Westminster Politics

Mr Pigeon said:
Wait for the Talking Heads to come on TV to explain why this is false. And then when it's proven to be right how it isn't a big deal. And then when it's proven to be a big deal how it's the best we could've hoped for. Then Boris will say something funny and we'll all forget about it.
Click to expand...
"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." I'm guessing the next few years are going to similar to post 2008 but just comically stupid. We've got a glimpse of the BBC new production model of chasing migrants on a inflatable boat(All that's missing is the classic Attenborough voice over)What a truly great period of human history to live through!

Over the last few months I often wonder what happened to guy on here who voted Tory because he thought Corbyn was going to destroy his children future by taking away private schools, now that we are facing another giant recession(A second recession and I'm not even in my 30's.)

At certain level I can't help but feel a little bit sorry for someone who's so detached from reality that it's fecks over their family. Still at least he's still got a second home the Tory cnut.
 
Last edited:
sun_tzu said:
yes and they are choosing to leave this "safe" country and risk their childrens wellbeing - which is exactly the point i was making against the statement




so you agree with me they are making a choice in leaving a safe country that they feel is worth endangering their childs life
Click to expand...

If you look at the figures, Germany and France accept 4 to 5 times more asylum seekers than the UK. It is only close to 5% of total asylum requests in Europe that are for residence in the UK.

Individuals will each have various reasons for wanting to reach the UK. Maybe they speak English, maybe they have family over here already, maybe they worked with the British Army in Syria and were told we are a welcoming country. "They" are not a single group with only one motive.

Also, while asylum seekers are waiting for decisions, whether in France or the Uk, they live in the bare minimum standard conditions. In some cases way below. Why don't you research this? Speak to asylum charities, or at least read their websites? If you genuinely has an appetite to understand you could do.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
If you look at the figures, Germany and France accept 4 to 5 times more asylum seekers than the UK. It is only close to 5% of total asylum requests in Europe that are for residence in the UK.

Individuals will each have various reasons for wanting to reach the UK. Maybe they speak English, maybe they have family over here already, maybe they worked with the British Army in Syria and were told we are a welcoming country. "They" are not a single group with only one motive.

Also, while asylum seekers are waiting for decisions, whether in France or the Uk, they live in the bare minimum standard conditions. In some cases way below. Why don't you research this? Speak to asylum charities, or at least read their websites? If you genuinely has an appetite to understand you could do.
Click to expand...
how does any of that relate to the point that somebody said people ONLY put their kids on boats if the sea is safetr than the land
How does any of what you said (which is true) actually pertain to the point which is these people are leaving a safe country not a war zone - if they choose to do so it is not for reasons of safety as you outline yourself
 
Sweet Square said:
Over the last few months I often wonder what happened to guy on here who voted Tory because he thought Corbyn was going to destroy his children future by taking away private schools, now that we are facing another giant recession(A second recession and I'm not even in my 30's.)

At certain level I can't help but feel a little bit sorry for someone who's so detached from reality that it's fecks over their family. Still at least he's still got a second home the Tory cnut.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile welcome to "oven ready" no deal Brexit. He can have private schools but an economy and jobs market that has shrunk by 25%.

Thank god Corbyn hasn't destroyed his children's future.
 
sun_tzu said:
probably the same reason Australia dony

how does any of that relate to the point that somebody said people ONLY put their kids on boats if the sea is safetr than the land
How does any of what you said (which is true) actually pertain to the point which is these people are leaving a safe country not a war zone - if they choose to do so it is not for reasons of safety as you outline yourself
Click to expand...
I will try again. Maybe you can answer the questions below? Even if only to yourself.

The issue cannot be simplified into a simple 3 word slogan. You need to spend more time to understand.

Also, while asylum seekers are waiting for decisions, whether in France or the Uk, they live in the bare minimum standard conditions. In some cases way below. Why don't you research this? Speak to asylum charities, or at least read their websites?

If you genuinely had an appetite to understand you could do.

I'll even provide a starting point for you.

