By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
This. The French and Germans take nobody, and don't get me started on Turkey. When will they do their fair share rather than leave it all to us? If we're not careful this tiny Island will sink under the pressure.
3 times as many asylum apications in germany last year as in the uk...
i'm guessing that sounded clever in your head. sadly it explains why the left has become seen by most of the electorate as patronising, elitist and uninterested in most of the electorate. people who oppose current levels of immigration (1) don't believe that immigrants are the source of all problems - that's just a lie you intend to belittle people you disagree with; 2) don't adopt values of 'fear and hate'; (3) aren't extremists; and (4) aren't radicalised or puppets who can only hold ideas peddled by hate preachers.
all you're doing is trying to systematically delegitimise and stigmatise entirely main stream views on a key policy issue - is 3 million net migrants in 4 years ok? - rather than actually engage with people who holds view different from your own. and you know you're doing it.
There is likely a large overlap in those who are worried about immigration and those who voted Brexit.
Immigration has increased massively since Brexit but we don't see them acknowledge that fact that there is an element of correlation.
Why are you only pushing one side to acknowledge concerns or realities? Perhaps there would be less patronising if people actually engaged with the results of their decisions and the results of policies? Why should it be on just one side of the debate to do that?
Blah, blah, 3 million immigrants, blah, blah, legitimate concerns, blah, blah, THE LEFT!!!, blah, blah, blah.
if you were a fraction as clever as you think you are you'd be able to engage in discussion.
the thing with the immigration policy issue and reform and populism etc, is that there are two distinct things going on. first is that a large majority of the population think that migration is currently too high and they want it reduced. you may sneer at them but it doesn't change the fact. the second is that the approach of both main parties over more than a decade has been to enable mass migration despite having no democratic mandate whatsoever. that corrodes trust in politics and sends a message to voters that the main parties just don't care what a majority of people think. what people take away from that is a sense of being ignored, disrespected, patronised, and belittled. if you cared about the rise of populism, rather than just sneering at people who disagree with you, you'd know this.
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
if you were a fraction as clever as you think you are you'd be able to engage in discussion.
the thing with the immigration policy issue and reform and populism etc, is that there are two distinct things going on. first is that a large majority of the population think that migration is currently too high and they want it reduced. you may sneer at them but it doesn't change the fact. the second is that the approach of both main parties over more than a decade has been to enable mass migration despite having no democratic mandate whatsoever. that corrodes trust in politics and sends a message to voters that the main parties just don't care what a majority of people think. what people take away from that is a sense of being ignored, disrespected, patronised, and belittled. if you cared about the rise of populism, rather than just sneering at people who disagree with you, you'd know this.
I have no wish to engage with someone as dishonest and disingenuous as you, thanks.
There is likely a large overlap in those who are worried about immigration and those who voted Brexit.
Immigration has increased massively since Brexit but we don't see them acknowledge that fact that there is an element of correlation.
Why are you only pushing one side to acknowledge concerns or realities? Perhaps there would be less patronising if people actually engaged with the results of their decisions and the results of policies? Why should it be on just one side of the debate to do that?
SB
i've posted many times that brexit has been disaster in terms of immigration. not only have total numbers increased post brexit to a historically unprecedented level, but the mix of migrants has changed in a way which has significantly reduced the net economic benefit (i wrote a long post a few days ago and can't be bothered to repeat it - enough to say that the proportion of non-economically active and low paid / low skilled migrants has risen since brexit and the obr recognises that the net fiscal impact of those groups is negative). i voted remain. in terms of migration brexit has been a disaster.
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
i've posted many times that brexit has been disaster in terms of immigration. not only have total numbers increased post brexit to a historically unprecedented level, but the mix of migrants has changed in a way which has significantly reduced the net economic benefit (i wrote a long post a few days ago and can't be bothered to repeat it - enough to say that the proportion of non-economically active and low paid / low skilled migrants has risen since brexit and the obr recognises that the net fiscal impact of those groups is negative). i voted remain. in terms of migration brexit has been a disaster.
But I've not reference you in my post.
