General News Thread

[Sampson]

BTW when did it become common place for opposition parties to announce policies not even halfway through an election cycle? The common knowledge until incredibly recently was always that opposition parties didn't say anything until the election cycle and their manifesto so other parties wouldn't steal their ideas.

 

The last year or so Reform, Greens and Tories have all been constantly announcing "policies" as almost press announcements knowing full well they'll never have to enact them.

Edited yesterday at 15:41 by Sampson

[leicsmac]

Just now, Sampson said:

BTW when did it become common place for opposition parties to announce policies not even halfway through an election cycle? The common knowledge until incredibly recently was always that opposition parties didn't say anything until the election cycle and their manifesto so other parties wouldn't steal their ideas.

 

The last year or so Reform, Greens and Tories have all been constantly announcing "policies" as almost press announcements knowing full well they'll never have to enact them.

When this era of 24 hour soundbites and social media began, I would guess. 

[Sampson]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

When this era of 24 hour soundbites and social media began, I would guess. 

No, I think it's an incredibly recent thing, like only really started since this government got elected 2 years ago. Before tuat, prevailing thought was always that you save your big ideas for the election cycle and don't give your opposition ideas.

 

It's not a left-right thing either as the Greens are just as bad at it now.

Edited yesterday at 15:53 by Sampson

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Sampson said:

No, I think it's an incredibly recent thing, like only really started since this government got elected 2 years ago. Before tuat, prevailing thought was always that you save your big ideas for the election cycle and don't give your opposition ideas.

 

It's not a left-right thing either as the Greens are just as bad at it now.

Interesting. In that case, it is a pretty odd thing for it to come about them and not a few years before or afterwards. 

[kenny]

Just now, Sampson said:

No, I think it's an incredibly recent thing, like only really started since this government got elected 2 years ago. Before tuat, prevailing thought was always that you save your big ideas for the election cycle and don't give your opposition ideas.

 

It's not a left-right thing either as tge Greens are just as bad at it now.

Labour didn't in opposition and was criticised for having no policies.

 

It has appeared that in government, they policy platform has been light and ill thought out. It makes sense to me that in opposition you should be preparing for government more than just sniping at the current incumbants.

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

35 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

They’re claiming political asylum not escaping the local climate.

 

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And I made it rather clear at the time that is simply one of the many causes (though becoming more and more important) of the lack of stability in those regions at the present time. Which all do need at least somewhat addressing if migration is actually going to be managed in an even vaguely humane way. 

 

Evidently I wasn't clear enough or some folks simply read what they want to read, but fair enough. 

There are many factors why people might leave their homeland, family and friends, but political asylum is the only thing that can be claimed. Drought or famine or disease aren't recognised (officially) as reasons for asylum, there's no option, regardless for the actual reason.

 

Also drought, famine and disease cause political unrest so ...

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

 

There are many factors why people might leave their homeland, family and friends, but political asylum is the only thing that can be claimed. Drought or famine or disease aren't recognised (officially) as reasons for asylum, there's no option, regardless for the actual reason.

 

Also drought, famine and disease cause political unrest so ...

Right. 

 

This matter is so much more complicated than many people appear to view it as. Especially as it concerns the life and welfare of other human beings - who, though there will be bad ones among them, a large part of will be entirely innocent of everything other than the bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

[Zear0]

12 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

 

There are many factors why people might leave their homeland, family and friends, but political asylum is the only thing that can be claimed. Drought or famine or disease aren't recognised (officially) as reasons for asylum, there's no option, regardless for the actual reason.

 

Also drought, famine and disease cause political unrest so ...

Don’t disagree, but I stand by my suspicion that the thousands of young men on boats are drawn for economic benefits rather than escaping persecution that this system was set up for. My worry is that this yet again a decent system to protect people is being exploited to the detriment of those in actual need of shelter.

 

Similar to the climate thread where it was identified a certain political demographic ignored facts, I find it slightly amusing there’s exactly the same behaviour here for a different political demographic.

Edited yesterday at 16:14 by Zear0

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Don’t disagree, but I stand by my suspicion that the thousands of young men on boats are drawn for economic benefits rather than escaping persecution that this system was set up for. My worry is that this yet again a decent system to protect people is being exploited to the detriment of those in actual need of shelter.

 

Similar to the climate thread where it was identified a certain political demographic ignored facts, I find it slightly amusing there’s exactly the same behaviour here for a different political demographic.

