UK Politics: Spaffed up the wall while chuntering from a sedentary position

[Rorshach]

On 11/15/2019 at 4:52 PM, Soylent Brown said:

So if immigrants aren't ruining British culture after all, what's the problem?

Liverpool FC.

Particulary one Wijnaldum, G.

[HexMachina]

So....Prince Andrew’s interview on Epstein....

i mean, where do you even begin?

this sums it up quite well

Quote

Charlie Proctor, editor of the Royal Central website, said: “I expected a train wreck. That was a plane crashing into an oil tanker, causing a tsunami, triggering a nuclear explosion level bad.”

 

[Heartofice]

On 11/15/2019 at 2:57 PM, Werthead said:

Citation needed.

That people who voted leave are more traditional and more interested in their local community etc? Worth looking at the book 'Road to Somewhere' for that stuff.

 

Quote

Where are these problems? What is the location of these "ghettos" (Racist Dogwhistling Term #327 when applied to Poles)?

Ask Trevor Phillips who said the same. But I'm half asian and I grew up in an area that had almost no native white people in it, I'd say that Britain has historically clustered its immigrant populations into small areas and that is far from the ideal way to integrate people into a community.

Quote

Citation needed. What large change, where? Where has an influx of mostly educated, white, Christian eastern Europeans caused major, widespread problems in the UK?

What citation do you need? Again you are strawmanning quite a lot here. The change in question was the immigration levels, which were incredibly high at the time of the referendum (the foreign born population doubling in a few decades etc), but the real point here was the rate of change. 

" Consider the percentage-change in migrant numbers, rather than the total headcount, and the opposite pattern emerges (chart 2). Where foreign-born populations increased by more than 200% between 2001 and 2014, a Leave vote followed in 94% of cases. The proportion of migrants may be relatively low in Leave strongholds such as Boston, in Lincolnshire (where 15.4% of the population are foreign-born). But it has grown precipitously in a short period of time (by 479%, in Boston’s case). High levels of immigration don’t seem to bother Britons; high rates of change do."
https://www.economist.com/britain/2016/07/08/britains-immigration-paradox
 

Quote

This never happened. 

Sorry you are wrong, it was happening constantly. You only have to go a couple of pages back to see certain posters sneering about 'cups of tea' to show that if you suggest that Britain has some sort of national identity you are some rampant racist. If you are denying that people who were complaining about immigration levels weren't called racist then I don't know what this entire conversation was about. 

I won't however claim that people vote rationally. They mostly do not. That also includes those who voted Remain btw. There is obviously a level of irrationality in all elections and votes. The point I was making originally was that the behaviour of those on the left and in the media only added fuel to the fire. I really don't think there are many populations on the planet that deal well with high levels of change and immigration in such small periods of time

So if you combine those rapid levels of immigration,  and then not only do you tell people that they are not only wrong to be concerned, but that they are bad people for being worried, and then also btw tell them that they have no material way of changing the levels of immigration... well then you are going to get a reaction. 

[mormont]

6 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

So....Prince Andrew’s interview on Epstein....

i mean, where do you even begin?

this sums it up quite well

I mean, I'm not astonished. There's a certain level of privilege and wealth, and the Royals are definitely in it, where people become both arrogant and blind to their own arrogance.

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

I mean, I'm not astonished. There's a certain level of privilege and wealth, and the Royals are definitely in it, where people become both arrogant and blind to their own arrogance.

I got the sense he had been heavily briefed for this interview from his team, and that he should fire all of them because it was quite frankly bizarre! ‘ I have a non sweating condition!’ Seriously??

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

 

Ask Trevor Phillips who said the same. But I'm half asian and I grew up in an area that had almost no native white people in it, I'd say that Britain has historically clustered its immigration populations into small areas and that is far from the ideal way to integrate people into a community.

 

It's interesting. New Zealand has gone out of it's way to avoid ghettoising the lower socioeconomic groups along ethnic lines...except for Maori and Pasifika. Unofficial of course, no actual policy to keep those demographics separate.

So isn't it interesting that we don't really have racial problems among the masses, except for everyone else vs Maori and Pasifika, and Maori and Pasifika between each other.

It's almost like integrating communities prevents ethnic division and facilitates cultural exchange and appreciation and a realisation that we have more in common than not, and segregating them has the opposite effect.

