*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

It goes sell your gold when the price is high, then turn around and wait for the price to drop and re-buy your gold for less.
Same gold, but now with more money on the side.

It's not like the price of gold is going to stay down for long.

---

The problem with what he did was he sold the gold when the market was already at the bottom of a dip. If he'd hung on to it longer it would have been worth more.

And, whatever his "little scheme" to enrich his friends was supposed to be, it would only have worked if he hadn't announced the plan to sell the gold ahead of doing it. As it was, anyone could have used the information not just his mates.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48177767



Then again if we want to talk about wasting money, I don't think the Tories should be pointing any fingers right about now.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...e-figures-show


£37bn on a test and trace system that didn't work wasn't exactly a good invesment either.

https://committees.parliament.uk/com...ther-lockdown/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I mean they won't, but it would be absolutely hilarious.

Probably more likely is that the Tories win in 5 years with Farage as leader. That will send people nuts.

---

The Tories making Farage their leader would be the end of them. The guy lost an election to a dolphin ffs. The country simply isn't that full of the right-wing nutters who like Farage's schtick. The vast majority of people are either center-left or center-right.

I mean wherever they go from Sunak it's not going to be pretty, they've virtually got no-one sensible left. Sunak was sort of sensible albeit the world's worst politician.

The Tories won't get back in power until they take a sharp turn back towards the center. It's Labour for the next 10 years. Better get used to it. Oh, and we'll probably be back in the EU by the end of those 10 years so you can look forward to that too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

The Tories making Farage their leader would be the end of them.

---

I think you grossly underestimate the support the guy has from traditional conservative voters.

Quote:

---

The vast majority of people are either center-left or center-right.

---

So the vast majority of people do not relate to the current government then? I don't even know what you'd call this current lot but it's not the politics of centrists. Farage appeals a lot more to those people, he's more traditional centre-right than Sunak. He's basically a Thatcherite.

The idea that anyone who wishes to reduce immigration is far right is utter nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I'm not an expert, but I think usually people make money when prices go up, not when they drop.

That said, it would have been wiser for him to sell it off in pieces rather than as one big dump.

---

Sorry I might not have been clear.

Brown said "we're going to sell all our gold".

The markets respond with a very predictable mini crash, due to the announcement that supply is about to increase.

Brown sells the gold at a lower value than he would have been able to if he kept his mouth shut.

This is either gross incompetence, or deliberate corruption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

As it was, anyone could have used the information not just his mates.

---

Sure, but those who were closest to him knew when the announcement would be made, and knew how much would be sold, so were better placed to accurately calculate the impact on the markets... that is, they know when the bottom is in.

I mean, maybe Brown is just that fucking stupid that he didn't realise announcing that the gold supply was about to increase would have an effect on the markets, but personally I don't think he is that stupid, given his education, qualifications, experience and position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I think you grossly underestimate the support the guy has from traditional conservative voters.

---

I think you grossly overesimate the support the guy has from people who'd rather vote for a dolphin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

So the vast majority of people do not relate to the current government then?

---

Have you seen the polls in say, the last three years?

The Tory party people voted for in 2019 was much more centrist than this lot. Bodger kicked most of the prominent centrists out for not supporting Brexit, the rest saw where the party was heading and left on their own. They're basically an EDL tribute act now, but with a brown leader, who has anti-charisma. They won't even let him out in public half the time -during an election campaign - cause they're afraid he'll have another major fuck-up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Farage appeals a lot more to those people, he's more traditional centre-right than Sunak. He's basically a Thatcherite.

---

He's leading the Reform Party. If he goes and leads the Tories, they'll be no different politically than they are now. He might pull in some of the Reform voters, but it won't be enough to come anywhere close to winning a GE.
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

The idea that anyone who wishes to reduce immigration is far right is utter nonsense.

---

Who said that? Nice reductio ad bananum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

I think you grossly overesimate the support the guy has from people who'd rather vote for a dolphin.

---

I appreciate that it's an excellent point of mockery, but I'd just like to point out that a dolphin is probably more appealing than any active politician you can name me.

Quote:

---

He's leading the Reform Party. If he goes and leads the Tories, they'll be no different politically than they are now.

---

I don't think this is true at all. I mean, I'm no political scientist, but from what I've been hearing from lifelong Tory voters, they're likely to vote Reform because they are actual conservatives. Before Farage announced he was leading Reform, these same people were likely to not vote at all, and these are people that always vote. The Tories have lost their core support and that's something Farage can get back. Don't write him off. As Reform leader, he hasn't got a chance of leading the country, but as Conservatives leader, I think he has. The dolphin voters are Labour voters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I don't think this is true at all. I mean, I'm no political scientist, but from what I've been hearing from lifelong Tory voters, they're likely to vote Reform because they are actual conservatives. Before Farage announced he was leading Reform, these same people were likely to not vote at all, and these are people that always vote. The Tories have lost their core support and that's something Farage can get back. Don't write him off. As Reform leader, he hasn't got a chance of leading the country, but as Conservatives leader, I think he has. The dolphin voters are Labour voters.