I've referenced the people you say feel patronised, why aren't you holding them to the same standards that you are holding whom you describe as the "left" to?
I have no wish to engage with someone as dishonest and disingenuous as you, thanks.
such very strong views, but so little to ever back them up. i'm sorry if i've upset you by disagreeing with you. how about i stop expecting you to engage in any form of constructive discussion and you stop following me about the board down voting my every post?
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
I've referenced the people you say feel patronised, why aren't you holding them to the same standards that you are holding whom you describe as the "left" to?
Isn't that in itself patronising?
SB
i agree, lots of people voting for reform also supported brexit and there is an inconsistency between supporting brexit and opposing uncontrolled immigration because the first has been the precursor to the second (the exact causality is probably is not straight forward). the thing that links the two of course is people feeling that they have not benefited from, and therefore rejecting, different aspects of globalisation. i'm not clear however how i'm being patronising to people who oppose current mass 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
such very strong views, but so little to ever back them up. i'm sorry if i've upset you by disagreeing with you. how about i stop expecting you to engage in any form of constructive discussion and you stop following me about the board down voting my every post?
You haven't upset me, and it's not disagreeing with me that I take issue with. I've been very transparent in saying that you are wilfully dishonest and very disingenuous on how you discuss a range of topics, of which immigration is one. You chose to try and engage with me, I have no wish to engage with you for reasons I am having to restate again.
You haven't upset me, and it's not disagreeing with me that I take issue with. I've been very transparent in saying that you are wilfully dishonest and very disingenuous on how you discuss a range of topics, of which immigration is one. You chose to try and engage with me, I have no wish to engage with you for reasons I am having to restate again.
i have not been dishonest or disingenuous. i have expressed views you disagree with and you don't seem confident enough to challenge those views or defend your position. instead i have had constant down arrows, name calling and abuse from you - of which the dishonest and disingenuous line is just the latest manifestation. you seem to struggle with views that are not your own which for an adult is a bit pathetic.
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
i have not been dishonest or disingenuous. i have expressed views you disagree with and you don't seem confident enough to challenge those views or defend your position. instead i have had constant down arrows, name calling and abuse from you - of which the dishonest and disingenuous line is just the latest manifestation. you seem to struggle with views that are not your own which for an adult is a bit pathetic.
It's time that the white British community asked itself why so many white Brits are being radicalised to believe that immigrants are the source of all problems. These white Brits were born here, why don't they share our values of tolerance and openness? Why have they rejected our traditional values and been attracted by fear and hate peddled by white hate preachers like Yaxley-Lennon and Farage? It's time we acknowledged that white British extremism is becoming a problem.
i've posted many times that brexit has been disaster in terms of immigration. not only have total numbers increased post brexit to a historically unprecedented level, but the mix of migrants has changed in a way which has significantly reduced the net economic benefit (i wrote a long post a few days ago and can't be bothered to repeat it - enough to say that the proportion of non-economically active and low paid / low skilled migrants has risen since brexit and the obr recognises that the net fiscal impact of those groups is negative). i voted remain. in terms of migration brexit has been a disaster.
Why do you keep referencing the OBR?
Look at this nonsense I have found on climate change.
Page 31 Box 2.2 Estimating the Economic Costs of Physical Damages
Their main reference is Richard Tol. This is the chap who claims a shutdown of Amoc will be economically beneficial to the UK. I know your understanding of climate science is very limited, despite once telling me you had modelled climate change, but even you must have the research skills to understand how bad Amoc shutdown would be for the UK. Tol's work has been totally discredited by climate scientists so why does the OBR use Tol do you think? Is the OBR at all credible on climate change? If it isn't credible on climate change, how is it credible on anything else?
You keep popping up with the same old rant and it is getting rather tedious. You're entitled to an opinion, but clearly just to keep many families functional we need lots of people to do certain jobs. I can't possibly see any benefit to what you are suggesting other than highly skilled people having to take more time off work or having to give up work all together. I teach system dynamics so may be you can write down some differential equations or link some model output to show how this whole scenario plays out and so I don't think I'm talking to a person that doesn't remotely possess the skills to make a determination on this issue.
