. I’ve seen it myself in London: on trains, in pubs, from people who seemed politically moderate. We all saw it with the riots. Some voters support the Conservatives or Reform because of racial bias. But reducing the debate to “they just hate brown people” isn’t helpful. It doesn’t acknowledge the structural failures that’s driving people from the centre to the right-wing immigration answers.
So how do we shift the conversation? Because I feel like a voice in the wind. One side refuses to question why their preferred strategies have failed. The other refuses to engage with the concerns of moderate voters drifting rightward, or to offer meaningful structural solutions that go beyond calling out racism. |  |
| Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top. | | Poll: | Would you rather | | Blog: | Round Four: Eagle |
| |
| Reform on 05:51 - May 3 with 977 views | Benters |
He’s a newbie I’m sure he will get the hang of it. | |
| |
| Reform on 06:49 - May 3 with 933 views | itfcjoe |
| Reform on 02:48 - May 3 by Kropotkin123 |
Sorry purists, I wrote out a response to this and it was pretty messy, so I asked ChatGPT to tidy it up...
What I don’t understand about the immigration debate is how it’s fundamentally a supply and demand issue — yet the public and policymakers obsess over the supply side while completely ignoring the demand side.
We had 14 years of Conservative government, with reducing immigration front and centre. We left the EU partly to “take back control” and manage immigration. Rishi Sunak even agreed to pay France nearly half a billion pounds over three years to prevent about 30,000 people annually from crossing the Channel.
And yet, immigration has gone up. In 2009, before the Conservatives took office, net immigration was around 200,000. By the time they left, it was roughly 700,000.
Now we have the growth in popularity of Reform, with Nigel Farage positioning himself as the champion of immigration control — even though he doesn't actually care, hence why he's missed the majority of immigration votes in Parliament.
Why did the conservative government pour resources into the supply side, yet still preside over record immigration levels? If net immigration had been capped at 2009 levels, the total immigration over the last two years would have taken seven years to accumulate. With the amount of effort put into the legally-doomed Rwanda deportation strategy, it's telling that they wouldn't do something so simple as to introduce a yearly net cap.
The answer is: the demand side is harder. Tackling it means dealing with the structural reasons why we "need" immigration. It means fixing the housing market so young people can afford to start families. It means paying health and social care workers properly so these jobs can be filled from the national workforce. It means reforming education so it actually prepares people for industry. None of this is simple, and all of it costs money — money that has steadily been taken from the working and middle classes over the last 50 years through economic policies that protect the capital of the richest in society.
The wealthy — Etonians like Cameron and Johnson, heirs to billionaires like Sunak, millionaires like Farage and Starmer — aren’t going to fix the demand side. They have no incentive to. So we keep up a pretense of treating immigration as a border enforcement issue, while letting in people in record numbers so our institutions and businesses don't fail.
There is racism. I’ve seen it myself in London: on trains, in pubs, from people who seemed politically moderate. We all saw it with the riots. Some voters support the Conservatives or Reform because of racial bias. But reducing the debate to “they just hate brown people” isn’t helpful. It doesn’t acknowledge the structural failures that’s driving people from the centre to the right-wing immigration answers.
So how do we shift the conversation? Because I feel like a voice in the wind. One side refuses to question why their preferred strategies have failed. The other refuses to engage with the concerns of moderate voters drifting rightward, or to offer meaningful structural solutions that go beyond calling out racism. |
Excellent post, and asks some questions that no one in politics seems to dare address at the moment.
The numbers are astounding, and when you look at what we’ve heard from all mainstream parties over the last two decades and what they say they ‘want’ to happen - it’s effectively been an open door immigration policy without consent.
No one has voted for anyone that has said this is what they’ll do, it’s effectively been forced upon people, whilst also at the same time the powers that be have said that it shouldn’t be happening and they don’t want it to happen.
But as you say, we need it to happen so society doesn’t fall over - how can that change? Realistically it can’t so the whole public conversation is just a charade and Govts will keep numbers sky high whilst telling everyone it needs to come down. So no trust |  |
| |
| Reform on 07:05 - May 3 with 906 views | lowhouseblue |
| Reform on 02:48 - May 3 by Kropotkin123 |
Sorry purists, I wrote out a response to this and it was pretty messy, so I asked ChatGPT to tidy it up...
What I don’t understand about the immigration debate is how it’s fundamentally a supply and demand issue — yet the public and policymakers obsess over the supply side while completely ignoring the demand side.
