[DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread

[iup=3510302]Cal[/iup] wrote:Who is supplying all the pro-immigration 'evidence' and what is their agenda?

The economy. Whose agenda is 'being an economy'.

Are we all agreed that there is no pressure on local services, that health, education, transport, benefits, etc can all withstand this borderless future of an infinitely rising population? Is that okay with everyone?

Again; not a valid criticism of immigrants while they remain a net contributor to the public purse. At the moment, immigrants have better ground to criticise 'our' use of public services than the reverse.

that we see ever-faster rises in UK population, both from those coming in and those already here?

Population growth being a thing that our entire social economic structure depends on would suggest that that's a good thing. Look at Japan, where lack of population growth and an ageing population is a national crisis.

Some English schools where the majority of pupils don't have English as a first language - hunky dory?

So long as they can speak English, who cares what they speak at home? You're not suggesting we restrict what languages parents are entitled to teach their children are you? You're not suggesting immigrants should not be able to hand their cultural heritage down? What weird Orwellian vibe are you getting at here?

Nobody at all worried about the implications..? Cultural ghettoization - everyone fine with that?

Oh, I didn't realise we were allowed to make gooseberry fool up in our replies.

Fine, I don't fear cultural ghettoization because of my great faith in our cultural strongishness and spreadaptability.

[iup=3510302]Cal[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3510265]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3510257]MagicMarker[/iup] wrote:All of the actual evidence that I have ever seen, suggests that immigration has been good for this country.

Then you must be delighted with the current state of immigration in the UK. I agree that it's hard to find 'evidence' that immigration into the UK from the EU (or elsewhere) has been 'bad for the country'; but that merely raises a multitude of other questions: Who is supplying all the pro-immigration 'evidence' and what is their agenda? Are we all agreed that there is no pressure on local services, that health, education, transport, benefits, etc can all withstand this borderless future of an infinitely rising population? Is that okay with everyone? - that we see ever-faster rises in UK population, both from those coming in and those already here? Nobody at all worried about the implications..? Cultural ghettoization - everyone fine with that? Some English schools where the majority of pupils don't have English as a first language - hunky dory?

I'm just asking - because I agree with you, Moggy: there doesn't seem to be any evidence that immigration has been a bad thing for this country in any possible way.

And yet given the strength of feeling, the unease in the nation as whole about this issue, don't you find that complete lack of evidence even a little suspicious or troubling..?

So, just to get this straight, you're claiming that immigration statistics are a conspiracy hatched to prevent us from seeing the harm that immigration is doing to us?

Since you are asking us so many questions, can you answer these for me please:

Can you give me the statistics on what percentage of the benefits system is used by immigrants?
Can you give me a list of NHS systems that are under pressure due to immigrants?
Can you give me a reason why having English as a second language is a bad thing?
Can you tell me where you got the statistic that our population is "infinitely rising"? And what percentage of that is due to immigration?
Can you explain cultural ghettoization (sic) and how it is being implemented in the UK?
Can you explain who it is that is attempting to make immigration look like it is not a problem? Was it the immigrants themselves?
What proportion of the house of commons and lords are immigrants?
What percentage of the population are immigrants?
If we prevented immigration to the degree that you deemed acceptable, can you provide us with projections on how it would benefit the UK? If not, why do you think that is?

[iup=3510302]Cal[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3510265]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3510257]MagicMarker[/iup] wrote:All of the actual evidence that I have ever seen, suggests that immigration has been good for this country.

Then you must be delighted with the current state of immigration in the UK. I agree that it's hard to find 'evidence' that immigration into the UK from the EU (or elsewhere) has been 'bad for the country'; but that merely raises a multitude of other questions: Who is supplying all the pro-immigration 'evidence' and what is their agenda? Are we all agreed that there is no pressure on local services, that health, education, transport, benefits, etc can all withstand this borderless future of an infinitely rising population? Is that okay with everyone? - that we see ever-faster rises in UK population, both from those coming in and those already here? Nobody at all worried about the implications..? Cultural ghettoization - everyone fine with that? Some English schools where the majority of pupils don't have English as a first language - hunky dory?

I'm just asking - because I agree with you, Moggy: there doesn't seem to be any evidence that immigration has been a bad thing for this country in any possible way.

And yet given the strength of feeling, the unease in the nation as whole about this issue, don't you find that complete lack of evidence even a little suspicious or troubling..?

The truth is out there.

I want to believe.

[iup=3510965]Lucien[/iup] wrote:I'm sure most people are mainly concerned with the controls on immigration. In that sense it doesn't matter what benefit or drain immigrants bring; if immigration brings benefits and people want controls anyway, the benefits don't matter.

