Simbo
Full Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,287
Oven ready video.
I’ve spent the last week reading Daily Mail sports reporters get all worked up about the Saudi Arabia golf stuff, complaining about the morals of it etc.Off we go!
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The guy who conflated the terms knows exactly what he is doing.No, I appreciate the clarity.
The thread I posted above gave a number of options available to the UK Government, including rejoining the Dublin protocol meaning the asylum seekers could be lawfully returned to France, or even setting up an agreement with the French Government to process asylum claims for the UK on French soil.
But I think it is more accurate to note that Theresa May, when she was Home Secretary, included student numbers within the immigration figures.
In the year ending March 2020, formal study was the most common main reason for immigration (36%), while work was the second most common main reason (32%).
So a third of that immigration figure relates to FE and HE, and is a big economic driver for many cities and towns across the UK. Those students also cannot remain here until they find work (paying over a certain amount) after graduating.
I think it is also sensible to consider net immigration, rather than the headline figure.
In the year ending June 2021 573,000 people migrated into the UK and 334,000 people emigrated from it, leaving net migration figure of 239,000 people.
We also have 1.3 million job vacancies as an economy. That seems to suggest that more migration is needed to fill those skills gaps. But that's a different debate from asylum claims.
Would this count as a benefit of Brexit if it happens? Which it won't.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Well we need migrants because of a falling birth rate, a problem nobody wants to tackle because it would actually involve being nice to the population - more housing, better pay, more time off, better healthcare, better childcare, that sort of thing. So being dickheads to immigrants may play well with the old folks but it does absolutely nothing for either British people or the immergants. Immigration is the only way to ensure there'll be someone to wipe their arse when the time comes because of how fecked up our politics is.The guy who conflated the terms knows exactly what he is doing.
Its a valid point on migration but if the only solution to excess job vacancies is more immigration then the solution is a bit of a Ponzi scheme. Unless you think there is an infinite number of people wanting to come and an infinite capacity to accept them into the UK. Since neither of these things are true the problem isn't solved but put off and in fact exacerbated.
Unless AI saves the day and then turns us all into grey goo.
The asylum-seekers are getting pulled off now too!?! I'm hopping into a dinghy tonight.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The asylum-seekers are getting pulled off now too!?! I'm hopping into a dinghy tonight.
pulled off by an angry pritti patel... to each their own but I'll pass thanks.The asylum-seekers are getting pulled off now too!?! I'm hopping into a dinghy tonight.
Very much so it's only the presence of churchmen that justifies the house of Lords anyway . Get rid of them and then abolishing the whole ediface could follow...perfect irony really.Would this count as a benefit of Brexit if it happens? Which it won't.
5 pints?pulled off by an angry pritti patel... to each their own but I'll pass thanks.
Bit more than a large proportion, I'd go as far to say even if your family line goes back as far as pre-Roman, you probably still are descended from immigrants.Despite all the noise on this topic, immigration is not an issue in the British Isles because it's been happening for centuries, a large proportion of today's population are descended from immigrants whether ayslum seekers or people just after a better life.How immigration is managed is important and there has to be rules as well as fairness to avoid queue jumping ( dear to the heart of all true Brits ). This subject has to be taken out of day to day politics, it's too important to those who want to come and to those already here.
People would have to be really stupid to believe that this Rwanda scheme will deter people traffickers. But we all know how the government manage to brainwash the gullibles.https://news.sky.com/story/channel-...-highest-daily-figure-for-two-months-12634265
Good to see that the UK government plans to completely disrupt the people traffickers business model by illegally shunting the males to the safe and secure state of Rwanda is working brilliantly.
Our government is an international laughing stock determined to turn the UK into a pariah state. While at the same time trying to sign international trade agreements.
Speak for yourself mate, me and my relatives all emerged out of the scala naturae of this green and pleasant land. You'll find none of your foreign muck round this way.Despite all the noise on this topic, immigration is not an issue in the British Isles because it's been happening for centuries, a large proportion of today's population are descended from immigrants whether ayslum seekers or people just after a better life.
They probably swam here, who needs boats?Speak for yourself mate, me and my relatives all emerged out of the scala naturae of this green and pleasant land. You'll find none of your foreign muck round this way.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It's literally the 4th result on Google - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-61208118Any idea where Starmer stands on the Rwanda issue?
Or was he too busy putting on another "clinic" in PMQs?
To be fair, that’s done its job. The message that Johnson is claiming his economy is booming when it’s shrinking is what Starmer wanted out there and here it is.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This type of shit is where Starmer doesn't help himself. Pisses me off how it just becomes a competition for who can do the best zinger, instead of actually holding people to account.
Boris could murder someone and Starmer would go "Looks like you're 'killing' off your own hopes of staying as PM".
Criticises the Government, but doesn't offer an alternative - what would he do if he were in charge?It's literally the 4th result on Google - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-61208118
I don't think the need to offer an alternative means the government can't be criticised in what is an absolutely shitshow of a policy.Criticises the Government, but doesn't offer an alternative - what would he do if he were in charge?
The alternative to wasting vast amounts of public money trying to illegally deport people to Rwanda is...don't try to deport people to Rwanda. It really doesn't need a policy more than "don't deliberately waste large amounts of public money to distract from how shit a job you're doing of running the country".Criticises the Government, but doesn't offer an alternative - what would he do if he were in charge?
I do wonder how many of the government shills in the right wing media genuinely believe that the Rwanda policy will save lives, rather than spouting that line to mask their true motives for supporting it.People would have to be really stupid to believe that this Rwanda scheme will deter people traffickers. But we all know how the government manage to brainwash the gullibles.
Any one with even the slightest intelligence should know the policy is absolutely nothing to do with saving lives. But the last six or seven years have convinced the government that they know they can say anything they like and millions of people will swallow it without question, hook line and sinker. Johnson is exploiting it to the full. The ability to think for themselves has gradually been sucked out of the electorate.I do wonder how many of the government shills in the right wing media genuinely believe that the Rwanda policy will save lives, rather than spouting that line to mask their true motives for supporting it.
AMANDA PLATELL: How can bishops say a plan to stop women and little ones drowning is immoral?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...-stop-women-little-ones-drowning-immoral.html
Criticism of the Rwanda policy is misplaced without alternatives
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/06/12/criticism-rwanda-policy-misplaced-without-alternatives/
DOUGLAS MURRAY
Illegal migrants will stay in resort hotel with a pool – Left dubs this ‘hell’
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18840074/priti-patel-woke-lawyers-rwanda/
I don't think the need to offer an alternative means the government can't be criticised in what is an absolutely shitshow of a policy.
Another quick search in google find's what he would do. This is pretty simple & easy to find if you really want to listen to his view - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/refugees-keir-starmer-patel-rwanda-b2064221.html
The alternative to wasting vast amounts of public money trying to illegally deport people to Rwanda is...don't try to deport people to Rwanda. It really doesn't need a policy more than "don't deliberately waste large amounts of public money to distract from how shit a job you're doing of running the country".
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That's certainly true- a bizarre apathy sets in when the Tories get in power.Any one with even the slightest intelligence should know the policy is absolutely nothing to do with saving lives. But the last six or seven years have convinced the government that they know they can say anything they like and millions of people will swallow it without question, hook line and sinker. Johnson is exploiting it to the full. The ability to think for themselves has gradually been sucked out of the electorate.