European Court of Human Rights condemns France over ‘inhuman’ living conditions for asylum-seekers
https://www.france24.com/en/2020070...-inhuman-living-conditions-for-asylum-seekers

Q&A: what’s the real story behind recent UK refugee arrivals?
Britain takes in very few of the world’s asylum seekers and only a minority of them arrive by boat
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-real-story-behind-recent-uk-refugee-arrivals
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
I will try again. Maybe you can answer the questions below? Even if only to yourself.

The issue cannot be simplified into a simple 3 word slogan. You need to spend more time to understand.

Also, while asylum seekers are waiting for decisions, whether in France or the Uk, they live in the bare minimum standard conditions. In some cases way below. Why don't you research this? Speak to asylum charities, or at least read their websites?

If you genuinely had an appetite to understand you could do.

I'll even provide a starting point for you.

European Court of Human Rights condemns France over ‘inhuman’ living conditions for asylum-seekers
https://www.france24.com/en/2020070...-inhuman-living-conditions-for-asylum-seekers

Q&A: what’s the real story behind recent UK refugee arrivals?
Britain takes in very few of the world’s asylum seekers and only a minority of them arrive by boat
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-real-story-behind-recent-uk-refugee-arrivals
Click to expand...
Thank you for that link, learnt a lot reading that.
 
Untied said:
This is a great way of spinning that we have a zombie economy built on low paid service work.
Click to expand...

This is probably a wider trend (or maybe just in richer countries with a history of class-stratification), but a decent chunk of the British economy hinges on the fact that we (irrespective of our wealth) like to spend our spare time 'renting' the experience of being catered to or entertained by paid staff. Going to the cinema or a restaurant is the closest thing a lot of people have to a hobby. My pop-psychology take is that it's a mix of escapism and aspiration, basically role-playing at being old-timey aristocrats by temporarily enjoying the luxuries we associate with that lifestyle.

The obvious issue of overeliance on services is that the viability of most of these low-income, low stability jobs is intrinsically linked to whether other people in similar jobs have disposable income. This is why a right-wing government was forced into paying for furlough, because the alternative was a vicious cycle where the impact of job losses on the customer base of the service industry causes further job losses and so on. Obviously economic shocks affect any industry, but the British service industry is especially at risk because the customer base who fund it and the people whose jobs rely on that funding overlap so signficantly.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Meanwhile welcome to "oven ready" no deal Brexit. He can have private schools but an economy and jobs market that has shrunk by 25%.

Thank god Corbyn hasn't destroyed his children's future.
Click to expand...
"The Tories in England had long imagined that they were enthusiastic about the monarchy, the church and beauties of the old English Constitution, until the day of danger wrung from them the confession that they are enthusiastic only about ground rent.”
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Because it would clearly be politically untenable.
Click to expand...
This spineless government bows to the racist whims of Farage.

It seems any time he pops up in the media with criticism of immigration/refugees etc this government desperately tries to prove they're even tougher than he is.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
I will try again. Maybe you can answer the questions below? Even if only to yourself.

The issue cannot be simplified into a simple 3 word slogan. You need to spend more time to understand.

Also, while asylum seekers are waiting for decisions, whether in France or the Uk, they live in the bare minimum standard conditions. In some cases way below. Why don't you research this? Speak to asylum charities, or at least read their websites?

If you genuinely had an appetite to understand you could do.

I'll even provide a starting point for you.

European Court of Human Rights condemns France over ‘inhuman’ living conditions for asylum-seekers
https://www.france24.com/en/2020070...-inhuman-living-conditions-for-asylum-seekers

Q&A: what’s the real story behind recent UK refugee arrivals?
Britain takes in very few of the world’s asylum seekers and only a minority of them arrive by boat
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-real-story-behind-recent-uk-refugee-arrivals
Click to expand...
so neither of your own links suggest france is a warzone / an unsafe country

so yes or no - is france a safe country?
 
sun_tzu said:
So back to the original point that people only put their kids on a boat when the water os safer than the land you agree france is a safe country and leaving there is not the same as fleeing a warzone
Click to expand...

