The United Kingdom and the Death of Boris Johnson as we know it.

[trousers]

40 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

When you get Gary Lineker likening the situation to 30's Germany, it's not useful and does nothing to persuade people to his point of view.  Instead it hardens positions

This is what baffles me about the clever people. They tend to say stuff that makes the thick people even more resolute to vote for the very things that the clever people abhor. Surely, if the clever people were really clever then they would avoid telling the thick people how thick they are? Yet they do the opposite. Maybe we simply live in a world where everyone is thick, no matter how clever some people think they are....?

Edited 9 March, 2023 by trousers

[Turkish]

On 08/03/2023 at 10:00, tajjuk said:

Turkey has taken in over 5 million refugees, 5 million ffs, yet we have 30-40k come in via boats and act like it's an invasion. The richest countries in the world take in far less refugees than most of the poor ones and we take in far far less compared to most of Europe, considerably less than France, Spain and Germany for example. 

Red meat to the racists, thing is I don't think it's particularly landing anymore, it works for the rabid base but they are a small minority that is shrinking. People are more concerned about the cost of living, inflation, their wages etc. not desperate people coming across on boats that we are supposed to hate for some reason. 

Interesting that they are all attacking Gary Lineker, how dare he have an opinion that criticises the government. Ironically whilst he is comparing their asylum policy to 1930s Germany, they want to silence him from criticising the government, also much like 1930s Germany. 

It's going to be 15 years of Tory government by the time we finally get to oust them in an election and honestly this has to be one of the worst government periods in the history of this country, they have set us back like 25 years, everything is worse, GDP is down, exports are down, cost of living is sky high, wages have been suppressed to all time low levels, waiting lists are through the roof, ambulance response times are the worse ever, the courts are backlogged, there are food shortages, labour shortages, crime is rising, the police, particularly the met are stumbling from scandal to scandal. The 'Great' in Great Britain is becoming ever more ironic, we are like those sad sacks on social media who go around telling everyone how cool they are, when everyone knows if you have to tell everyone you are cool then clearly you are not. 

Turkey has a population of 85m with a land mass of 302m2, UK has a population 68m with a land mass of 93m2, which country has more space to take them?

Edited 9 March, 2023 by Turkish

[Winnersaint]

10 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Turkey has a population of 85m with a land mass of 302m2, UK has a population 68m with a land mass of 93m2, which country has more space to take them?

Can't argue with that basic fact, however large areas of Turkey are pretty inhospitable extensions of the middle east with 60% of the whole country being prone to desertification according to the IPCC.

[Winnersaint]

18 minutes ago, trousers said:

This is what baffles me about the clever people. They tend to say stuff that makes the thick people even more resolute to vote for the very things that the clever people abhor. If the clever people were really clever then they would avoid telling the thick people how thick they are, yet they do the opposite. Maybe we simply live in a world where everyone is thick, no matter how clever some people think they are....?

I think in most cases most people are simply mediocre. The thick ones don't aspire upwards towards mediocrity while the clever ones just think they are special.

[Turkish]

 

20 minutes ago, Winnersaint said:

Can't argue with that basic fact, however large areas of Turkey are pretty inhospitable extensions of the middle east with 60% of the whole country being prone to desertification according to the IPCC.

still makes it a 23% bigger than the UK. Plus its a much nearer safe zone. And i wouldn't fancy living in the Yorkshire dales, lakedistrict or scottish highlands in the winter, so big parts of UK pretty inhospitable too.

Edited 9 March, 2023 by Turkish

[whelk]

28 minutes ago, trousers said:

This is what baffles me about the clever people. They tend to say stuff that makes the thick people even more resolute to vote for the very things that the clever people abhor. Surely, if the clever people were really clever then they would avoid telling the thick people how thick they are? Yet they do the opposite. Maybe we simply live in a world where everyone is thick, no matter how clever some people think they are....?

Thick people are more gullible as a rule and easily manipulated by clever people who exploit that. Yes that is patronising but see every Brexit line about freedoms, control and more NHS money. 
Whilst calling them thick is not helpful they are still too thick to realise Jacob Rees Mogg is not looking out for them. Gove says be loads more money don’t listen to experts and here we are with a semi fucked economy caused by stupid people who could be easily fooled by just being told things will be great.
 

All quite depressing for clever people like me😄

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, whelk said:

Thick people are more gullible as a rule and easily manipulated by clever people who exploit that. Yes that is patronising but see every Brexit line about freedoms, control and more NHS money. 
Whilst calling them thick is not helpful they are still too thick to realise Jacob Rees Mogg is not looking out for them. Gove says be loads more money don’t listen to experts and here we are with a semi fucked economy caused by stupid people who could be easily fooled by just being told things will be great.
 

All quite depressing for clever people like me😄

But also thick people also tend to be very entrenched in their views, everything is black and white and will not accept any view that doesn't directly fall into line with theirs. 

[tajjuk]

1 hour ago, LuckyNumber7 said:

Why have borders at all eh? Let's just let everyone in who wants to come. It's not like we have a shortage of available land and housing.

We don't have a shortage of land, that is nonsense, there are huge swathes of the country that are barely populated. The housing shortage is down to a multitude of reasons, poor planning laws and terrible planning systems generally, lack of building affordable houses, people buying up houses to rent out, foreign investors buying homes, particularly in London and then not living in them, holiday homes, old people in homes far too big for them etc. etc. 

And of course it completely varies across the country, with an obvious north/south divide and issues in and around London.

All of which could be dealt with policies to tackle those issues, you know actual problems the government should be dealing with, like better rail links and transport links (plus broadband) so people don't all have to work in the same place, better investment in rural communities, better investment in norther infrastructure and businesses so people don't want to all flock south. Better more sensible planning laws, more money for social housing etc. etc.

Instead of making a silly fuss about 40-50k people on small boats who are not causing housing shortgages.

Oh and by the way lots of building projects are struggling because workforce problems and workforce problems in their supply chain, which can be solved by guess what?

Immigration.

Also how is 'not vilifying and criminalising desperate people seeking asylum' the same as 'let's have no borders', what a nonsense strawman argument. 