We had 14 years of Conservative government, with reducing immigration front and centre. We left the EU partly to “take back control” and manage immigration. Rishi Sunak even agreed to pay France nearly half a billion pounds over three years to prevent about 30,000 people annually from crossing the Channel.
And yet, immigration has gone up. In 2009, before the Conservatives took office, net immigration was around 200,000. By the time they left, it was roughly 700,000.
Now we have the growth in popularity of Reform, with Nigel Farage positioning himself as the champion of immigration control — even though he doesn't actually care, hence why he's missed the majority of immigration votes in Parliament.
Why did the conservative government pour resources into the supply side, yet still preside over record immigration levels? If net immigration had been capped at 2009 levels, the total immigration over the last two years would have taken seven years to accumulate. With the amount of effort put into the legally-doomed Rwanda deportation strategy, it's telling that they wouldn't do something so simple as to introduce a yearly net cap.
The answer is: the demand side is harder. Tackling it means dealing with the structural reasons why we "need" immigration. It means fixing the housing market so young people can afford to start families. It means paying health and social care workers properly so these jobs can be filled from the national workforce. It means reforming education so it actually prepares people for industry. None of this is simple, and all of it costs money — money that has steadily been taken from the working and middle classes over the last 50 years through economic policies that protect the capital of the richest in society.
The wealthy — Etonians like Cameron and Johnson, heirs to billionaires like Sunak, millionaires like Farage and Starmer — aren’t going to fix the demand side. They have no incentive to. So we keep up a pretense of treating immigration as a border enforcement issue, while letting in people in record numbers so our institutions and businesses don't fail.
There is racism. I’ve seen it myself in London: on trains, in pubs, from people who seemed politically moderate. We all saw it with the riots. Some voters support the Conservatives or Reform because of racial bias. But reducing the debate to “they just hate brown people” isn’t helpful. It doesn’t acknowledge the structural failures that’s driving people from the centre to the right-wing immigration answers.
So how do we shift the conversation? Because I feel like a voice in the wind. One side refuses to question why their preferred strategies have failed. The other refuses to engage with the concerns of moderate voters drifting rightward, or to offer meaningful structural solutions that go beyond calling out racism. |
good post. we shift the conversation by discussing what it is we as a nation actually want from immigration. and what are the constraints. lots of posters have said it's all good because we need more labour. someone else has suggested that it helps us meet our fiscal rules (immigrants work and therefore boost gdp and they pay tax and therefore reduce the gov't deficit). both of those seem very good criteria to talk about the level of and composition of immigration.
to take a simple example - we definitely all agree we want doctors who meet needs in the nhs, who are highly skilled, boost gdp and pay lots of tax. so we want people to come to work - but we now have some 1.2 million non-uk nationals in the uk between 18 and 64, excluding students, who are not in employment (it's a stat published by the ons and is easy to find). how can that be a good thing? a large proportion of new immigrants are also not coming to work - this has changed since brexit - an increasing proportion are dependents or are not on work visas (again ignoring students). as the number of non-workers rises the benefit in terms of the gdp boost falls, the tax paid falls and the demand for services and public money rises. equally we have a further (estimated) 1 million people who are here illegally (mainly visa over stayers and people who have come in as visitors and just stayed) - they don't pay tax, they don't work in the formal economy, they consume services and are therefore a net draw on resources.
also we just don't want people who work - we want people who are highly productive, highly skilled, earn well and pay lots of tax (again the doctor example that people always quote and everyone agrees on). but since brexit there has been a big fall in the skill and qualification level of migrants. most do not come as doctors or to work in the nhs - the big areas are actually low paid sectors like hospitality, retail and things like delivery drivers. the graduate visa scheme has been exploited for people to stay on to work in these predominantly low productivity sectors - even on that scheme they are not doing 'graduate' jobs. low skill, low productivity work is not boosting gdp and is not generating much tax revenue.
before brexit immigrants were without question a net economic benefit and net payers into gov't coffers. but with the huge increase in numbers and the change in composition, that is no longer true for many. for many the tax paid has fallen and benefits received and services consumed have risen. the level of immigration that brings economic benefits is absolutely no where near zero, clearly there is a good economic case for skilled productive workers, but equally by sensible economic criteria it isn't net arrivals of 3 million in 4 years. equally we want the composition of migrants we saw before brexit not what we have now - we want them to be economically active, tax paying, not receiving benefits or consuming services, highly skilled and working in areas which boost gdp.