Damn you really got me there. Yeah I guess you cornered me into admitting that *checks notes* France is not a war zone
 
sun_tzu said:
so neither of your own links suggest france is a warzone / an unsafe country

so yes or no - is france a safe country?
Click to expand...
So when the article says that the living conditions in France are rated as “inhumane” that doesn’t file under unsafe for them? Or because they’re refugees do they not have the right to live in liveable conditions?

So yes or no - do refugees not have the right to live in safe conditions?
 
jeff_goldblum said:
This is probably a wider trend (or maybe just in richer countries with a history of class-stratification), but a decent chunk of the British economy hinges on the fact that we (irrespective of our wealth) like to spend our spare time 'renting' the experience of being catered to or entertained by paid staff. Going to the cinema or a restaurant is the closest thing a lot of people have to a hobby. My pop-psychology take is that it's a mix of escapism and aspiration, basically role-playing at being old-timey aristocrats by temporarily enjoying the luxuries we associate with that lifestyle.

The obvious issue of overeliance on services is that the viability of most of these low-income, low stability jobs is intrinsically linked to whether other people in similar jobs have disposable income. This is why a right-wing government was forced into paying for furlough, because the alternative was a vicious cycle where the impact of job losses on the customer base of the service industry causes further job losses and so on. Obviously economic shocks affect any industry, but the British service industry is especially at risk because the customer base who fund it and the people whose jobs rely on that funding overlap so signficantly.
Click to expand...
this is worth a read
 
Mogget said:
This spineless government bows to the racist whims of Farage.

It seems any time he pops up in the media with criticism of immigration/refugees etc this government desperately tries to prove they're even tougher than he is.
Click to expand...
It's certainly distracting the right wing press from the government's other failings right now.

No down votes on this one...

eYA2FHU.jpg
 
Kentonio said:
In which case they're economic migrants not refugees fleeing oppression. Obviously you can be both, but I wish we'd stop with some of this 'If you're against their arrival you must be a heartless Tory monster who wants kids to drown!' narrative that some are so fond of.

Yes the UK is shit for not allowing in more immigrants and definitely shit for not accepting more refugees, but if you're fleeing a warzone and have the opportunity to settle in a safe country, then its a bit of a stretch to claim you absolutely have to risk your families lives a second time so you can reach a safe country you think will suit you better.
Click to expand...

Why does it matter if they're economic migrants (which is a charged and ridiculous term)? Or if they absolutely have to make the journey rather than thinking it's their best chance in life for them and their kids? What argument exactly are you trying to support?
 
Berbasbullet said:
So when the article says that the living conditions in France are rated as “inhumane” that doesn’t file under unsafe for them? Or because they’re refugees do they not have the right to live in liveable conditions?

So yes or no - do refugees not have the right to live in safe conditions?
Click to expand...
Yes... though you know refugee status is only granted at the end of an asylum application right... so these people are not by definition refugees yet

refugee, generally speaking, is a displaced person who has been forced to cross national boundaries and who cannot return home safely (see Definitions for more details). Such a person may be called an asylum seeker until granted refugee status by the contracting state or the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees[2] (UNHCR) if they formally make a claim for asylum.[3]
Click to expand...

Have they made an asylum application with the french authorities?
 
Smores said:
Why does it matter if they're economic migrants (which is a charged and ridiculous term)? Or if they absolutely have to make the journey rather than thinking it's their best chance in life for them and their kids? What argument exactly are you trying to support?
Click to expand...

I’m not supporting any argument other than a desire to remove some of the more emotive language from the discussion when it comes to shouting people down with talk of how all these people are fleeing conflict. Personally I want immigrants and refugees to be allowed into the UK in much higher numbers that they currently are, but immigration conversations need to be calm and rational and to include actual facts and data, not turn into an endless back and forth between the people who use disgusting language like ‘invasion’ and the people who consider any discussion about numbers or local capabilities to mean someone’s a heartless Tory prick.
 
Britain takes in 600'000 migrants a year with net migration at 300'000.

We have a housing shortage of over a million homes and no money to build anywhere near enough social housing for those who will never own their own home as prices rise inexorably beyond most peoples incomes.