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's almost like integrating communities prevents ethnic division and facilitates cultural exchange and appreciation and a realisation that we have more in common than not, and segregating them has the opposite effect.

Exactly. And a good immigration policy should do that. 

[Derfel Cadarn]

The Johnson/Arcuri affair looks ready to boil over again...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50450167

[The Marquis de Leech]

32 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's interesting. New Zealand has gone out of it's way to avoid ghettoising the lower socioeconomic groups along ethnic lines...except for Maori and Pasifika. Unofficial of course, no actual policy to keep those demographics separate.

Obvious point - non-Pacific migrants here tend to not be in lower socio-economic groups to start with. 

[Chaircat Meow]

Horrific poll from YouGov. Quite a few others (not all) say the same. The +3 for the Tories might just be people being prompted they can't vote for the BXP in current Tory seats - if so this small surge will likely not affect the result. Never thought I'd say this but come on Jeremy you can do better than this. 

CON: 45% (+3)

LAB: 28% (-)

LDEM: 15% (-)

BREX: 4% (-)

via @YouGov Chgs. w/ 12 Nov

[Derfel Cadarn]

YouGov pays people who complete a lot of their polls. My wife has made a fair bit of cash from them.

Needless to say, she doesn’t trouble herself with the content of the questions before answering.

[Heartofice]

17 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

YouGov pays people who complete a lot of their polls. My wife has made a fair bit of cash from them.

Needless to say, she doesn’t trouble herself with the content of the questions before answering.

Well we all know how unreliable polling data is, though it has been pretty consistent across a number of pollsters showing similar results 

[john]

10 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

So....Prince Andrew’s interview on Epstein....

i mean, where do you even begin?

If it wasn’t for the fact he might have taken advantage of a 17 year old, this would be the most entertaining news story I’ve seen for years.

It’s like his team have been watching episodes of The Good Wife - just say anything to muddy up the waters.  I didn’t sweat back then, ‘cause of the Falklands.  I was at a pizza party.  It couldn’t be proven conclusively that the photo wasn’t doctored.  Yes I’d swear an oath if my lawyer said it was ok.  I’m just too honourable for my own good, confound it all.

[mormont]

40 minutes ago, john said:

 taken advantage of

Let's not mince words here. Raped.

[BigFatCoward]

Where's the rape allegation coming from? I'm not following that closely but I've never heard that part of it. 

[john]

She was under the age of consent in the state of Florida.

@mormont Fair point, I was doing the same thing Maitliss was rightly accusing Andrew of doing.

[Werthead]

 

5 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Horrific poll from YouGov. Quite a few others (not all) say the same. The +3 for the Tories might just be people being prompted they can't vote for the BXP in current Tory seats - if so this small surge will likely not affect the result. Never thought I'd say this but come on Jeremy you can do better than this. 

CON: 45% (+3)

LAB: 28% (-)

LDEM: 15% (-)

BREX: 4% (-)

via @YouGov Chgs. w/ 12 Nov

At this point in the election cycle last time, the Conservatives were polling at 49% and Labour at 28-31% (UKIP at 3%, LibDem at 9% and SNP at 5%), so it's nothing out of keeping with the previous cycle (the final result was Tories 43%, Labour 41%, UKIP 2%, LibDem 7.5% and SNP 3.1%).

Quote

That people who voted leave are more traditional and more interested in their local community etc? Worth looking at the book 'Road to Somewhere' for that stuff.

No, that people who voted leave are "more" traditional and "interested in their local community" than people who voted remain. This sounds like it was pulled out of thin air.

Quote

Ask Trevor Phillips who said the same. But I'm half asian and I grew up in an area that had almost no native white people in it, I'd say that Britain has historically clustered its immigrant populations into small areas and that is far from the ideal way to integrate people into a community.

No, I'm asking you to name some of these "ghettos" where hordes of EU immigrants cluster, not interacting with the rest of the population. One would feel that they should be readily and easily identifiable.

Your inability to do so suggests that they do not, in fact, exist.

Quote

What citation do you need? Again you are strawmanning quite a lot here. The change in question was the immigration levels, which were incredibly high at the time of the referendum (the foreign born population doubling in a few decades etc), but the real point here was the rate of change. 