then there are the constraints. i keep asking the following - but never get any answer. we all agree there has been a major housing crisis for the last decade which is denying people the chance to own a home or rent at a fair price. how then have we accommodated an additional 3 million people in 4 years? and has accommodating that number of people in a short time made the housing crisis worse? if not how has that miracle been achieved and why can't we use this magic power to solve the housing crisis for everyone else? equally i've previously posted analysis of census date that shows that in lots of local authority areas a majority of social housing is now occupied by non-uk nationals. is that fair on the people who have grown up in those areas - and what are the social and political consequences?
a long post. apologies. but you asked how we shift the conversation and we do that by actually having a conversation. i support the case for immigration - but not at the current level or composition. |  |
| 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 |
| |
| Reform on 08:35 - May 3 with 723 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Reform on 07:05 - May 3 by lowhouseblue |
good post. we shift the conversation by discussing what it is we as a nation actually want from immigration. and what are the constraints. lots of posters have said it's all good because we need more labour. someone else has suggested that it helps us meet our fiscal rules (immigrants work and therefore boost gdp and they pay tax and therefore reduce the gov't deficit). both of those seem very good criteria to talk about the level of and composition of immigration.
to take a simple example - we definitely all agree we want doctors who meet needs in the nhs, who are highly skilled, boost gdp and pay lots of tax. so we want people to come to work - but we now have some 1.2 million non-uk nationals in the uk between 18 and 64, excluding students, who are not in employment (it's a stat published by the ons and is easy to find). how can that be a good thing? a large proportion of new immigrants are also not coming to work - this has changed since brexit - an increasing proportion are dependents or are not on work visas (again ignoring students). as the number of non-workers rises the benefit in terms of the gdp boost falls, the tax paid falls and the demand for services and public money rises. equally we have a further (estimated) 1 million people who are here illegally (mainly visa over stayers and people who have come in as visitors and just stayed) - they don't pay tax, they don't work in the formal economy, they consume services and are therefore a net draw on resources.
also we just don't want people who work - we want people who are highly productive, highly skilled, earn well and pay lots of tax (again the doctor example that people always quote and everyone agrees on). but since brexit there has been a big fall in the skill and qualification level of migrants. most do not come as doctors or to work in the nhs - the big areas are actually low paid sectors like hospitality, retail and things like delivery drivers. the graduate visa scheme has been exploited for people to stay on to work in these predominantly low productivity sectors - even on that scheme they are not doing 'graduate' jobs. low skill, low productivity work is not boosting gdp and is not generating much tax revenue.
before brexit immigrants were without question a net economic benefit and net payers into gov't coffers. but with the huge increase in numbers and the change in composition, that is no longer true for many. for many the tax paid has fallen and benefits received and services consumed have risen. the level of immigration that brings economic benefits is absolutely no where near zero, clearly there is a good economic case for skilled productive workers, but equally by sensible economic criteria it isn't net arrivals of 3 million in 4 years. equally we want the composition of migrants we saw before brexit not what we have now - we want them to be economically active, tax paying, not receiving benefits or consuming services, highly skilled and working in areas which boost gdp.
then there are the constraints. i keep asking the following - but never get any answer. we all agree there has been a major housing crisis for the last decade which is denying people the chance to own a home or rent at a fair price. how then have we accommodated an additional 3 million people in 4 years? and has accommodating that number of people in a short time made the housing crisis worse? if not how has that miracle been achieved and why can't we use this magic power to solve the housing crisis for everyone else? equally i've previously posted analysis of census date that shows that in lots of local authority areas a majority of social housing is now occupied by non-uk nationals. is that fair on the people who have grown up in those areas - and what are the social and political consequences?
a long post. apologies. but you asked how we shift the conversation and we do that by actually having a conversation. i support the case for immigration - but not at the current level or composition. |
Multi occupancy rentals/slums ? |  |
| |
| Reform on 08:41 - May 3 with 701 views | lowhouseblue |
alas i'm sure that's an element of it - not really great as a policy choice though. but that can't explain 3 million extra spaces in 4 years, and even that number of multiple occupancy properties etc surely weren't just sitting empty back in 2020. also, it's quite bigoted to characterise migrants as living in slums. | |
| 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 |
| |
| Reform on 09:15 - May 3 with 653 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Reform on 07:05 - May 3 by lowhouseblue |
good post. we shift the conversation by discussing what it is we as a nation actually want from immigration. and what are the constraints. lots of posters have said it's all good because we need more labour. someone else has suggested that it helps us meet our fiscal rules (immigrants work and therefore boost gdp and they pay tax and therefore reduce the gov't deficit). both of those seem very good criteria to talk about the level of and composition of immigration.