The fact that you can't see a problem with populist parties scaremongering over immigration, and then introducing "controls" to meet the demands of the people (which they helped create) in order to further their parties agenda of gaining power, before taking credit for solving a problem that they created, scares me a little.

You are saying that demand for controls may be due to misinformation (which was heavily implied in the quoted part of your rely - where you are prepared to bring in unnecessary controls even if immigration is beneficial, purely because of misguided public opinion). Misinformation shouldn't be acted on - the fact that you advocate that it should be really does speak volumes about the level of thought that goes into your process of forming opinions.

[iup=3510980]Lucien[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3510966]tweep[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3510965]Lucien[/iup] wrote:I'm sure most people are mainly concerned with the controls on immigration. In that sense it doesn't matter what benefit or drain immigrants bring; if immigration brings benefits and people want controls anyway, the benefits don't matter.

The fact that you can't see a problem with populist parties scaremongering over immigration, and then introducing "controls" to meet the demands of the people (which they helped create) in order to further their parties agenda of gaining power, before taking credit for solving a problem that they created, scares me a little.

You are saying that demand for controls may be due to misinformation (which was heavily implied in the quoted part of your rely - where you are prepared to bring in unnecessary controls even if immigration is beneficial, purely because of misguided public opinion). Misinformation shouldn't be acted on - the fact that you advocate that it should be really does speak volumes about the level of thought that goes into your process of forming opinions.

The great irony here is you're misunderstanding/misrepresenting my views.

I never said parties can scaremonger and it's fine (over any issue). I never said demand for immigration controls "may be due to misinformation" either.

What you seem to be saying is people have been scared into wanting controls on immigration by various parties, UKIP being the main one presumably. I'm sure a number have. Politicians try to 'scare' people into agreeing with them all the time. Fixing that somehow would be great.

But I didn't talk about any of that.

P.S. You make it sound as though democracy in action is bad if it doesn't increase tax revenues or reduce Tesco waiting lines. There are other ideas on what's "beneficial".

Denying people the right to live here due to nothing more than populist xenophobia?

if immigration brings benefits and people want controls anyway, the benefits don't matter.

So what are you trying to say? What I read above is that if people want controls on immigration, we should act on it... regardless of any misinformation. People are going to want the best solution, and if they are fighting for something that they feel is better, when it is clearly not, it is because they are misinformed. UKIP have had an incredibly strong campaign of misinforming people, by focussing a lot of unwarranted negative attention on immigration, whilst failing to recognise any of the real problems troubling society.

I never said parties can scaremonger and it's fine (over any issue).

You are correct, you didn't explicitly state that. That said, you clearly see it acceptable for policies to be put through, even if it isn't beneficial, just because a very noisy group of people want it, regardless of any facts or evidence opposing it.

I never said demand for immigration controls "may be due to misinformation" either.

Again, refer to the section quoted at the top of this post. People want the most beneficial thing (I think this is a fair assumption to make for the vast majority of cases - there is always going to be a minority group of people who will let their prejudices get the better of them and act in a way to be xenophobic, but I am not referring to them). If people want controls, they believe that it will be beneficial. If it won't be beneficial, then we need to remove any misguidance. I know this is a democracy, but allowing the right (be it media, or political parties, although this is not a criticism of the whole right wing, just a small influential part of it) to introduce xenophobia, and to then act on it because it is now in the public opinion, is not acceptable.

Immigration has been shown to benefit us. It stops the dependency ratio (the ratio of dependants such as the young, elderly, and unemployed; to the number of people they depend on, those in employment) falling out of whack. They have contribute more to the economy than they have taken. The probability of the population of Romania all moving to the UK, which would definitely be a problem, is akin to the probability of a mutation causing a series of superhumans that will destroy humanity. It isn't going to happen.

If immigration does begin to occur on a level that is damaging, then of course something should be done, and we should definitely introduce controls. There is no evidence to suggest that this happening, or that it is going to happen in the near future (Daily Mail articles, or some shitty neo-nazi blog you found doesn't count, Cal), and to act on the whim of a loud hysterical minority would not only be foolish, but damaging.

I understand the concerns about immigration. Immigration, and the acceptance of other cultures, is something that is part of being a developed society, however, and as much as many will fight it, it is important to distinguish between what is fact, and what is the "reckon" of closet xenophobe who will use minority groups as a way to unite and mobilize large groups of voters. Many of us are not of the opinion that we should let everyone and anyone in - and we don't quite, as we don't have the visa-less system, with no border controls, that most mainland EU countries to have (in general, anyway).

[iup=3510587]Stugene[/iup] wrote:Can you explain cultural ghettoization (sic)?