No one is suggesting open borders with no controls, completely uncontrolled immigration, but there is a big leap between that and criminalising people because they cross the channel on small boats and acting as if those tiny amount of people are somehow a massive problem in the country when anyone with a basic grasp of facts knows this not to be the case and this 'problem' is tiny compared to the other issues the country is dealing with.

They also know that the ONLY reason this government is making a fuss about this and making it a big thing is because they have royally mucked this up and want to distract people and use the refugees as scapegoats for their mess.

51 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

I'll answer if I may as LD had quoted me and I don't actually think you and I really disagree.

My point was simply that the tough stance, the rhetoric and the three word slogans do resonate with large parts of the population.  The policies themselves may well be rubbish but from a Tory point of view that's almost irrelevant if people believe and like what they're saying.  Tajjuk had a really good post yesterday and I didn't disagree with it much at all except when it came to the idea that for most people immigration isn't that much of a big deal.  I think it is.  The average person doesn't watch the news and doesn't see the front bench rip the government apart, doesn't know the difference between asylum seekers and migration but they have the perception that immigration is out of control and something needs to be done.  Slogans like "Stop the boats" both reinforce the perception and also suggest they're doing something about it.

When you get Gary Lineker likening the situation to 30's Germany, it's not useful and does nothing to persuade people to his point of view.  Instead it hardens positions and people start to believe the liberal elite argument.  

As for the effective immigration policy and process - how does free movement of people within the EU fit in with that if you were a remainer?  You can absolutely make a case for it being a positive thing but very difficult to say we're in control of immigration if that's what we would want.  Obviously I realise it's not what anyone is offering right now - just pointing out what has been argued and what people disliked.

Anyway, I just think it's a bit dangerous to take this stuff lightly.

 

Lineker linking it to 1930s Germany is apt, he's spot on, anyone who knows their history knows the Nazi's initially got power democratically and did things within the framework of laws in Germany and people looked the other way.

Not only that but its hardly the only fascist alarm bell they have been ringing, I mean their constant attempts to silence anyone that criticises them also very much fits the mould, they have been trying to shut down Lineker for ages, there was the reaction to Joe Lyceett as well, and their constant attempts to shut down Channel 4, threaten the licence fee. Plus they have been infiltrating the BBC with ex-tories to ensure not one ounce of criticism comes out of that place, the BBC falls over backwards to be 'impartial' that is allows literal lies from the government and right wing commentators to go unchallenged. 

I mean Kuinsberg or whatever her name is, when the SNP leader said Boris Johnson was a liar, which is an undeniable fact, literally responded by saying that is quite an accusation. Joe Lycett, a comedian, literally had to do her job for her and then got attacked by the right wing and serving government ministers for it, as Lineker is now, for expressing an opinion, an opinion that is right and most people agreed with, with many more agreeing that certainly he should be free to say it.

Then you have anti-protest bill as well, and the likely bonfire of regulations that will erode many human rights protections and laws we have, so this government is doing multiple attacks on freedoms, freedom of protest, freedom of speech, whilst trying to basically censor and cojule the national broadcaster to basically peddle their propaganda. 

Sounds a lot like 1930s Germany to me, so in my opinion is reaction was spot on and we need people speaking out against stuff like this, especially prominent people with followings (which is why the Tories hate him and twitter so much, they can't control it and spout propaganda like the Daily Mail does). 

As immigration being an important issue, if you look at most polls on 'Important issues facing the country' or similarly worded, then its polled at around 16-30% for most of the last 5 years.

Its importance as an issue has dropped considerably since the 2016 Brexit vote, where it was hyped up massively by the leave campaign, ironically even though immigration has gone up since we lost EU freedom of movement. Since then it falls way below other issues, I've seen polls where it's like 7th/8th most important issues, and YouGov for example has only 29% of people having it amongst their top 3 issues facing the country right now, marginally ahead of the environment on 22% (which is a way more important issue and should be way more talked about) but way behind heath and the economy, both of which are around 60% right now.  Even among Conservative voters, only 1 in 2 have it amongst their top 3 issues.

Also young people don't give a crap about it, it polls 12% for 18-24s and only 20% for people 24 -49, surprising no one polling the highest in the over 65s, people who are dying out. 

An ONS survey done end of last year, only 6% of adults responded that immigration was the important issue facing the UK today, 6%, it was below the cost of living (48%), the Economy (15%), Environment (11%), The NHS (10%). 

So it's not that important an issue, certainly won't be for swing voters, and even then all it doing is basically highlighting that the Tories made a mess of it. I can't see it being an important or election swaying issue, unless something dramatically changes. It's just all they have, they are desperate and out of ideas so are just re-hashing plays from the Tory playbook.

[rallyboy]

They think we are all stupid.

No sane person believes that 100 million desperate people are clamouring to get into the UK, yet Suella and Rishi are asking us to buy that.

Anyone who can grasp simple concepts and basic maths will see right through the current distraction scam, so they're not trying to solve a problem, just trying to harvest the votes of the aforementioned thick - or rather the easily-led, or hard-of-thinking as I like to call them out of courtesy.

Instead of the economy, the NHS, energy prices, policing, education, defence, corruption or poverty, they'd rather we all just talked about Gary Lineker.

 

 

 

[Winnersaint]

50 minutes ago, Turkish said:

 

still makes it a 23% bigger than the UK. Plus its a much nearer safe zone. And i wouldn't fancy living in the Yorkshire dales, lakedistrict or scottish highlands in the winter, so big parts of UK pretty inhospitable too.

The Yorkshire Dales always look nice on All Creatures Great and Small though.

[AlexLaw76]

17 minutes ago, rallyboy said:

They think we are all stupid.

No sane person believes that 100 million desperate people are clamouring to get into the UK, yet Suella and Rishi are asking us to buy that.

Anyone who can grasp simple concepts and basic maths will see right through the current distraction scam, so they're not trying to solve a problem, just trying to harvest the votes of the aforementioned thick - or rather the easily-led, or hard-of-thinking as I like to call them out of courtesy.

Instead of the economy, the NHS, energy prices, policing, education, defence, corruption or poverty, they'd rather we all just talked about Gary Lineker.

 

 

 

Do you not believe that doing nothing about the need to build a new Southampton every couple of years, is not worth trying to solve?

[Turkish]

20 minutes ago, Winnersaint said:

The Yorkshire Dales always look nice on All Creatures Great and Small though.

