While our eyes are on dingy crisis Rishi slips bill through the back door

This makes me ashamed to be British.

Attachment 5452

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninian opinian

This makes me ashamed to be British.

Attachment 5452

---

I genuinely think Rishi will look back on this period of time and realise he has sold himself out for nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HiVis

What is the issue you refer to?

Unless you can trace your entire lineage to the bell beaker people, you're ancestors were immigrants at some point too.

---

The issues people are concerned about are things like:

Cost to taxpayer
Exploitation of the asylum system
Queue jumping and a failure to properly help those most in need.
Facilitating rganised crime
Perceived injustice of paying for accomdation when many here are homeless
Crime or the fear of crime.
Impact on areas they are housed due to closed hotels and lost business etc.
Concerns over the level of growth. From 300 a few hundred five years ago to tens of thousands now. What if that continues?

Are people not allowed to have those concerns? Do they need permission to have them?

The irony is that people who dismiss peoples concerns end up fuelling the feelings and conditions that they profess to object to. If you can't see that something needs to be done then that's up to you, but others can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

The Majority who cross the channel are Afghans, who cooperated with our flunked invasion and who were then sold down the river when we walked out in defeat, telling the Taliban to be good boys now! And yet, under this new Migration bill, those same people who went through an invasion and occupation from the West, and who were sold down the river, have no right to put their case over in order to seek sanctuary from the shit show we helped create. Shame on Sunak, is this the type of country we want to live in? Not allowing people the right to even ask for a chance to be considered? Disgraceful stuff, Sunaks 93rd minute punt up field. This could be illegal as well,under international law.

---

There was a senior British military figure on Radio 4 news earlier confirming that this is the case - Afghans who supported the UK military effort coming across in small boats as they believe that official channels will not deliver for them. Those who support this policy should stop and think about that.

I read an interesting bit of analysis yesterday, (apologies because it was in a newsfeed and I can't find it again), which basically said "small boats" are priced in to future votes and the Tories will get little mileage out of it.

The basic thrust is that:

a) Immigration concerns, which peaked at about almost half of voters before Brexit is now considered a vote switching issue in only one in 5 people.
b) People who are considering it an issue worthy of switching a vote are more than likely to switch it away from the Tories because every time "small boats" comes up as an issue it is linked with the party that has been in office for a decade and a bit so trust has gone.
c) If the latest "noise making gimmick" (my words) does not resonate with the 20%. who are overwhelmingly in the Tory camp anyway, then they will still blame the Tories and leap to Farage or elsewhere whilst little or no votes will be attracted by the policy to compensate.

Still, if after years of palpable maladministration you have a shit hand then a bit of bluff and bluster is all you have left I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

I read an interesting bit of analysis yesterday, (apologies because it was in a newsfeed and I can't find it again), which basically said "small boats" are priced in to future votes and the Tories will get little mileage out of it.

The basic thrust is that:

a) Immigration concerns, which peaked at about almost half of voters before Brexit is now considered a vote switching issue in only one in 5 people.
b) People who are considering it an issue worthy of switching a vote are more than likely to switch it away from the Tories because every time "small boats" comes up as an issue it is linked with the party that has been in office for a decade and a bit so trust has gone.
c) If the latest "noise making gimmick" (my words) does not resonate with the 20%. who are overwhelmingly in the Tory camp anyway, then they will still blame the Tories and leap to Farage or elsewhere whilst little or no votes will be attracted by the policy to compensate.

Still, if after years of palpable maladministration you have a shit hand then a bit of bluff and bluster is all you have left I suppose.

---

Indeed, one of the theoretical benefits of Brexit, which has proven partly true is that it would take the heat off the immigration debate, as the fear many people have with any policy area is when it is (or appears to be) our of control. That is pretty much the situation we have now with our asylum policy and for me an argument for why control of it needs to be reasserted so that people have faith in it and support it because it is helping those most in need and most deserving, whilst delivering it in an orderly and managed way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Indeed, one of the theoretical benefits of Brexit, which has proven partly true is that it would take the heat off the immigration debate, as the fear many people have with any policy area is when it is (or appears to be) our of control. That is pretty much the situation we have now with our asylum policy and for me an argument for why control of it needs to be reasserted so that people have faith in it and support it because it is helping those most in need and most deserving, whilst delivering it in an orderly and managed way.

---

So you accept the concerns you outlined earlier are coming from a niche minority which you are a part then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

So you accept the concerns you outlined earlier are coming from a niche minority which you are a part then?

---

No. My comments above are about the legal immigration system.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to be concerned about the asylum system being exploited by criminal gangs and those who are not the most deserving, whilst costing taxpayers millions. I've said that for months and months. I get and respect why people are concerned.