---

There might not be a Tory party after this election the way Fishi is going.

Even sheep don't want to be around Fishi.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT_Qq-Rudz8

There's a fcuking surprise.

https://news.sky.com/story/tawdry-co...-says-13156324

This has really aged well....


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuwaW1mWYAAfAT6.jpg

https://x.com/YouGov/status/1797659498427154538

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

https://x.com/YouGov/status/1797659498427154538

---

Holy crap. Jul 4th, huh? Who picked that date, lmao.
1776 will commence again! Go Labour!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Holy crap. Jul 4th, huh? Who picked that date, lmao.
1776 will commence again! Go Labour!

---

Those numbers might be an underestimate of the ass whooping Labour is going to put on the Tories.

This betting scandal thing is really starting to take off. Cliffs:

1. A day or two before the election date is announced, a bunch of Tory party members place bets on the date.
2. The date is announced as July 4.
3. Surprise! A bunch of Tories make some extra cash.
4. Gambling Commission reports a lot of "suspicious" activity on gambling sites just before election was announced.
5. FT posts an article showing the steep rise in betting just before date announced.
6. So far, a half dozen party members are under investigation. There will likely be more as the days unfold.

I mean, how fucking dumb can you be to think you can get away with that?

The only saving grace for the Tories now is that it's mathematically impossible to fall below 0% votes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I mean, how fucking dumb can you be to think you can get away with that?

---

Wrong question.
The question is, "How long has this been going on before it broke to obvious levels and who was in on it those times?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Wrong question.
The question is, "How long has this been going on before it broke to obvious levels and who was in on it those times?"

---

Good question.

What happened this time was that the Gambling Commission said "that's funny, there's a whole bunch of bets going in at once over when the election is going to be, and they all turned out to be winners. Maybe we should look into who those people were." Then lo and behold they're all Tory party members close to Fishi.

What do people think about tactical voting tomorrow?

My number one goal is for the Tories to get smashed.

My constituency is typically a safe Tory seat. Polls have the Lib Dems as being very close to the Tories.

I would prefer to vote Labour, but Lib Dem wouldn't be a disaster.

The strongest candidate in my area is the Tory. Both Labour and Lib Dem are very underwhelming.

So I think I have to go Lib dem, despite the Lib Dems being neither the party I want nationally, nor the best candidate locally. That doesn't feel right, but seems necessary given my number one goal. In the same way I would be voting Tory if I lived in Clacton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Bean Counter

So I think I have to go Lib dem, despite the Lib Dems being neither the party I want nationally, nor the best candidate locally. That doesn't feel right, but seems necessary given my number one goal. In the same way I would be voting Tory if I lived in Clacton.

---

I'm in the same situation. Labour is on about 9% where I live, it's neck-and-neck between the Cons and LDs. I'm voting for the LibDems because I want to get the Tories out.

Added bonus is it's Jeremy Hunt's seat. Seeing his google eyes popping out if/when he loses would be a real treat.


https://wp.inews.co.uk/tory-turmoil-11


So yeah, tactical voting ftw. I'd probably draw the line at voting Reform, though if I lived in a constituency where it came down to Reform vs. Cons I imagine I'd be too busy re-thinking my life choices to go out and vote.

And weirdly, for such a high-profile Tory in a contested seat, I've gotten nothing through my door to advertise for Hunt. Lots for the LD candidate though, and they even knocked on my door a couple of times. Strange.

Tories bringing out Bodger Johnson last night is just another sign of how out of touch they are with the voters, how desperate.

Imagine thinking "Hmm, we're way behind in the polls. I know, let's get the guy who started off the whole everyone hating us thing with Partygate to come back and remind everyone why we suck."

Who's next, Liz Truss?

Yeah, I think I have to be tactical about this.

Mrs Bean's family live in the constituency Farage is contesting. They live in the nice part and are sensible people. Her Dad has voted Tory his whole life and is finally done with them, but he may need to vote for them tomorrow given the alternative.

Polls just closed. The numbers from the exit polls:

Lab: 410
Con: 131
LibDem: 61
Reform: 13
SNP: 10
Green: 2
Indep: 23


So the Tories have likely lost more than half of their seats, and Labour gained about 150.


https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...44/486/f5a.gif

And Brains Truss has lost her seat. That. Is. A. Disgrace. It's almost as if crashing the economy and spouting paranoid fantasies about the Deep State isn't a vote winner. Bye bye Liz, don't come back!