The desert looked nice on Lawrence of Arabia

[revolution saint]

36 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

We don't have a shortage of land, that is nonsense, there are huge swathes of the country that are barely populated. The housing shortage is down to a multitude of reasons, poor planning laws and terrible planning systems generally, lack of building affordable houses, people buying up houses to rent out, foreign investors buying homes, particularly in London and then not living in them, holiday homes, old people in homes far too big for them etc. etc. 

And of course it completely varies across the country, with an obvious north/south divide and issues in and around London.

All of which could be dealt with policies to tackle those issues, you know actual problems the government should be dealing with, like better rail links and transport links (plus broadband) so people don't all have to work in the same place, better investment in rural communities, better investment in norther infrastructure and businesses so people don't want to all flock south. Better more sensible planning laws, more money for social housing etc. etc.

Instead of making a silly fuss about 40-50k people on small boats who are not causing housing shortgages.

Oh and by the way lots of building projects are struggling because workforce problems and workforce problems in their supply chain, which can be solved by guess what?

Immigration.

Also how is 'not vilifying and criminalising desperate people seeking asylum' the same as 'let's have no borders', what a nonsense strawman argument. 

No one is suggesting open borders with no controls, completely uncontrolled immigration, but there is a big leap between that and criminalising people because they cross the channel on small boats and acting as if those tiny amount of people are somehow a massive problem in the country when anyone with a basic grasp of facts knows this not to be the case and this 'problem' is tiny compared to the other issues the country is dealing with.

They also know that the ONLY reason this government is making a fuss about this and making it a big thing is because they have royally mucked this up and want to distract people and use the refugees as scapegoats for their mess.

Lineker linking it to 1930s Germany is apt, he's spot on, anyone who knows their history knows the Nazi's initially got power democratically and did things within the framework of laws in Germany and people looked the other way.

Not only that but its hardly the only fascist alarm bell they have been ringing, I mean their constant attempts to silence anyone that criticises them also very much fits the mould, they have been trying to shut down Lineker for ages, there was the reaction to Joe Lyceett as well, and their constant attempts to shut down Channel 4, threaten the licence fee. Plus they have been infiltrating the BBC with ex-tories to ensure not one ounce of criticism comes out of that place, the BBC falls over backwards to be 'impartial' that is allows literal lies from the government and right wing commentators to go unchallenged. 

I mean Kuinsberg or whatever her name is, when the SNP leader said Boris Johnson was a liar, which is an undeniable fact, literally responded by saying that is quite an accusation. Joe Lycett, a comedian, literally had to do her job for her and then got attacked by the right wing and serving government ministers for it, as Lineker is now, for expressing an opinion, an opinion that is right and most people agreed with, with many more agreeing that certainly he should be free to say it.

Then you have anti-protest bill as well, and the likely bonfire of regulations that will erode many human rights protections and laws we have, so this government is doing multiple attacks on freedoms, freedom of protest, freedom of speech, whilst trying to basically censor and cojule the national broadcaster to basically peddle their propaganda. 

Sounds a lot like 1930s Germany to me, so in my opinion is reaction was spot on and we need people speaking out against stuff like this, especially prominent people with followings (which is why the Tories hate him and twitter so much, they can't control it and spout propaganda like the Daily Mail does). 

As immigration being an important issue, if you look at most polls on 'Important issues facing the country' or similarly worded, then its polled at around 16-30% for most of the last 5 years.

Its importance as an issue has dropped considerably since the 2016 Brexit vote, where it was hyped up massively by the leave campaign, ironically even though immigration has gone up since we lost EU freedom of movement. Since then it falls way below other issues, I've seen polls where it's like 7th/8th most important issues, and YouGov for example has only 29% of people having it amongst their top 3 issues facing the country right now, marginally ahead of the environment on 22% (which is a way more important issue and should be way more talked about) but way behind heath and the economy, both of which are around 60% right now.  Even among Conservative voters, only 1 in 2 have it amongst their top 3 issues.

Also young people don't give a crap about it, it polls 12% for 18-24s and only 20% for people 24 -49, surprising no one polling the highest in the over 65s, people who are dying out. 

An ONS survey done end of last year, only 6% of adults responded that immigration was the important issue facing the UK today, 6%, it was below the cost of living (48%), the Economy (15%), Environment (11%), The NHS (10%). 

So it's not that important an issue, certainly won't be for swing voters, and even then all it doing is basically highlighting that the Tories made a mess of it. I can't see it being an important or election swaying issue, unless something dramatically changes. It's just all they have, they are desperate and out of ideas so are just re-hashing plays from the Tory playbook.

That's a fairly epic response so I won't reply to all of it.  It's obviously a matter of opinion as to how important immigration is but, as I said, I wouldn't underestimate it amongst certain demographics.  Polls are fair enough but often wrong - many people don't want to be accused of being racist and will deliberately downplay it when asked, or it might be that, for various reasons, large chunks of people aren't being polled.

As for this government being like 30's Germany?  I really don't like them much but effectively it's comparing them to Nazis - Russia does that to Ukraine and everyone laughs at how gullible people must be to fall for that guff.  I feel the same way in this context too.

[Turkish]

55 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

We don't have a shortage of land, that is nonsense, there are huge swathes of the country that are barely populated. The housing shortage is down to a multitude of reasons, poor planning laws and terrible planning systems generally, lack of building affordable houses, people buying up houses to rent out, foreign investors buying homes, particularly in London and then not living in them, holiday homes, old people in homes far too big for them etc. etc. 

And of course it completely varies across the country, with an obvious north/south divide and issues in and around London.

All of which could be dealt with policies to tackle those issues, you know actual problems the government should be dealing with, like better rail links and transport links (plus broadband) so people don't all have to work in the same place, better investment in rural communities, better investment in norther infrastructure and businesses so people don't want to all flock south. Better more sensible planning laws, more money for social housing etc. etc.

Instead of making a silly fuss about 40-50k people on small boats who are not causing housing shortgages.

Oh and by the way lots of building projects are struggling because workforce problems and workforce problems in their supply chain, which can be solved by guess what?

Immigration.

Also how is 'not vilifying and criminalising desperate people seeking asylum' the same as 'let's have no borders', what a nonsense strawman argument. 