I'd say the niche opinion is those who compare anything they don't like to the Nazis.

What was it the other week? Ah yes, Andrew Bridgen comparing covid vaccines to the Holocaust.

https://news.sky.com/story/tory-mp-andrew-bridgen-who-lost-whip-after-comparing-covid-vaccines-to-holocaust-defends-remarks-12785129

This week it's Lineker comparing clamping down on asylum system abuse to the rise of the nazis.

They are both niche opinions

Think you made your point the first go. The added bit seems like a bit of rhetorical angst

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

Think you made your point the first go. The added bit seems like a bit of rhetorical angst

---

Yeah, you are probably right.

I do have very little time for people who make World War 2 references mind, whatever part of the political spectrum they come from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

No. My comments above are about the legal immigration system.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to be concerned about the asylum system being exploited by criminal gangs and those who are not the most deserving, whilst costing taxpayers millions. I've said that for months and months. I get and respect why people are concerned.

I'd say the niche opinion is those who compare anything they don't like to the Nazis.

What was it the other week? Ah yes, Andrew Bridgen comparing covid vaccines to the Holocaust.

https://news.sky.com/story/tory-mp-a...marks-12785129

This week it's Lineker comparing clamping down on asylum system abuse to the rise of the nazis.

They are both niche opinions

---

Lineker never mentioned the word Nazis did he. More lies. Read his tweet again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Yeah, you are probably right.

I do have very little time for people who make World War 2 references mind, whatever part of the political spectrum they come from.

---

Always nice to end up agreeing on something.

For my couple of pennyworth I can see how people see some of the current language being used as similar to that deployed by the Nazis in the early 30s. The fact that the Nazis ended up as they did in 1945 is the greatest protection against it ever happening again. The likelihood in a country like ours with centuries of democratic tradition even less so.

Overdramatic comparisons about what a desperate government is doing draws light away rather than shines towards in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninian opinian

Lineker never mentioned the word Nazis did he. More lies. Read his tweet again.

---

I like Lineker but even still, I don't think your defence holds up. He said "Germany in the 1930s".

If he wasn't referring to the rise of the Nazis and the language used in their propaganda then I don't know what point he was making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tito Fuente

I like Lineker but even still, I don't think your defence holds up. He said "Germany in the 1930s".

If he wasn't referring to the rise of the Nazis and the language used in their propaganda then I don't know what point he was making.

---

He’ saying quite accurately that some of the language being used is similar to that used in 1930s Germany. It should act as a warning to us all to be vigilant against it.

Here is a holocaust survivor saying the exact same thing!

https://twitter.com/freefromtorture/status/1614172335921303554?s=46&t=5XvNdsdmLTsVTx09ZSEfIA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninian opinian

He’ saying quite accurately that some of the language being used is similar to that used in 1930s Germany. It should act as a warning to us all to be vigilant against it.

Here is a holocaust survivor saying the exact same thing!

https://twitter.com/freefromtorture/...LTsVTx09ZSEfIA

---

Duplicate post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninian opinian

He’ saying quite accurately that some of the language being used is similar to that used in 1930s Germany. It should act as a warning to us all to be vigilant against it.

Here is a holocaust survivor saying the exact same thing!

https://twitter.com/freefromtorture/...LTsVTx09ZSEfIA

---

That's what I just said.

It was the Nazis who used that language as they rose to power in the 30s.

Which is also what James said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doucas

What exactly in the tweet is wrong? Be specific.

In this additional list of Fascist tendencies most can be applied to our current government.

If you disagree what on the list isn't a sign of Fascism? Or if you think the list if correct how aren't the tories doing the things on this list?

https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/...f-fascism.html

---

Still waiting on this one Jimbo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tito Fuente

That's what I just said.

It was the Nazis who used that language as they rose to power in the 30s.

Which is also what James said.

---

So you agree then, the language used by this government is the same as the language used by the Nazis. At last.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninian opinian

So you agree then, the language used by this government is the same as the language used by the Nazis. At last.

---

You're only arguing with yourself here.

I've already given my opinion in this thread if you'd care to check where I stood on the matter.

Again, the stark difference here is that the Nazis repressed and then slaughtered Jews (and others). Jews were not paying thousands of pounds to enter Germany. That some people fail to grasp this very basic and very important fact is difficult for me to comprehend to be honest. Indeed it these absurd accusations were correct then why would anyone want to come here? Either you are wrong or you think these people are stupid and/or suicidal?

We all know that people don't seriously think this is remotely comparable to Nazi Germany, but it's a handy and emotive tool to batter the government with whilst ignoring the real issues. People don't care that it will cause genuine concern for some vulnerable people. Whats a bit of scaremongering if you can play party politics eh?