It cost tens of thousands of pounds to process each claim and extradition of failed claimants is a tiny fraction of those who who are caught which is in turn probably a fraction of those who come illegally.

What ever we do about this the status quo isn't really tenable. Any open door policy will only exacerbate our own domestic problems and has little public support.

I haven't heard of one suggestion which seems workable long term.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
I will try again. Maybe you can answer the questions below? Even if only to yourself.

The issue cannot be simplified into a simple 3 word slogan. You need to spend more time to understand.

Also, while asylum seekers are waiting for decisions, whether in France or the Uk, they live in the bare minimum standard conditions. In some cases way below. Why don't you research this? Speak to asylum charities, or at least read their websites?

If you genuinely had an appetite to understand you could do.

I'll even provide a starting point for you.

European Court of Human Rights condemns France over ‘inhuman’ living conditions for asylum-seekers
https://www.france24.com/en/2020070...-inhuman-living-conditions-for-asylum-seekers

Q&A: what’s the real story behind recent UK refugee arrivals?
Britain takes in very few of the world’s asylum seekers and only a minority of them arrive by boat
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-real-story-behind-recent-uk-refugee-arrivals
Click to expand...


At least we can agree its all the fault of the French.:wenger:
 
sun_tzu said:
Yes... though you know refugee status is only granted at the end of an asylum application right... so these people are not by definition refugees yet



Have they made an asylum application with the french authorities?
Click to expand...
You know what I meant :lol:
 
Kentonio said:
I’m not supporting any argument other than a desire to remove some of the more emotive language from the discussion when it comes to shouting people down with talk of how all these people are fleeing conflict. Personally I want immigrants and refugees to be allowed into the UK in much higher numbers that they currently are, but immigration conversations need to be calm and rational and to include actual facts and data, not turn into an endless back and forth between the people who use disgusting language like ‘invasion’ and the people who consider any discussion about numbers or local capabilities to mean someone’s a heartless Tory prick.
Click to expand...

It’s often said that you can never appease the Faragist far right. I also start to wonder whether the far left have any interest in real solutions to this problem rather than point scoring. If politics is the art of the possible, then advocating allowing a substantial increase in uninvited immigration (and dismissing distinctions between refugees and economic migrants) in a post-Brexit vote, worst economic downturn since records began scenario is akin to advocating perpetual motion or alchemy.
 
sun_tzu said:
so neither of your own links suggest france is a warzone / an unsafe country

so yes or no - is france a safe country?
Click to expand...
I agree with the European Court of Human Rights. Inhuman living conditions are unsafe, yes.

It is not that difficult to comprehend. But as usual your lack of understanding and even moreso your lack of effort to understand, speaks volumes about you.
 
Kentonio said:
I’m not supporting any argument other than a desire to remove some of the more emotive language from the discussion when it comes to shouting people down with talk of how all these people are fleeing conflict. Personally I want immigrants and refugees to be allowed into the UK in much higher numbers that they currently are, but immigration conversations need to be calm and rational and to include actual facts and data, not turn into an endless back and forth between the people who use disgusting language like ‘invasion’ and the people who consider any discussion about numbers or local capabilities to mean someone’s a heartless Tory prick.
Click to expand...

@Don't Kill Bill
These figures hardly look like an open door policy so they.

The UK had "fewer asylum applications in 2019 (49,000) than Germany (165,600), France (129,000) and Spain (118,000). In fact, the vast majority of the world’s refugees – 84% – are located in developing nations. Only 16% reside in wealthy countries that are former colonial powers or involved in recent foreign interventions."

So the conversation shouldn't be about a so called "invasion" of 4000 asylum seekers with Farage's Bile on social media then the BBC and SKY reporters following suit by stalking boats on prime time news. It is a handy distraction for the government but a dangerous precedent. Akin to 1930s Europe.
 
It's a really difficult debate, isn't it? I'm not taking the piss. It really is a tough discussion to have. On one hand you have the empathetic argument - "we should do everything we can to help our fellow human beings". And on the other you have the realist (maybe not the right word but...) argument - "we don't have enough money/assets to help everyone".