No one is suggesting open borders with no controls, completely uncontrolled immigration, but there is a big leap between that and criminalising people because they cross the channel on small boats and acting as if those tiny amount of people are somehow a massive problem in the country when anyone with a basic grasp of facts knows this not to be the case and this 'problem' is tiny compared to the other issues the country is dealing with.

They also know that the ONLY reason this government is making a fuss about this and making it a big thing is because they have royally mucked this up and want to distract people and use the refugees as scapegoats for their mess.

Lineker linking it to 1930s Germany is apt, he's spot on, anyone who knows their history knows the Nazi's initially got power democratically and did things within the framework of laws in Germany and people looked the other way.

Not only that but its hardly the only fascist alarm bell they have been ringing, I mean their constant attempts to silence anyone that criticises them also very much fits the mould, they have been trying to shut down Lineker for ages, there was the reaction to Joe Lyceett as well, and their constant attempts to shut down Channel 4, threaten the licence fee. Plus they have been infiltrating the BBC with ex-tories to ensure not one ounce of criticism comes out of that place, the BBC falls over backwards to be 'impartial' that is allows literal lies from the government and right wing commentators to go unchallenged. 

I mean Kuinsberg or whatever her name is, when the SNP leader said Boris Johnson was a liar, which is an undeniable fact, literally responded by saying that is quite an accusation. Joe Lycett, a comedian, literally had to do her job for her and then got attacked by the right wing and serving government ministers for it, as Lineker is now, for expressing an opinion, an opinion that is right and most people agreed with, with many more agreeing that certainly he should be free to say it.

Then you have anti-protest bill as well, and the likely bonfire of regulations that will erode many human rights protections and laws we have, so this government is doing multiple attacks on freedoms, freedom of protest, freedom of speech, whilst trying to basically censor and cojule the national broadcaster to basically peddle their propaganda. 

Sounds a lot like 1930s Germany to me, so in my opinion is reaction was spot on and we need people speaking out against stuff like this, especially prominent people with followings (which is why the Tories hate him and twitter so much, they can't control it and spout propaganda like the Daily Mail does). 

As immigration being an important issue, if you look at most polls on 'Important issues facing the country' or similarly worded, then its polled at around 16-30% for most of the last 5 years.

Its importance as an issue has dropped considerably since the 2016 Brexit vote, where it was hyped up massively by the leave campaign, ironically even though immigration has gone up since we lost EU freedom of movement. Since then it falls way below other issues, I've seen polls where it's like 7th/8th most important issues, and YouGov for example has only 29% of people having it amongst their top 3 issues facing the country right now, marginally ahead of the environment on 22% (which is a way more important issue and should be way more talked about) but way behind heath and the economy, both of which are around 60% right now.  Even among Conservative voters, only 1 in 2 have it amongst their top 3 issues.

Also young people don't give a crap about it, it polls 12% for 18-24s and only 20% for people 24 -49, surprising no one polling the highest in the over 65s, people who are dying out. 

An ONS survey done end of last year, only 6% of adults responded that immigration was the important issue facing the UK today, 6%, it was below the cost of living (48%), the Economy (15%), Environment (11%), The NHS (10%). 

So it's not that important an issue, certainly won't be for swing voters, and even then all it doing is basically highlighting that the Tories made a mess of it. I can't see it being an important or election swaying issue, unless something dramatically changes. It's just all they have, they are desperate and out of ideas so are just re-hashing plays from the Tory playbook.

If it's that bad then makes you wonder why they want to come here in the first place. 

 

Fuck me though you could bore for England.

[badgerx16]

42 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Do you not believe that doing nothing about the need to build a new Southampton every couple of years, is not worth trying to solve?

If we let in 437 thousand legally each year, it is more than a new Southampton that is needed.

[rallyboy]

50 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Do you not believe that doing nothing about the need to build a new Southampton every couple of years, is not worth trying to solve?

Totally irrelevant to the point I made.

I was talking about the hate speech aimed at the thick, that does nothing to sort our immigration policy - do you believe there are 100 million people who will attempt to enter the UK illegally this year?

We need sensible policies, not hate speech.

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, rallyboy said:

I was talking about the hate speech aimed at the thick, that does nothing to sort our immigration policy - do you believe there are 100 million people who will attempt to enter the UK illegally this year?

 

Didn't Nige warn us that 77 million Turks were waiting to come here ? That was in 2016, so the population has probably increased since then. If people believed him then, they will believe Cruella now.

[trousers]

1 hour ago, tajjuk said:

As immigration being an important issue, if you look at most polls on 'Important issues facing the country' or similarly worded, then its polled at around 16-30% for most of the last 5 years.

So it's not that important an issue, certainly won't be for swing voters, and even then all it doing is basically highlighting that the Tories made a mess of it. I can't see it being an important or election swaying issue, unless something dramatically changes. It's just all they have, they are desperate and out of ideas so are just re-hashing plays from the Tory playbook.

If it's not going to win the Tories a signifcant number of votes at the next general election (or indeed, it could/should even lose them votes if its as unpopular as you say) then anyone who doesn't want the Tories to win the next election should be happy that they are barking up the wrong tree with this policy and actively encourage them to continue shooting themselves in the foot, shouldn't they..? 

Edited 9 March, 2023 by trousers

[tajjuk]

1 hour ago, revolution saint said:

That's a fairly epic response so I won't reply to all of it.  It's obviously a matter of opinion as to how important immigration is but, as I said, I wouldn't underestimate it amongst certain demographics.  Polls are fair enough but often wrong - many people don't want to be accused of being racist and will deliberately downplay it when asked, or it might be that, for various reasons, large chunks of people aren't being polled.

As for this government being like 30's Germany?  I really don't like them much but effectively it's comparing them to Nazis - Russia does that to Ukraine and everyone laughs at how gullible people must be to fall for that guff.  I feel the same way in this context too.

He didn't specifically compare them to Nazis, when you use the word Nazi's people almost instantly jump to the war, concentration camps, the killings, SS etc. but of course that wasn't the reality of how they came to power and ramped up over the years their restrictions of freedoms, persecutions etc. I mean end of the day Hitler initially got enough votes to be voted chancellor.

His point was more that this government is more and more drifting towards fascism with its policies. 