to take a simple example - we definitely all agree we want doctors who meet needs in the nhs, who are highly skilled, boost gdp and pay lots of tax. so we want people to come to work - but we now have some 1.2 million non-uk nationals in the uk between 18 and 64, excluding students, who are not in employment (it's a stat published by the ons and is easy to find). how can that be a good thing? a large proportion of new immigrants are also not coming to work - this has changed since brexit - an increasing proportion are dependents or are not on work visas (again ignoring students). as the number of non-workers rises the benefit in terms of the gdp boost falls, the tax paid falls and the demand for services and public money rises. equally we have a further (estimated) 1 million people who are here illegally (mainly visa over stayers and people who have come in as visitors and just stayed) - they don't pay tax, they don't work in the formal economy, they consume services and are therefore a net draw on resources.
also we just don't want people who work - we want people who are highly productive, highly skilled, earn well and pay lots of tax (again the doctor example that people always quote and everyone agrees on). but since brexit there has been a big fall in the skill and qualification level of migrants. most do not come as doctors or to work in the nhs - the big areas are actually low paid sectors like hospitality, retail and things like delivery drivers. the graduate visa scheme has been exploited for people to stay on to work in these predominantly low productivity sectors - even on that scheme they are not doing 'graduate' jobs. low skill, low productivity work is not boosting gdp and is not generating much tax revenue.
before brexit immigrants were without question a net economic benefit and net payers into gov't coffers. but with the huge increase in numbers and the change in composition, that is no longer true for many. for many the tax paid has fallen and benefits received and services consumed have risen. the level of immigration that brings economic benefits is absolutely no where near zero, clearly there is a good economic case for skilled productive workers, but equally by sensible economic criteria it isn't net arrivals of 3 million in 4 years. equally we want the composition of migrants we saw before brexit not what we have now - we want them to be economically active, tax paying, not receiving benefits or consuming services, highly skilled and working in areas which boost gdp.
then there are the constraints. i keep asking the following - but never get any answer. we all agree there has been a major housing crisis for the last decade which is denying people the chance to own a home or rent at a fair price. how then have we accommodated an additional 3 million people in 4 years? and has accommodating that number of people in a short time made the housing crisis worse? if not how has that miracle been achieved and why can't we use this magic power to solve the housing crisis for everyone else? equally i've previously posted analysis of census date that shows that in lots of local authority areas a majority of social housing is now occupied by non-uk nationals. is that fair on the people who have grown up in those areas - and what are the social and political consequences?
a long post. apologies. but you asked how we shift the conversation and we do that by actually having a conversation. i support the case for immigration - but not at the current level or composition. |
You seem to only want immigrants who aren't consuming services, are highly skilled and are working in areas which boost gdp. Firstly, where are these mythical creatures, they sound brilliant?! And secondly, what about immigrants who don't bring skills and money, but are fleeing war, persecution or just want a better life for themselves? |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Reform on 09:21 - May 3 with 615 views | NeedhamChris |
| Reform on 09:15 - May 3 by The_Flashing_Smile |
You seem to only want immigrants who aren't consuming services, are highly skilled and are working in areas which boost gdp. Firstly, where are these mythical creatures, they sound brilliant?! And secondly, what about immigrants who don't bring skills and money, but are fleeing war, persecution or just want a better life for themselves? |
There are tens of thousands of these "mythical creatures" every year. To suggest they don't exist is a bit nonsensical.
Imagine a world where the toxicity of the debate is cut down - and the government could actively go out and try and increase highly skilled migration.
Fleeing war - yes we should definitely do our bit - which we do.
Fleeing persecution - yes we should definitely do our bit - which we do
Just want a better life - assuming people don't come here for a worse life, then no as that applies to every potential migrant. That should not be enough on its own. [Post edited 3 May 9:24]
| |
| |
| Reform on 09:26 - May 3 with 587 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Reform on 09:21 - May 3 by NeedhamChris |
There are tens of thousands of these "mythical creatures" every year. To suggest they don't exist is a bit nonsensical.
Imagine a world where the toxicity of the debate is cut down - and the government could actively go out and try and increase highly skilled migration.
Fleeing war - yes we should definitely do our bit - which we do.