Page 31 Box 2.2 Estimating the Economic Costs of Physical Damages
Their main reference is Richard Tol. This is the chap who claims a shutdown of Amoc will be economically beneficial to the UK. I know your understanding of climate science is very limited, despite once telling me you had modelled climate change, but even you must have the research skills to understand how bad Amoc shutdown would be for the UK. Tol's work has been totally discredited by climate scientists so why does the OBR use Tol do you think? Is the OBR at all credible on climate change? If it isn't credible on climate change, how is it credible on anything else?
You keep popping up with the same old rant and it is getting rather tedious. You're entitled to an opinion, but clearly just to keep many families functional we need lots of people to do certain jobs. I can't possibly see any benefit to what you are suggesting other than highly skilled people having to take more time off work or having to give up work all together. I teach system dynamics so may be you can write down some differential equations or link some model output to show how this whole scenario plays out and so I don't think I'm talking to a person that doesn't remotely possess the skills to make a determination on this issue.
trying to pick out the bit which is relevant to the thread ... yes we might very well choose to bring in low skill people to work in social care. but that is a tiny proportion of the total number of net migrants. the need for people in social care doesn't justify people who work in other low skill sectors - hospitality, delivery etc - or people who are not economically active. generally bringing in lots of people who are low skilled and low paid represents a net fiscal cost.
i'm happy to discuss this with you, but please no insults or attempted put downs or stuff which is irrelevant to the thread.
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
Their drive to cancel net zero and renewables in favour of polluting alternative could cost up to 12,000 jobs in the county.
SB
As I said on another thread, Reform actively campaigning against investment into left-behind areas that will be their key target seats in 2029 is a completely moronic strategy.
There is likely a large overlap in those who are worried about immigration and those who voted Brexit.
Immigration has increased massively since Brexit but we don't see them acknowledge that fact that there is an element of correlation.
Why are you only pushing one side to acknowledge concerns or realities? Perhaps there would be less patronising if people actually engaged with the results of their decisions and the results of policies? Why should it be on just one side of the debate to do that?
SB
Is it acceptable to be concerned about immigration?
Genuinely asking, not baiting or putting words in your mouth.
Is it acceptable to be concerned about immigration?
Genuinely asking, not baiting or putting words in your mouth.
Of course.
However, if your own previous actions have increased that immigration (voting Brexit) then you should acknowledge and own that rather than completely ignoring it. Supporting Reform is essentially supporting the man who ultimately lead to a good portion of that increased immigration.
It's a clear cognitive dissonance.
A return question:
Is it wrong for people of a different political leaning to expect others to own their views and decisions and to furthermore counter evidence put to them with evidence of their own rather than soundbites and provable nonsense?
However, if your own previous actions have increased that immigration (voting Brexit) then you should acknowledge and own that rather than completely ignoring it. Supporting Reform is essentially supporting the man who ultimately lead to a good portion of that increased immigration.
It's a clear cognitive dissonance.
A return question:
Is it wrong for people of a different political leaning to expect others to own their views and decisions and to furthermore counter evidence put to them with evidence of their own rather than soundbites and provable nonsense?
SB
No. I think it shows there are very few good reasons to vote for Reform and the main one, if people are honest, is because it 'upsets all the right people'.
I don't want to get too personal because it doesn't really feel right but if there is anyone who has previously had a serious health condition who supports Reform they might want to consider what their life would look like under Reform with the NHS very likely replaced by health insurance. Farage is a man known for lying and yet he says he would consider a health insurance approach which combined with his previous comments and recording of him making speeches is basically him saying yes that's what we would do.
However, if your own previous actions have increased that immigration (voting Brexit) then you should acknowledge and own that rather than completely ignoring it. Supporting Reform is essentially supporting the man who ultimately lead to a good portion of that increased immigration.
It's a clear cognitive dissonance.
A return question:
Is it wrong for people of a different political leaning to expect others to own their views and decisions and to furthermore counter evidence put to them with evidence of their own rather than soundbites and provable nonsense?