 

41 minutes ago, trousers said:

If it's not going to win the Tories a signifcant number of votes at the next general election (or indeed, it could/should even lose them votes if its as unpopular as you say) then anyone who doesn't want the Tories to win the next election should be happy that they are barking up the wrong tree with this policy and actively encourage them to continue shooting themselves in the foot, shouldn't they..? 

That is the balance isn't it.

Anyone who wants the Tories gone, hopefully for generations, will probably welcome them stumble from bad policy to scandal to incompetence and revel in it. 

But that is a rather detached political look at the situation, ignoring that what they are doing is impacting people's lives, the human impact. I mean not only are they royally screwing up the country, the one we all live in, people's lives and it will probably take us 10+ years to recover it back to even like pre-2008 levels, but we know what hateful language, lies and this sort of rhetoric can do, you only have to look at events on Jan 6th, you only have to look at people attacking an immigration centre basically on facebook rumour. 

So yeh whilst I can be happy they are shooting themselves in the foot, that doesn't change that their talk alone is likely to have consequences for some very desperate people, and if they somehow implement this awful policy then it impacts those people very horribly. As I said earlier this proposed legislation, would classify a woman sex trafficked across the channel in a small boat not only as a criminal but instead of helping her and giving her shelter we are going to deport her. 

[revolution saint]

1 minute ago, tajjuk said:

He didn't specifically compare them to Nazis, when you use the word Nazi's people almost instantly jump to the war, concentration camps, the killings, SS etc. but of course that wasn't the reality of how they came to power and ramped up over the years their restrictions of freedoms, persecutions etc. I mean end of the day Hitler initially got enough votes to be voted chancellor.

His point was more that this government is more and more drifting towards fascism with its policies. 

 

He got as close as he could to comparing them to Nazis and he did that deliberately.  Even if you're just drawing a comparison to how the Nazis started off, it's still a comparison to Nazis.  It's a comment designed to draw praise from people who already agree with you rather than an attempt to change minds or enlighten them.

Problem is it's hard to tackle these three word slogans.  I honestly don't know what the answer is but comments like that don't help.

[tajjuk]

9 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

He got as close as he could to comparing them to Nazis and he did that deliberately.  Even if you're just drawing a comparison to how the Nazis started off, it's still a comparison to Nazis.  It's a comment designed to draw praise from people who already agree with you rather than an attempt to change minds or enlighten them.

Problem is it's hard to tackle these three word slogans.  I honestly don't know what the answer is but comments like that don't help.

He specifically said 'This is an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used used by Germany in the 1930s'.

Which he is spot on with, and specifically says language, i.e. the language used to label, demonise, scapegoat minorities so larger sections of society are encouraged to hate on these people.

That is exactly what the Nazi's did with the Jews, it was rhetoric, language used to turn one section of society, against another, to focus their anger and blame.

It's words like 'invasion', 'illegal', 'war' etc.  Painting people coming to this country, the vast majority of which are genuine asylum seekers as a threat to British people. 

It's calling a spade a spade, and it should be highlighted, because ignoring these lessons from history is how history repeats as the war in Ukraine shows. Learning lessons from the past does not mean focusing on the extreme end points but how we got there in the first place, how it started, how it led to such horrific things. I don't really know why a fair comparison, because it is a fair comparison, however shocking people may think it is, it is deserving of that comparison, is unhelpful?

If things are not called out for what they are, then how do you change people's minds and alert people of the seriousness? 

Edited 9 March, 2023 by tajjuk

[revolution saint]

5 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

He specifically said 'This is an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used used by Germany in the 1930s'.

Which he is spot on with, and specifically says language, i.e. the language used to label, demonise, scapegoat minorities so larger sections of society are encouraged to hate on these people.

That is exactly what the Nazi's did with the Jews, it was rhetoric, language used to turn one section of society, against another, to focus their anger and blame.

It's words like 'invasion', 'illegal', 'war' etc.  Painting people coming to this country, the vast majority of which are genuine asylum seekers as a threat to British people. 

It's calling a spade a spade, and it should be highlighted, because ignoring these lessons from history is how history repeats as the war in Ukraine shows. Learning lessons from the past does not mean focusing on the extreme end points but how we got there in the first place, how it started, how it led to such horrific things. I don't really know why a fair comparison, because it is a fair comparison, however shocking people may think it is, it is deserving of that comparison, is unhelpful?

If things are not called out for what they are, then how do you change people's minds and alert people of the seriousness? 

Fair enough, I disagree but you're entitled to your opinion.

[whelk]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Didn't Nige warn us that 77 million Turks were waiting to come here ? That was in 2016, so the population has probably increased since then. If people believed him then, they will believe Cruella now.

They have all set up barbers on Shirley High Street

[whelk]

36 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

He didn't specifically compare them to Nazis, when you use the word Nazi's people almost instantly jump to the war, concentration camps, the killings, SS etc. but of course that wasn't the reality of how they came to power and ramped up over the years their restrictions of freedoms, persecutions etc. I mean end of the day Hitler initially got enough votes to be voted chancellor.

His point was more that this government is more and more drifting towards fascism with its policies. 

 

I just made exactly this point to the missus. People get so precious about Nazi comparisons.

[whelk]

1 hour ago, trousers said:

If it's not going to win the Tories a signifcant number of votes at the next general election (or indeed, it could/should even lose them votes if its as unpopular as you say) then anyone who doesn't want the Tories to win the next election should be happy that they are barking up the wrong tree with this policy and actively encourage them to continue shooting themselves in the foot, shouldn't they..? 

Tories are toast. I respected them previously whilst never being a fan but this lot are just so low quality. It is less their ideology I object to, more their competence

[revolution saint]

6 minutes ago, whelk said:

I just made exactly this point to the missus. People get so precious about Nazi comparisons.

I'd expect just that kind of comment from a Nazi.

[badgerx16]

Just for etymological clarification: "Nazi" is an old German term to describe slow witted peasants/yokels.

[saint1977]

26 minutes ago, whelk said:

Tories are toast. I respected them previously whilst never being a fan but this lot are just so low quality. It is less their ideology I object to, more their competence

Spot on for me, had respect for the 1980s, 90s and some of the 2000s generation (Hague as he’s got older rather than Dracula or IDS) but there’s little talent there now, most of it was culled 2016-19. 