It becomes a difficult debate because it becomes so emotionally charged, and I don't envy the folk who have to make these decisions. HOWEVER. I can't look at this government and believe them when THEY say it's a "difficult decision". Like all of their "difficult decisions" it's actually quite easy for them. They don't give a feck about anyone and they've shown it time and again.

If this discussion was occuring in a united country that doesn't have growing pockets of bigotted thick skulled plebeians blindly ingesting the vapid rhetoric shite of a vain, unscrupulous, ruling class on one side, and on the other side salad munching Greenpeace twats who would rather shout "shut up" and sniff their own farts instead of having an actual discussion, we might get somewhere. But we already know how this ends. Some people get fecked over, some people protest and some rejoice. And then six months later everyone gets fecked over.

My point is; I'm glad when we can have proper discussions and light hearted banter on this forum that doesn't just turn into massive shit flinging contests. It makes a change from the usual pointlessness of Twitter.
 
Genuine question here - Has any political topic(With real material outcomes at stake) gone on to be resolved by debating ?

It's seems to me anyway that there are specific material conditions at certain points of history which give rises to different political and social classes/groups who by force push their causes into being.

Can't remember the last time anything in Britain was settle with a debate.
 
Sweet Square said:
Genuine question here - Has any political topic(With real material outcomes at stake) gone on to be resolved by debating ?

It's seems to me anyway that there are specific material conditions at certain points of history which give rises to different political and social classes/groups who by force push their causes into being.

Can't remember the last time anything in Britain was settle with a debate.
Click to expand...

Problem is things are rarely debated in a rational and reasoned way, it’s just statement of your view and then just attack the other perspective. It’s become tiresome, so people really have no interest, and so their existing view just ends up being reinforced.
 
Untied said:


This is a great way of spinning that we have a zombie economy built on low paid service work.
Click to expand...

Don't know the numbers, but is what he is saying even true for most of the European countries besides Germany? Also, there are heavy industry sectors, e.g. aerospace, automotive, etc., that are at least as equally impacted that some of those other countries rely own; not to mention the countries that rely on tourism.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
Problem is things are rarely debated in a rational and reasoned way, it’s just statement of your view and then just attack the other perspective. It’s become tiresome, so people really have no interest, and so their existing view just ends up being reinforced.
Click to expand...
But hasn't this always been the case ? I'm not sure this is a modern development(Although maybe social media makes it feel more intense ?).

More than happy for someone to bring up examples as I'm struggling myself to think of any political issues which was debated and then resulted in some agreed change.
 
Sweet Square said:
But hasn't this always been the case ? I'm not sure this is a modern development(Although maybe social media makes it feel more intense ?).

More than happy for someone to bring up examples as I'm struggling myself to think of any political issues which was debated and then resulted in some agreed change.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, and maybe it’s just the theatre of the whole process, and given we have more exposure these days it’s more apparent. Just seems utterly pointless most of the time.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
@Don't Kill Bill
These figures hardly look like an open door policy so they.

The UK had "fewer asylum applications in 2019 (49,000) than Germany (165,600), France (129,000) and Spain (118,000). In fact, the vast majority of the world’s refugees – 84% – are located in developing nations. Only 16% reside in wealthy countries that are former colonial powers or involved in recent foreign interventions."

So the conversation shouldn't be about a so called "invasion" of 4000 asylum seekers with Farage's Bile on social media then the BBC and SKY reporters following suit by stalking boats on prime time news. It is a handy distraction for the government but a dangerous precedent. Akin to 1930s Europe.
Click to expand...

Who said it should? Did I not literally just say that shouldn’t be the kind of language that people use?
 
Sweet Square said:
Genuine question here - Has any political topic(With real material outcomes at stake) gone on to be resolved by debating ?

It's seems to me anyway that there are specific material conditions at certain points of history which give rises to different political and social classes/groups who by force push their causes into being.

Can't remember the last time anything in Britain was settle with a debate.
Click to expand...
Really good point, I know I can be guilty of this and I consider myself to be fairly open minded but I think everyone has views engrained in them and challenging them naturally makes you feel very uncomfortable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.