Fleeing persecution - yes we should definitely do our bit - which we do
Just want a better life - assuming people don't come here for a worse life, then no as that applies to every potential migrant. That should not be enough on its own. [Post edited 3 May 9:24]
|
There are thousands of immigrants who aren't consuming services?! How do they get about? What do they do when they're sick? Who collects their bins? etc. etc.
I disagree on your last point. It's total luck where you're born. Immigration should be controlled so we're not overwehelmed of course, but I don't believe we should blanketly refuse entry to people who just want a better life for them and their family. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Reform on 09:43 - May 3 with 539 views | NeedhamChris |
| Reform on 09:26 - May 3 by The_Flashing_Smile |
There are thousands of immigrants who aren't consuming services?! How do they get about? What do they do when they're sick? Who collects their bins? etc. etc.
I disagree on your last point. It's total luck where you're born. Immigration should be controlled so we're not overwehelmed of course, but I don't believe we should blanketly refuse entry to people who just want a better life for them and their family. |
I interpreted your point as net consumption rather than just consumption alone - because assumed you were making a sensible point given that noone has suggested they shouldn't use any services at all as that would be ridiculous and infantile.
That does exist already, if they meet certain criteria (skills etc), but if you go much further than that you're *almost* in open borders territory.
Idealistically, I agree with you. Sadly doing either as an isolated country is just madness. | |
| |
| Reform on 09:55 - May 3 with 496 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Reform on 08:41 - May 3 by lowhouseblue |
alas i'm sure that's an element of it - not really great as a policy choice though. but that can't explain 3 million extra spaces in 4 years, and even that number of multiple occupancy properties etc surely weren't just sitting empty back in 2020. also, it's quite bigoted to characterise migrants as living in slums. |
Nice flex at the end there Lowers, not sure I was explaining all 3 million in that manner. | |
| |
| Reform on 10:00 - May 3 with 479 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Reform on 09:43 - May 3 by NeedhamChris |
I interpreted your point as net consumption rather than just consumption alone - because assumed you were making a sensible point given that noone has suggested they shouldn't use any services at all as that would be ridiculous and infantile.
That does exist already, if they meet certain criteria (skills etc), but if you go much further than that you're *almost* in open borders territory.
Idealistically, I agree with you. Sadly doing either as an isolated country is just madness. |
You say "Imagine a world where the toxicity of the debate is cut down" and then infer my point was ridiculous and infantile. I was referring to a direct quote from Lowhouse (who I was replying to): "we want them to be economically active, tax paying, not receiving benefits or consuming services, highly skilled and working in areas which boost gdp."
He probably didn't mean "not consuming services" but anyway, putting that to one side, his overall point is all immigrants must be bringing a hell of a lot of pluses - some might say a ridiculous amount. I'd say a lot of people who were born here don't meet all those criteria. It feels like a back-door, less pithy way of saying "no immigrants" and little better than Reform.
And sorry, but you can't say what I'm suggesting is *almost* in open borders territory. You can't have an *almost* open borders policy, there's either some control or there's none, and I haven't advocated none (in fact I said there should be some).
I'm not sure inferring my opinion is madness is doing much for reducing toxicity either. You seem to dish out a lot of advice on how posters should post, but don't practice what you preach. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Reform on 10:05 - May 3 with 456 views | Herbivore |
| Reform on 09:55 - May 3 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Nice flex at the end there Lowers, not sure I was explaining all 3 million in that manner. |
It's not like Lowie to wilfully misrepresent someone's views. | |
| |
| Reform on 10:34 - May 3 with 398 views | noggin |
| Reform on 09:55 - May 3 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Nice flex at the end there Lowers, not sure I was explaining all 3 million in that manner. |
Ha! Imagine being called a bigot, by lowhouse. You've made it! |  |
| |
| Reform on 10:35 - May 3 with 398 views | glasso |
| Reform on 02:48 - May 3 by Kropotkin123 |
Sorry purists, I wrote out a response to this and it was pretty messy, so I asked ChatGPT to tidy it up...
What I don’t understand about the immigration debate is how it’s fundamentally a supply and demand issue — yet the public and policymakers obsess over the supply side while completely ignoring the demand side.
We had 14 years of Conservative government, with reducing immigration front and centre. We left the EU partly to “take back control” and manage immigration. Rishi Sunak even agreed to pay France nearly half a billion pounds over three years to prevent about 30,000 people annually from crossing the Channel.
And yet, immigration has gone up. In 2009, before the Conservatives took office, net immigration was around 200,000. By the time they left, it was roughly 700,000.