Trousers - I won’t shed any tears for the Tories destroying themselves but this latest fiasco on top of the Truss/IEA disaster in the summer we are still paying for fucks with the country’s reputation as the Iraq War did under Blair. 

[sadoldgit]

I have just read Braverman’s full statement and it contains yet another crass and deliberate use of provocative language. She suggests that migrants are “rich” enough to pay gangs thousands of pounds for a passage across the channel. Rich? If they were “rich” why are they risking their lives in an overcrowded rubber dinghy on frozen seas? If they are so minted, why aren’t they employing the finest lawyers and being flown in by private jets or helicopters? Yet more rhetoric tailored to demonise those seeking safety and a better life. For those who don’t think it is a big electoral issue, it certainly is in my part of Kent where the Tory MPs milk it for all they are worth.

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I have just read Braverman’s full statement and it contains yet another crass and deliberate use of provocative language. She suggests that migrants are “rich” enough to pay gangs thousands of pounds for a passage across the channel. 

The people smugglers do it for free do they? 
 

Classic Sog 😂

[egg]

5 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I have just read Braverman’s full statement and it contains yet another crass and deliberate use of provocative language. She suggests that migrants are “rich” enough to pay gangs thousands of pounds for a passage across the channel. Rich? If they were “rich” why are they risking their lives in an overcrowded rubber dinghy on frozen seas? If they are so minted, why aren’t they employing the finest lawyers and being flown in by private jets or helicopters? Yet more rhetoric tailored to demonise those seeking safety and a better life. For those who don’t think it is a big electoral issue, it certainly is in my part of Kent where the Tory MPs milk it for all they are worth.

They are rich enough to pay people smugglers... that's how they end up on the boats of people smugglers. 

Isn't putting the money they'd give to the people smugglers better used on starting a life in one of the other safe countries they've passed through? 

[aintforever]

48 minutes ago, egg said:

They are rich enough to pay people smugglers... that's how they end up on the boats of people smugglers. 

Isn't putting the money they'd give to the people smugglers better used on starting a life in one of the other safe countries they've passed through? 

Surely we're are better off having richer immigrants? The usual Gammon moan is that there are here to scrounge of the state.

[trousers]

25 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Surely we're are better off having richer immigrants? The usual Gammon moan is that there are here to scrounge of the state.

Wouldn't they be even richer if they didn't give their money to people smugglers..? 

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

I have just read Braverman’s full statement and it contains yet another crass and deliberate use of provocative language. She suggests that migrants are “rich” enough to pay gangs thousands of pounds for a passage across the channel. Rich? If they were “rich” why are they risking their lives in an overcrowded rubber dinghy on frozen seas? If they are so minted, why aren’t they employing the finest lawyers and being flown in by private jets or helicopters? Yet more rhetoric tailored to demonise those seeking safety and a better life. For those who don’t think it is a big electoral issue, it certainly is in my part of Kent where the Tory MPs milk it for all they are worth.

How many people in the world travel by private jet? You really don’t think before you furiously type do you. 

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, trousers said:

Wouldn't they be even richer if they didn't give their money to people smugglers..? 

They obviously see it as a worthwhile investment. Pay a bit to get to a country where they feel they can feel safe, work hard and make a better life for themselves.

[Turkish]

47 minutes ago, aintforever said:

They obviously see it as a worthwhile investment. Pay a bit to get to a country where they feel they can feel safe, work hard and make a better life for themselves.

Can they not feel safe, work hard and make a better life for themselves in the other safe countries they pass through to get here?

[aintforever]

11 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Can they not feel safe, work hard and make a better life for themselves in the other safe countries they pass through to get here?

Most do. Many others probably feel safer and think they have a better chance somewhere where they speak the language or have relatives.

[LuckyNumber7]

9 hours ago, tajjuk said:

We don't have a shortage of land, that is nonsense, there are huge swathes of the country that are barely populated. The housing shortage is down to a multitude of reasons, poor planning laws and terrible planning systems generally, lack of building affordable houses, people buying up houses to rent out, foreign investors buying homes, particularly in London and then not living in them, holiday homes, old people in homes far too big for them etc. etc. 

And of course it completely varies across the country, with an obvious north/south divide and issues in and around London.

All of which could be dealt with policies to tackle those issues, you know actual problems the government should be dealing with, like better rail links and transport links (plus broadband) so people don't all have to work in the same place, better investment in rural communities, better investment in norther infrastructure and businesses so people don't want to all flock south. Better more sensible planning laws, more money for social housing etc. etc.

Instead of making a silly fuss about 40-50k people on small boats who are not causing housing shortgages.

Oh and by the way lots of building projects are struggling because workforce problems and workforce problems in their supply chain, which can be solved by guess what?

Immigration.

Also how is 'not vilifying and criminalising desperate people seeking asylum' the same as 'let's have no borders', what a nonsense strawman argument. 

No one is suggesting open borders with no controls, completely uncontrolled immigration, but there is a big leap between that and criminalising people because they cross the channel on small boats

We are already one of the most densely populated major countries in Europe, you may not have a problem with vast swathes of the countryside disappearing under concrete but I and many others do. As you point out, the south east in particular is very over crowded and though you may make some valid points, most immigrants want to live in or near London, not up north in the middle of nowhere.

How are these people not contributing to the housing shortages, do they not need somewhere to live? If 50k per year are coming across then that's probably at least 10-20k extra homes needing to be built just to accommodate the illegals coming over on boats. It's not the only problem but it certainly is a problem. Here in and around Southampton, and also where my parents live in the midlands, there are new housing estates and projects popping up all over the place and more and more green belt land is disappearing. No-one is saying the housing shortage is solely down to immigrants but it's not exactly rocket science, the more people coming in the more housing you need.

You're the one seemingly fine waving through illegal immigrants, so what is the point of a border? Whether you like it or not, they ARE coming here illegally. Crossing through multiple safe countries to get here all of which have more space than we do. Many are coming from Albania ffs, they are illegal economic migrants coming from very different cultures to ours and they should not be our responsibility. A government's job is to look after it's own people first, not anyone who decides they want to come here.

Aside from the immigration issue, these boat crossings need to be stopped purely for humanitarian reasons unless you want to see more people drowning in the Channel. Take away the carrot and you remove the reason for the boat crossings in the first place. Welcome them with open arms and of course they will continue.