Again, how is this relevant? How is an influx of Europeans of an often similar cultural-religious background to white English people causing change or problems beyond people "feeling" uneasy about it? Why are some people's "feelings" more important than verifiable statistics and facts?

Quote

Sorry you are wrong, it was happening constantly. You only have to go a couple of pages back to see certain posters sneering about 'cups of tea' to show that if you suggest that Britain has some sort of national identity you are some rampant racist. If you are denying that people who were complaining about immigration levels weren't called racist then I don't know what this entire conversation was about. 

No one in this thread has said that the idea of Britain having a national identity is racist. However, you have yet to articulate in any meaningful way exactly how a large number of EU immigrants are having a negative impact on Britain's national identity. This suggests that they are, in fact, not having such a negative impact.

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, Werthead said:

No, that people who voted leave are "more" traditional and "interested in their local community" than people who voted remain. This sounds like it was pulled out of thin air.

I answered your question. Read what I wrote.

Quote

 where hordes of EU immigrants cluster, not interacting with the rest of the population

Again you are constantly straw-manning or being deliberately obtuse. I said Britain has a history of clustering of immigrants into small areas. There are numbers of places throughout the country where this has happened and I grew up in one.
 

Quote

Again, how is this relevant?

How is it relevant to what? Its relevant to the point I was originally making and still making. Strawman. 

Quote

However, you have yet to articulate in any meaningful way exactly how a large number of EU immigrants are having a negative impact on Britain's national identity.

I don't know how many times I have to say this. I was never arguing that EU immigrants are having a negative impact on Britains identity. 

My point was always that having large scale rapid immigration , immigration that the populace have no democratic way to complain about or control, whilst simultaneously telling anyone with any concerns that they are racist and should shut up, will only push people further to the right.
 

[mormont]

19 minutes ago, Werthead said:

At this point in the election cycle last time, the Conservatives were polling at 49% and Labour at 28-31% (UKIP at 3%, LibDem at 9% and SNP at 5%), so it's nothing out of keeping with the previous cycle (the final result was Tories 43%, Labour 41%, UKIP 2%, LibDem 7.5% and SNP 3.1%).

This is true, but it's also true that this cycle is not the last cycle. Some of the previous factors no longer apply (Corbyn, for example, is more of a known factor so it's less likely that he will be able to turn around perceptions of his performance as he did last time): while other factors, such as the short campaign, did not apply last time.

I see a lot of Labour supporters talking about 'last time' in a way that's almost complacent. It's actually quite worrying, because that turnaround is not guaranteed to happen again. It's just not.

[Werthead]

 

Quote

 

I answered your question. Read what I wrote.

 

You did not. This sounds like an easily-sourced claim. Provide it.

Quote

Again you are constantly straw-manning or being deliberately obtuse. I said Britain has a history of clustering of immigrants into small areas. There are numbers of places throughout the country where this has happened and I grew up in one.

Name them.

Okay, just one. If you can. One "ghetto" in the UK where EU immigrants have been pushed into and refused to integrate with the rest of the country.

Quote

 

How is it relevant to what? Its relevant to the point I was originally making and still making. Strawman.

 

I don't think you know what "strawman" means, given you constantly use it outside of the correct context. I suggest brushing up on this knowledge.

 

Quote

 

This is true, but it's also true that this cycle is not the last cycle. Some of the previous factors no longer apply (Corbyn, for example, is more of a known factor so it's less likely that he will be able to turn around perceptions of his performance as he did last time): while other factors, such as the short campaign, did not apply last time.

I see a lot of Labour supporters talking about 'last time' in a way that's almost complacent. It's actually quite worrying, because that turnaround is not guaranteed to happen again. It's just not.

 

 

Some of the same factors are, however, in play. For example, polling companies constantly failing to ask young people their opinions and often using lists of publicly-given telephone numbers, which tends to favour older voters.

Of course, it is possible that some of the polling companies have adjusted for the problems from 2017 and thus the polling this time is more accurate, but this is not yet proven (if it is for this election, we can then adjust for 2025 or whenever the next election is). It also may be that, as in 2017, a lot of Labour supporters now are hesitant about saying they will vote Labour now for whatever reason but at the ballot box will still vote for them.