Now we have the growth in popularity of Reform, with Nigel Farage positioning himself as the champion of immigration control — even though he doesn't actually care, hence why he's missed the majority of immigration votes in Parliament.
Why did the conservative government pour resources into the supply side, yet still preside over record immigration levels? If net immigration had been capped at 2009 levels, the total immigration over the last two years would have taken seven years to accumulate. With the amount of effort put into the legally-doomed Rwanda deportation strategy, it's telling that they wouldn't do something so simple as to introduce a yearly net cap.
The answer is: the demand side is harder. Tackling it means dealing with the structural reasons why we "need" immigration. It means fixing the housing market so young people can afford to start families. It means paying health and social care workers properly so these jobs can be filled from the national workforce. It means reforming education so it actually prepares people for industry. None of this is simple, and all of it costs money — money that has steadily been taken from the working and middle classes over the last 50 years through economic policies that protect the capital of the richest in society.
The wealthy — Etonians like Cameron and Johnson, heirs to billionaires like Sunak, millionaires like Farage and Starmer — aren’t going to fix the demand side. They have no incentive to. So we keep up a pretense of treating immigration as a border enforcement issue, while letting in people in record numbers so our institutions and businesses don't fail.
There is racism. I’ve seen it myself in London: on trains, in pubs, from people who seemed politically moderate. We all saw it with the riots. Some voters support the Conservatives or Reform because of racial bias. But reducing the debate to “they just hate brown people” isn’t helpful. It doesn’t acknowledge the structural failures that’s driving people from the centre to the right-wing immigration answers.
So how do we shift the conversation? Because I feel like a voice in the wind. One side refuses to question why their preferred strategies have failed. The other refuses to engage with the concerns of moderate voters drifting rightward, or to offer meaningful structural solutions that go beyond calling out racism. |
We're a fairly economically illiterate nation. I'd argue most nations are, in all honesty.
Like, we can do the sums and work out our household finances, but how many of us (and I include myself in this) *really* understand the workings of an economy? How this leads to that, how cutting this affects that, how paying for that means saving on this...
We're all getting more skint by the day, and we want answers. The real answers are incredibly complicated and might also involve difficult conversations/decisions about what we're willing to sacrifice (either money or services etc).
It's much easier to point at a group of people and say 'it's their fault'. Not the billionaires and millionaires, of course, who *do* shoulder a lot of the blame, but the poor people who are different from us because that means it's definitely not MY fault, and even if I become successful one day and end up with seven figures in my bank account it still won't be my fault because I'll never be one of 'them.'
Sorry to say it, but it's dumb politics and it works because a lot of us are incredibly open to the simple solution. It won't work, but who cares? If it gets you elected and gets the money rolling in to your bank account then it's done its job.
You can put Farage, Trump, Tommy Robinson, most of the last Tory government and some of the new Labour government into that model and it all works out.
The thing with governments is that you only have a limited amount of time in power, so there's no point taking the difficult route (which probably involves short term unpopularity and tough conversations) for a long term gain that'll be felt in 20 years time. Just keep the status quo and be popular for a bit, then disappear into the sunset with your Minister's pension.
And to anyone who thinks Reform are challenging that status quo, they're really not. They're no different from half a dozen other governments and/or parties here and around the world. They're just a new party doing the same old things. | | | |
| Reform on 11:10 - May 3 with 338 views | m14_blue |
| Reform on 10:09 - May 2 by NeedhamChris |
Weaponising the Nazis (and by extension the Holocaust) to win an argument on a football forum is beyond grim. Comparing people voting Reform, however misguided you might think that is, to voting for Nazis is not just lazy, it’s a disgusting trivialisation of the industrial murder of millions of Jews and others. Shame on you.
It doesn’t make your point stronger. It just shows a complete lack of seriousness or respect for the actual horrors of fascism. If you want to criticise Reform, do it properly, with arguments, not shock tactics. Otherwise all you’re doing is using one of history’s darkest chapters to help you feel smug online. It’s gross behaviour, and it helps absolutely no one. |
You know people didn't vote for the Nazis after the holocaust started right? That's not how these things work.
Also, this time last year everyone was saying similar things about people using language like that about Trump. Surely no one can seriously deny that he is running, or attempting to run, a Fascist regime now? Farage idolises him remember.
I don't think 'Nazi' was the right word to use but the days of dismissing comparisons with truly horrendous regimes as ridiculous should be at an end.
If you don't learn from history you're doomed to repeat it.
These are really, really bad people, don't be blind to that. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