The reality is that all policy areas in every government in every country and sometimes tightened up and sometimes liberalised, be that welfare, tax avoidance, speed limits or in this case the asylum system? Why? Because the system is being abused and isn't working.

By definition, the asylum process willy only ever involve foreign nationals. As such when this process is tightened (as is deemed necessary) it will require tough language that only applies to foreign nationals by definition.

As an example, when other parties talked of being 'tough on crime' this is also the same kind of thing the Nazis said, as they had a very illiberal approach to crime punishment. It doesn't mean being tough on crime here, in 2023 means we are becoming like the nazi state.

Honestly, these comparisons are so fkn disrespectful to the millions of genuine victims of fascism it beggars belief that people are so casual about making them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Again, the stark difference here is that the Nazis repressed and then slaughtered Jews (and others). Jews were not paying thousands of pounds to enter Germany. That some people fail to grasp this very basic and very important fact is difficult for me to comprehend to be honest. Indeed it these absurd accusations were correct then why would anyone want to come here? Either you are wrong or you think these people are stupid and/or suicidal?

We all know that people don't seriously think this is remotely comparable to Nazi Germany, but it's a handy and emotive tool to batter the government with whilst ignoring the real issues. People don't care that it will cause genuine concern for some vulnerable people. Whats a bit of scaremongering if you can play party politics eh?

The reality is that all policy areas in every government in every country and sometimes tightened up and sometimes liberalised, be that welfare, tax avoidance, speed limits or in this case the asylum system? Why? Because the system is being abused and isn't working.

By definition, the asylum process willy only ever involve foreign nationals. As such when this process is tightened (as is deemed necessary) it will require tough language that only applies to foreign nationals by definition.

As an example, when other parties talked of being 'tough on crime' this is also the same kind of thing the Nazis said, as they had a very illiberal approach to crime punishment. It doesn't mean being tough on crime here, in 2023 means we are becoming like the nazi state.

Honestly, these comparisons are so fkn disrespectful to the millions of genuine victims of fascism it beggars belief that people are so casual about making them.

---

Tell that to the holocaust survivor then, after all what does she know :angry:

Ninian, you (and Lineker) seem to be suggesting that we are akin to 1930s Germany. I am saying we aren't, but we actually are trying to fix a broken and abused system.

Some facts from 1930s Germany:

Adolf Hitler gained power in Jan 1933.

Dachau (the first concentration camp) opened in March 1933

An election took place in November 1933 in which the Nazis were the sole party and thus held every seat in the Reichstag.

Within 12 years tens of millions across the world were dead.

Now I am more than willing to put money towards any charity you choose that if we are currently in the equivalent of 1933 (as the analogy suggests - a powerful fascist govt abusing foreigners) that in the coming year we will NOT be opening concentration camps or suspending democracy and this will NOT lead to millions of deaths.

What do you reckon? Happy to take up the bet or do you think the analogy is a bit weak?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Again, the stark difference here is that the Nazis repressed and then slaughtered Jews (and others). Jews were not paying thousands of pounds to enter Germany. That some people fail to grasp this very basic and very important fact is difficult for me to comprehend to be honest. Indeed it these absurd accusations were correct then why would anyone want to come here? Either you are wrong or you think these people are stupid and/or suicidal?

We all know that people don't seriously think this is remotely comparable to Nazi Germany, but it's a handy and emotive tool to batter the government with whilst ignoring the real issues. People don't care that it will cause genuine concern for some vulnerable people. Whats a bit of scaremongering if you can play party politics eh?

The reality is that all policy areas in every government in every country and sometimes tightened up and sometimes liberalised, be that welfare, tax avoidance, speed limits or in this case the asylum system? Why? Because the system is being abused and isn't working.

By definition, the asylum process willy only ever involve foreign nationals. As such when this process is tightened (as is deemed necessary) it will require tough language that only applies to foreign nationals by definition.

As an example, when other parties talked of being 'tough on crime' this is also the same kind of thing the Nazis said, as they had a very illiberal approach to crime punishment. It doesn't mean being tough on crime here, in 2023 means we are becoming like the nazi state.

Honestly, these comparisons are so fkn disrespectful to the millions of genuine victims of fascism it beggars belief that people are so casual about making them.

---

You've avoided the question, I asked you to be specific about the tweet and the list of fascist traits and you've diverted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doucas

You've avoided the question, I asked you to be specific about the tweet and the list of fascist traits and you've diverted.

---

My apologies Doucas, I am just having a Chinese (food before you say anything!) and I'll have a look in a bit

Maybe we could just start shooting the migrants and homeless for sport.

Thats got to be a vote winner