[moonraker]

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

Can they not feel safe, work hard and make a better life for themselves in the other safe countries they pass through to get here?

It’s a myth that they have to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, is not has been part of the UN rules for refugees we are signatories to.  It is a rule for EU countries.  There are numerous reasons people choose the the U.K. language and family ties being significant.  Yet we still take fewer refugees than most civilised countries.  
 

[Weston Super Saint]

12 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I have just read Braverman’s full statement and it contains yet another crass and deliberate use of provocative language. She suggests that migrants are “rich” enough to pay gangs thousands of pounds for a passage across the channel. Rich? If they were “rich” why are they risking their lives in an overcrowded rubber dinghy on frozen seas? If they are so minted, why aren’t they employing the finest lawyers and being flown in by private jets or helicopters? Yet more rhetoric tailored to demonise those seeking safety and a better life. For those who don’t think it is a big electoral issue, it certainly is in my part of Kent where the Tory MPs milk it for all they are worth.

Did she mention 'those' people?

[egg]

7 hours ago, aintforever said:

Most do. Many others probably feel safer and think they have a better chance somewhere where they speak the language or have relatives.

Being around family is not a safety issue. Having better financial prospects (I think that's what you meant) is not a safety issue. Any migrant who is in France is safe from anything they left their home country to escape. Not one of them needs to travel any further... wanting to is not need. 

 

[Weston Super Saint]

8 hours ago, aintforever said:

They obviously see it as a worthwhile investment. Pay a bit to get to a country where they feel they can feel safe, work hard and make a better life for themselves.

Despite the claims of Braverman (she's wrong by the way), I'm not sure you've truly grasped what 'people smuggling' actually entails.  For the overwhelming majority, they end up as 'modern day slaves' paying back the fees for their passage and the promise of a better life.  Most of them don't even have a change of clothes let alone a large bag stuffed full of readies.

It's quite ironic that those clamouring for the boats not to be stopped are likely the same people clamouring for the statues to be torn down, whilst not realising they are technically supporting the modern version of slavery.  Stopping the boats is good as it will reduce the slavery and exploitation.  Maybe if that was outlined, more people would accept it - but I appreciate that isn't the headline grabber in the run up to an election.

[Turkish]

8 hours ago, aintforever said:

Most do. Many others probably feel safer and think they have a better chance somewhere where they speak the language or have relatives.

As egg has already said, being near your family is not a safety issue. They can feel safe in any safe country. If you were in fear of your life fleeing a worn torn country I wouldn’t care where I was, certainly wouldn’t spend a lot percentage of my money risking going across the sea in the middle of the night during winter in a little dingy

[Turkish]

6 hours ago, moonraker said:

It’s a myth that they have to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, is not has been part of the UN rules for refugees we are signatories to.  It is a rule for EU countries.  There are numerous reasons people choose the the U.K. language and family ties being significant.  Yet we still take fewer refugees than most civilised countries.  
 

Didn’t say they had to did I. But they could but they don’t. 

[badgerx16]

7 hours ago, LuckyNumber7 said:

We are already one of the most densely populated major countries in Europe, you may not have a problem with vast swathes of the countryside disappearing under concrete but I and many others do. As you point out, the south east in particular is very over crowded and though you may make some valid points, most immigrants want to live in or near London, not up north in the middle of nowhere.

FYI: "Up North" is not the middle of nowhere. It is very nice, and in so many ways much better than "down South".

Edited 10 March, 2023 by badgerx16

[Turkish]

12 hours ago, LuckyNumber7 said:

We are already one of the most densely populated major countries in Europe, you may not have a problem with vast swathes of the countryside disappearing under concrete but I and many others do. As you point out, the south east in particular is very over crowded and though you may make some valid points, most immigrants want to live in or near London, not up north in the middle of nowhere.

How are these people not contributing to the housing shortages, do they not need somewhere to live? If 50k per year are coming across then that's probably at least 10-20k extra homes needing to be built just to accommodate the illegals coming over on boats. It's not the only problem but it certainly is a problem. Here in and around Southampton, and also where my parents live in the midlands, there are new housing estates and projects popping up all over the place and more and more green belt land is disappearing. No-one is saying the housing shortage is solely down to immigrants but it's not exactly rocket science, the more people coming in the more housing you need.

You're the one seemingly fine waving through illegal immigrants, so what is the point of a border? Whether you like it or not, they ARE coming here illegally. Crossing through multiple safe countries to get here all of which have more space than we do. Many are coming from Albania ffs, they are illegal economic migrants coming from very different cultures to ours and they should not be our responsibility. A government's job is to look after it's own people first, not anyone who decides they want to come here.

Aside from the immigration issue, these boat crossings need to be stopped purely for humanitarian reasons unless you want to see more people drowning in the Channel. Take away the carrot and you remove the reason for the boat crossings in the first place. Welcome them with open arms and of course they will continue.

I heard a story recently that a local council in Wetherby, near where i live, had agreed to take some immigrants that were in London at the moment but the immigrants refused to move, as like you say, they want to be in London not in a relatively rural part of Yorkshire. Again, doesn't smack of desperate people in fear of their safety.

I was in Stockholm recently for work and a couple of the locals there are in despair at what is going on in their once peaceful city. Big parts of it have become no go zones with regular gang battles and shootings, big drug problems, crime rising crazy levels, it wasn't like that 5 years ago, just desperate people in fear of their safety wanting to make a better life i guess. 

Edited 10 March, 2023 by Turkish

[tajjuk]

8 hours ago, LuckyNumber7 said:

We are already one of the most densely populated major countries in Europe, you may not have a problem with vast swathes of the countryside disappearing under concrete but I and many others do. As you point out, the south east in particular is very over crowded and though you may make some valid points, most immigrants want to live in or near London, not up north in the middle of nowhere.

How are these people not contributing to the housing shortages, do they not need somewhere to live? If 50k per year are coming across then that's probably at least 10-20k extra homes needing to be built just to accommodate the illegals coming over on boats. It's not the only problem but it certainly is a problem. Here in and around Southampton, and also where my parents live in the midlands, there are new housing estates and projects popping up all over the place and more and more green belt land is disappearing. No-one is saying the housing shortage is solely down to immigrants but it's not exactly rocket science, the more people coming in the more housing you need.