SB
so this is net immigration over the years:
at the time of brexit it was around 200,000, it's now up around 800,000 and has been since 2019/20. what do you see as the causation from brexit to net immigration quadrupling? was it a direct and unavoidable consequence of brexit or was it a result of subsequent policy choices made by the uk government. if all that was needed was to replace the eu workers who left then net immigration would have been constant. again, as with J2 this is a genuine question. could we have had brexit with stable net immigration - if not why not?
[Post edited 7 May 17:14]
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
As I said on another thread, Reform actively campaigning against investment into left-behind areas that will be their key target seats in 2029 is a completely moronic strategy.
On the face of it, it's moronic but it perversely seems to be working for them. How many people in deprived parts of the country that received large chunks of EU funding voted for Brexit? Keeping those areas 'left behind' keeps them angry and when they're angry, they vote for Reform, it's quite a simple formula. It's toxic but effective.
It's 106 miles to Portman Road, we've got a full tank of gas, half a round of Port Salut, it's dark... and we're wearing blue tinted sunglasses.
at the time of brexit it was around 200,000, it's now up around 800,000 and has been since 2019/20. what do you see as the causation from brexit to net immigration quadrupling? was it a direct and unavoidable consequence of brexit or was it a result of subsequent policy choices made by the uk government. if all that was needed was to replace the eu workers who left then net immigration would have been constant. again, as with J2 this is a genuine question. could we have had brexit with stable net immigration - if not why not?
[Post edited 7 May 17:14]
We probably could have done if we raised taxes significantly.
- Need some way to pay high enough wages to get people into jobs that are low pay but very hard work e.g. certain types of nurses - Need some way to continue paying for the growing demographic divide without adding more workers. Any solution that is non-immigration would require a good 20+ year lead time because we have to actually make the people. Getting people to have more children is very difficult to do via policy. - A very big chunk of those immigrants are students (and their dependents). We could fund our universities more to make up for the loss of income on that front, think in total it's something like £20 billion. - Basically would have had to stick two fingers up at Ukraine and Hong Kong refugees. They are a one-off event but it still counts.
That's the genuine answer.
I wonder how many people would be OK with the above.
at the time of brexit it was around 200,000, it's now up around 800,000 and has been since 2019/20. what do you see as the causation from brexit to net immigration quadrupling? was it a direct and unavoidable consequence of brexit or was it a result of subsequent policy choices made by the uk government. if all that was needed was to replace the eu workers who left then net immigration would have been constant. again, as with J2 this is a genuine question. could we have had brexit with stable net immigration - if not why not?
[Post edited 7 May 17:14]
I think it is was because Johnson didn't have objections to immigration so long as it was immigration he approved of and was within a controlled system.
I came across this from an article on the Queen Mary University website.
"Boris Johnson’s first significant move on immigration policy came in his first 24 hours as Prime Minister, dropping the government’s flagship target to reduce net migration to the “tens of thousands”. Theresa May had championed the target for a decade as Home Secretary and then Prime Minister – yet she left office with net migration at 272,000. Though considered totemic in Westminster, the net migration target sank without trace. Few mourned a pledge that had proved impossible to keep.
Downing Street explained that Johnson did not want “to play a numbers game” on immigration. Ditching this one-size-fits-all target freed a new Prime Minister to argue for some flows of migration to rise as others fell. Johnson frequently declared that he wanted Britain to be “a giant magnet” for scientists from around the world, while arguing for reductions in low-skilled migration from the EU. The government significantly liberalised the rules on enabling more overseas students to work in the UK after graduation.
The Conservative manifesto in 2019 reflected Johnson’s self-image as a “balancer” on immigration. Its narrative was of a “balanced package of measures that is fair, firm and compassionate”, consciously cycling through the themes of “control” offered by an Australian-style points-based system; of “contribution” as ‘Global Britain’ welcomed skills that are needed; and “compassion” in protecting refugees, securing the status of Europeans in Britain, and acknowledging the shame of the Windrush scandal."
I might add that I am not sure his dropping of the target got much publicity.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