If that decent system is no longer fit for purpose (and that's certainly a cogent argument), then actually working towards a world where it's much less necessary, by directly addressing whatever causes make it necessary, is the best - and perhaps only good - option.

 

Edit: unless someone thinks that large economic inequality that is a key driver of migration (in this argument) simply cannot be addressed. 

 

Edited yesterday at 16:24 by leicsmac

[Zear0]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If that decent system is no longer fit for purpose (and that's certainly a cogent argument), then actually working towards a world where it's much less necessary, by directly addressing whatever causes make it necessary, is the best - and perhaps only good - option.

 

Edit: unless someone thinks that large economic inequality that is a key driver of migration (in this argument) simply cannot be addressed. 

 

Again, economic inequality isn't a reason to claim asylum, it's to escape war, violence, or persecution.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Again, economic inequality isn't a reason to claim asylum, it's to escape war, violence, or persecution.

I agree, but the topic here is migration in general, not just the movement of those seeking asylum by the strict definition thereof. 

 

Additionally, I would think there is a pretty compelling argument to be made that economic inequality is a pretty damn big driver of that war, violence and persecution that you speak of.

[Innovindil]

34 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If that decent system is no longer fit for purpose (and that's certainly a cogent argument), then actually working towards a world where it's much less necessary, by directly addressing whatever causes make it necessary, is the best - and perhaps only good - option.

 

Edit: unless someone thinks that large economic inequality that is a key driver of migration (in this argument) simply cannot be addressed. 

 

Well it can, with tens of trillions of pounds, hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of lives and multiple generations of time. 

 

Even then, people that don't want to change, won't. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

43 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Don’t disagree, but I stand by my suspicion that the thousands of young men on boats are drawn for economic benefits rather than escaping persecution that this system was set up for. My worry is that this yet again a decent system to protect people is being exploited to the detriment of those in actual need of shelter.

 

Similar to the climate thread where it was identified a certain political demographic ignored facts, I find it slightly amusing there’s exactly the same behaviour here for a different political demographic.

I don't disagree with the first paragraph. Usually these young men are sold a dream. A dream because it's an ideal that doesn't exist and they only find the truth when it's too late. The trafficking doesn't necessarily stop once they get here.

 

The second paragraph? There's two kinds of truth. There's the truth you agree with and the truth that you don't.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Well it can, with tens of trillions of pounds, hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of lives and multiple generations of time. 

 

Even then, people that don't want to change, won't. 

That could be what it takes. And your second paragraph here is spot on, some humans are just like that. 

 

Just a question if whether, over those generations, whether or not not addressing it will cost more, in lives and materiel, than stated here.

 

I think quite possibly so, but that's just conjecture on my part. 

[Zear0]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

I agree, but the topic here is migration in general, not just the movement of those seeking asylum by the strict definition thereof. 

 

Additionally, I would think there is a pretty compelling argument to be made that economic inequality is a pretty damn big driver of that war, violence and persecution that you speak of.

No it wasn't, it was about tackling illegal immigration on account of the recent policies announced by Reform and *spits* Restore.  As for the final point, please engage in evidence-based discussions rather than slogans as can't even respond to stuff like that.

 

"Address the root causes" sounds compassionate, but it's so broad that it doesn't answer any of the questions actually being debated.  As a country we need to accept what level of net migration (asylum or visa based) should be 100k, 300k, 700k or 1 million? Once decided, what next? Tighten visas, change asylum rules so anyone who is below the UK average be able to come over. None of those questions are answered by saying "fix global inequality".  It was like my analogy in the post to MC in the climate thread about flood defences and the response being "well, we should stop climate change." No s**t, but it doesn't tell you what to do.

 

As with all topics, our personal experiences are guiding our positions.  Firstly, I've mentioned before in previous threads that I used to work in the US where I was extremely well compensated and had a partner over there.  My visa extension was rejected and I had to return home.  We need to accept that life isn't always fair and people need to live with that fact that things won't be perfect.  I'm not one for victimhood culture when it's not genuine.  Secondly, my cousin works in homeless and sheltering services for Norfolk council.  She left the job in tears where hundreds of families with young children are being denied housing as the Home Office is calling them up monthly saying "another 300 solo young men need housing" and being given priority.