The rest of your post I can safely ignore because, as I have already conceded to Moggy: There is no evidence, apparently, to suggest that immigration (from the EU or anywhere else) has ever been anything other than a big fat gain for this country. If there is any such evidence proving otherwise, then I can't find it. So he - and you and everyone else - appear to win that point. I'm delighted to concede.

But as for my use of the term 'cultural ghettoization'...well, that did appear to get up a few sniffy noses. Why is everyone acting as if it's something I just made up? I've heard the term used many, many times - if you don't believe me: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... ttoization

The process by which minority groups are forced out of the mainstream either physically or culturally.

I would simply amend that definition to 'forced or exclude themselves' for a more complete meaning.

I'm not sure I follow there.

Surely it is obvious that if a minority suffers from ghettoization, then so will their culture. If culture is ghettoized, surely that's just a reflection of the mainstream not adopting that culture? Does that necessarily mean that the people who follow that culture suffer ghettoization? But if they suffer ghettoization, is their culture suffering ghettoization not a result of the people suffering it, not the other way around? I'm not sure what you actually mean by this.

You're just throwing terms about, that have relatively little meaning. Sorry if it appears that I'm being pedantic, but to make such bold claims we must be able actually have a definite understanding of whatever it is we are claiming, rather than just throwing around terms that are, arguably, made up (because a quick search of "cultural ghetto" seems to indicate that it is a derogatory term aimed at an area regarding it's creativity in the arts). Urban dictionary isn't an acceptable source, either. It's somewhat worse than using yahoo answers.

Cal there, citing the strawberry floating Urban Dictionary

[iup=3511262]Irene Demova[/iup] wrote:Cal there, citing the strawberry floating Urban Dictionary

Apparently there is a new craze amongst teenagers for sexually abusing dead bodies. Groups of them go to graveyards and get corpses to molest.

Evidence: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=munging

I think I get what you're saying, it's similar to George Takei's (sp?) TED talk where he speaks about becoming a PoW in America despite doing strawberry float all wrong. He cites it as an example of direct democracy in action, despite it coming to a stupid conclusion - democracy is only as good as the people who partake in it. Something along those lines.

Doesn't seem particularly smart to me.

Sorry I'm not quite sure what you mean. Takei actually remains in favour of such direct democracy working in such a fashion (though obviously not in that particular case) as it represents the will of the people. Of course, the population didn't get a vote on that particular issue but I think the groundswell of opinion made it clear that was what the populace wanted. supposedly, anyway.

The problem with democracy is that the public is stupid and to stay in power, politicians will pander to their stupidity. Sometimes means you get gooseberry fool things happening and there is not much you can do about it.

I'm completely pro-immigration, and I think multiculturalism is great for the UK.

But for god's sake, can McDonald's and KFC please put native English speakers on their drive thru!


"Hi, can I have a Deluxe boneless banquet with beans, corn and a pepsi max please?"

"SNDHDdd dddh ffffnchsh dndhdcn"

"Erm...?"

"SJHDn chdh dhdhjsjd D DdSnc sD dsjs?"

"I'm really sorry, could you say that again?"

"SHHDN. DNDNDDFG. ANDNccbcn. CEOAD."

"I'll come to the window"

(with hand gestures) "Eaiet piss or twev piss?"

"Oh, eight please"

[A few minutes later]

"Great, thanks! Could I get some sweet chilli dip please?"

"You av sauce"

"Yeah, I have ketchup, could I have some chilli or barbecue, please?

"We no have. You have sauce"

"You only have ketchup? Are you sure? This meal is supposed to come with dips"

"you av sauce now"

"Sigh.." *Drives away*


I would honestly vote for someone who promised a law that only English speakers could work drive-thru.

I do totally get how frustrating the language barrier is, especially in a service industry. One of our trainees at work is a girl from Lithuania, and her English is pretty good, but it just isn't enough for her to do the job effectively. We keep a customer database, so every time someone shops, we call up their account using surname and postcode. She routinely spells even very common surnames incorrectly, and when the customer's spelling it out for her, she often mixes up vowels. Any name that's double barrelled, or has an apostrophe in it is essentially a complete dead end for her. It results in massive frustration for the customer, who generally just wants to get on with a purchase, and for the rest of us working with her, as we usually have to drop what we're doing to correct her or take over the sale completely.

I feel like I'm really not in a position to criticise, as her English is much better than I can speak any other language, but it's such a basic part of the job, communicating effectively with your customers, that she really struggles to perform, and that is hugely frustrating to everyone around who has to deal with it.

I suppose ultimately it's up to the employer what level of English competency they expect from their employees, but it certainly can be an issue.

Nick Clegg is on Sunday Brunch. It's even more cringeworthy than usual.

[iup=3511923]Lucien[/iup] wrote:

If anyone is interested about current day Snowden and his thoughts.

That was a very interesting interview, thanks for posting it.