You're the one seemingly fine waving through illegal immigrants, so what is the point of a border? Whether you like it or not, they ARE coming here illegally. Crossing through multiple safe countries to get here all of which have more space than we do. Many are coming from Albania ffs, they are illegal economic migrants coming from very different cultures to ours and they should not be our responsibility. A government's job is to look after it's own people first, not anyone who decides they want to come here.

Aside from the immigration issue, these boat crossings need to be stopped purely for humanitarian reasons unless you want to see more people drowning in the Channel. Take away the carrot and you remove the reason for the boat crossings in the first place. Welcome them with open arms and of course they will continue.

Seriously? huge swathes of countryside are not being concreted. Drive like 20-30 minutes out of Southampton in many directions and there is huge amounts of empty land, the north of Hampshire alone is not densely populated at all and that is the South East. Also actually some of the more densely populated places in the UK are in the north like Manchester, Liverpool etc. plus the Birmingham area, whilst other areas like the south west, east anglia, even like Kent, north Hampshire, Dorset etc. none of these places are densely populated. Many rural communities are fading away, they have no young people in them, village shops and pubs are closing due to lack of trade, they have no bus services, schools are closing, no police in the area. If we moved away from the dependency on urban areas and being London centric housing would not be an issue, but of course you have the dumb government demanding people go back to work in the cities after covid even though millions upon millions of people proved that working from home was not only viable but better for them and their productivity, but that would leave offices empty and rich landlords losing money, so mates of Tories get less rich and that is who they really care about.

Also overall we are not a very densely populated country, we are like 52nd in the world, with a population density of around 700 people per square km, which is massively skewed by London where it's 5,700 people per km2, whereas the south east it goes down to 481. So you are painting a false picture to drive a narrative, probably crowded countries are like South Korea, India, Belgium etc. where overall population density average is in the thousands per km2.

You also get that people die yeh? people emigrate, go work abroad, migrants leave, its not a 1 for 1 situation, talking about a massive complicated issue like housing in such simple terms is well just simple and blaming any part of it on immigrants is just flat out wrong.  Again it just highlights the whole point, the real issues are ones within the country that the government has been failing on for years, but instead they try to con people that it's immigrants causing the issues, 50k immigrants have basically nothing to do with our housing issues.

As for 'illegal' well they just aren't at all, people seeking asylum or have refugee status are not 'illegal' immigrants and considering around 80-90% asylum applications are actually approved, that would make the vast majority of the people crossing on boats not illegal immigrants. 

Nor does crossing through multiple safe countries have anything to do with it.  There is no provision in the rights of refugees, of which we are a signatory to and helped originally draft, that they have to apply for asylum in the first 'safe' country they find. We also take far less than most other European countries, including France, so that argument is complete nonsense on every level. 

They aren't illegal, they have every right to apply for asylum here and we take in far less than everyone else. That is also despite the fact that many of them are coming from countries we have interfered with and destabilised, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan being key ones. 

Nor will this stop the boats at all, anyone who thinks that is completely stupid. Not only is this plan by the Tories illegal and literally contravenes international law, but it will do sweet FA about the boats, it will just lead to more people trying to bypass the asylum system, more people going into modern slavery, being sex trafficked etc. 

If you want to stop the boats then you formalise the whole process properly, invest in more resources, processing centres in France, go after the criminal gangs, more people to process asylum claims and then let people come across in ferries, planes, trains etc. open up safe routes of entry for asylum seekers and you cut the boats problem.

This 'stick' you are talking about is nonsense, the Rwanda programme didn't work either, this is just as nonsense as that plan.

As for this line - 'A government's job is to look after it's own people first, not anyone who decides they want to come here.' Well no for a start, we are obligated by international law to look after and let in people seeking asylum, again we literally helped draft these international laws and agreements after WW2, and pretty much every Tory government of the last 60-70 years has recognised that right and thought it was important, right up to this one that has swung so far right they make Thatcher look like a centrist. 

But also they don't do that, the country is a mess, everything is screwed up through Tory mismanagement, lack of investment, corruption, austerity policies. So instead of wasting time, money, attention on a non-existent problem, they should be actually looking out for the British people but they haven't done that for 13 years. 

500 people died unnecessarily last year because of excessive ambulance waiting times.  That is scandalous, yet her we are talking about an irrelevant problem of some people coming across in boats acting like it's the biggest issue facing the country right now. The NHS is broken, waiting lists are through the roof, Tories stole hundreds of millions of pounds in PPE contracts for their mates, cost of living is through the roof, living standards are the worst they have ever been, trade and business is being hamstrung by Brexit, sewage is being pumped into our rivers and seas whilst water companies give their CEOs huge bonuses of millions, people can't afford to heat their homes whilst energy companies pay millions to their shareholders, but yeh let's focus on some desperate people crossing the channel.....

 

[Turkish]

/\ agreed. We should put them in small, white towns in rural areas with aging populations, places like Romney Marsh. Not only does that tick all the boxes you mention as being a rural town with an aging population, it could also do with a bit of diversity in it's 97% white, British population, where the residents there tell us from the comfort of their middle class homes how terrible it is the way immigrants are being treated so would be sure of a warm welcome there. Plus there is a muslim barber and a mixed race barmaid in the local so anyone moving there from overseas would immediately have a couple of friendly faces

[AlexLaw76]

curious. If we are to take them all in.  What is the limit per year/total?

 

[AlexLaw76]

26 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

 

500 people died unnecessarily last year because of excessive ambulance waiting times.  That is scandalous, yet her we are talking about an irrelevant problem of some people coming across in boats acting like it's the biggest issue facing the country right now. The NHS is broken, waiting lists are through the roof, Tories stole hundreds of millions of pounds in PPE contracts for their mates, cost of living is through the roof, living standards are the worst they have ever been, trade and business is being hamstrung by Brexit, sewage is being pumped into our rivers and seas whilst water companies give their CEOs huge bonuses of millions, people can't afford to heat their homes whilst energy companies pay millions to their shareholders, but yeh let's focus on some desperate people crossing the channel.....

 

Just wait till we get to the 'because of lockdown' figures, which I am sure you will mention any moment now