 

Based on the above, my point is, we need to have actual solutions to our system and processes that can manage an acceptable level of migration and asylum without it destroying the whole process which is what would happen if Reform get in.  The Tories were just inept at everything they did so I'm not surprised they did nothing, but Labour are still in complete denial on the problem this is having on society and posts in here reflect this.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Zear0 said:

No it wasn't, it was about tackling illegal immigration on account of the recent policies announced by Reform and *spits* Restore.  As for the final point, please engage in evidence-based discussions rather than slogans as can't even respond to stuff like that.

 

"Address the root causes" sounds compassionate, but it's so broad that it doesn't answer any of the questions actually being debated.  As a country we need to accept what level of net migration (asylum or visa based) should be 100k, 300k, 700k or 1 million? Once decided, what next? Tighten visas, change asylum rules so anyone who is below the UK average be able to come over. None of those questions are answered by saying "fix global inequality".  It was like my analogy in the post to MC in the climate thread about flood defences and the response being "well, we should stop climate change." No s**t, but it doesn't tell you what to do.

 

As with all topics, our personal experiences are guiding our positions.  Firstly, I've mentioned before in previous threads that I used to work in the US where I was extremely well compensated and had a partner over there.  My visa extension was rejected and I had to return home.  We need to accept that life isn't always fair and people need to live with that fact that things won't be perfect.  I'm not one for victimhood culture when it's not genuine.  Secondly, my cousin works in homeless and sheltering services for Norfolk council.  She left the job in tears where hundreds of families with young children are being denied housing as the Home Office is calling them up monthly saying "another 300 solo young men need housing" and being given priority.

 

Based on the above, my point is, we need to have actual solutions to our system and processes that can manage an acceptable level of migration and asylum without it destroying the whole process which is what would happen if Reform get in.  The Tories were just inept at everything they did so I'm not surprised they did nothing, but Labour are still in complete denial on the problem this is having on society and posts in here reflect this.

The argument for pragmatism and an actual road map, at least in the short term, is fair and I won't argue with that. 

 

But you're right in terms of personal experiences guiding our outlook. I'm an idealist and while every single unfair situation in the world cannot be corrected, that shouldn't mean it's something folks cannot or should not strive towards. 

 

I know it must sound wild and wooly to be referring to ideas that appear abstract, but the way I see it is that if that big picture isn't at least in some way considered along with more pragmatic short term stated solutions, then all the world is going to do is lurch from crisis to crisis of its own making, fixing each one at a time like fixing holes in a dam, until there's finally one that is simply too big. 

[Sampson]

edit: nevermind. Pretty sure I got caught out by fake news,

Edited yesterday at 17:44 by Sampson

[Zear0]

5 minutes ago, Sampson said:

edit: nevermind. Pretty sure I got caught out by fake news,

Was it a Reform politician not being corrupt?

[Sampson]

2 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Was it a Reform politician not being corrupt?

Haha, no it was actually a conspiracy theory about the US being behind these Morrocons going into Ceuta pushed by notable former Republicans (including Majorie Taylor Green), but on further investigation, it was based on very misleading evidence so I deleted it.

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Haha, no it was actually a conspiracy theory about the US being behind these Morrocons going into Ceuta pushed by notable former Republicans (including Majorie Taylor Green), but on further investigation, it was based on very misleading evidence so I deleted it.

As per before, imo it's entirely possible that the whole thing was a psyop generated by those looking to bring the Spanish government back "into line", but that remains simply a theory at the moment. 

[Lionator]

A sitting MP wrote this!!

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Lionator said:

A sitting MP wrote this!!

 

 

I'm reasonably sure that people like Ms Pochin would have been marching with Oswald Mosley at around that period of history, and supporting the efforts of the people looking to violate French sovereignty. 

[Zear0]

4 minutes ago, Lionator said:

A sitting MP wrote this!!

 

 

Cheap shot, but the extent of the French's ineptitude around that time should never be understated.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Cheap shot, but the extent of the French's ineptitude around that time should never be understated.

For me it's not so much about it being a cheap shot at all, but as per above that it's coming from someone who would have happily carried water for their opponents at the time and is throwing the shot from a place of false concern anyway. 

Edited yesterday at 19:35 by leicsmac

[bovril]

Brit immigration sceptics really blew their load prematurely with the Polish plumbers stuff. Shame really because it's obviously got pretty bad last few years.