Other notable losers:

Grant "get rich quick" Shapps.
Jacob "right honourable member from the 1800s" Rees Mogg.
Penny "fight fight fight!" Mourdant.

And a few other less notables.

Fishi managed to keep his seat (well done Fishi!), as did Jeremy "dangerous name" Hunt.

In a blow to racists everywhere, Reform only won 4 seats. Sadly, the dolphin didn't run in Clacton so now Farage has finally won a seat after 8 tries.

Today is the first time in years that I've woken up with hope about the future of the UK. I'm so pleased the Tories got trounced.

I can't remember the last time I looked forward to something so much as seeing the Tories getting their asses kicked at the GE.

That first exit poll was a massive dopamine hit. I had a pretty good idea it was coming but there's always that little nagging doubt.

Labour's got a huge job ahead of them but they seem like they're going to take it seriously at least.

Yeah, that first exit poll was great to see.

Then I realised it was only a sample of 20k people across less than a few hundred polling stations.

Then I remembered I went to bed on the night of the Brexit vote and remain seemed to be a dead cert.

It was a relief when I woke up at 3am and saw it was a done deal.

It's just nice to have somebody sensible in charge again with the right agenda. Theresa May was probably the only one out of the Tories I felt the same about. That was an horrendous time for her to pick up the job.

Reform got 4 seats with more votes than the Lib Dems, who got 72 seats. I wouldn't be fistpumping that if I thought they were a bunch of racists.

One of two things happens with Reform. Either the Conservatives sort their shit out, move back to the centre right, and win back the vote they lost to Reform, which renders Reform redundant, much like UKIP after Brexit. Or, and this is a very real possibility, the Conservatives are basically a dying party and their vote could move en masse to Reform at the next election.

Given Reform got enough votes to win 70+ seats if only their supporters didn't happen to be spread more evenly around the country rather than concentrated in particular regions, I think they have to be taken seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Reform got 4 seats with more votes than the Lib Dems, who got 72 seats. I wouldn't be fistpumping that if I thought they were a bunch of racists.

---

They're not ALL racists, but enough of them are that it's a big problem with their party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

One of two things happens with Reform. Either the Conservatives sort their shit out, move back to the centre right, and win back the vote they lost to Reform, which renders Reform redundant, much like UKIP after Brexit. Or, and this is a very real possibility, the Conservatives are basically a dying party and their vote could move en masse to Reform at the next election.

---

The Tories will never die in this country, despite themselves. They have two options: stay as they are now, basically trying to appeal to the superrich and the racists, while pretending to care about working class people. In that case they'll continue to split the right wing vote with Reform. Or, they go back to the center in which case they will have a chance of governing again someday.

The two parties aren't going to merge into some super right wing bloc, because they're just too different. Can you see the Times writing Op Eds in favour of a Toreform party? No way. They'd throw their support behind the LibDems before they did that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Given Reform got enough votes to win 70+ seats if only their supporters didn't happen to be spread more evenly around the country rather than concentrated in particular regions, I think they have to be taken seriously.

---

Yes but those people aren't diehard supporters, they're disaffected Tory voters who don't like the current iteration of incompetence and chaos in the Tory party, but who won't vote Labour because they think they're a bunch of commies. It's basically a protest vote against the Tories, just like votes for Lid Dems are.

Neither Reform nor Toreform will ever get enough votes to form a gov't. The population is just too centrist, too conservative, and too reverent towards the establishment to start voting en masse for extremists. Maybe in 100 years, but not in this century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

They're not ALL racists, but enough of them are that it's a big problem with their party.

---

You could say the same about Labour and antisemitism. In the case of Labour, they're not an antisemitic party, rather left-wing social democracy is the most accessible political vehicle for antisemites. Likewise, right-wing nationalism is an accessible political vehicle for racists.

Quote:

---

The two parties aren't going to merge into some super right wing bloc, because they're just too different.

---

They're different, yes. Reform are traditional conservatives, the Conservatives are not.

The best thing that could happen to the Tories in terms of maximising their chances of success in five years is to get Farage in as their leader. Not merge the two parties. Get Farage in and let Reform go the way of UKIP.

Quote:

---

Yes but those people aren't diehard supporters, they're disaffected Tory voters...

---

Yes, and if enough of them move towards Reform, then we have a bigger party than the Lib Dems, and potentially a party capable of winning an election. I don't think it will happen, because I think the Conservatives will shift. They might not get Farage as leader, but they'll try to win back their vote by appealing to those who abandoned them. But if they stubbornly refuse, it could be game over for them. Nothing lasts forever.

Starmer probably has got control of antisemitism in his party. Farage needs to do the same with Reform when it comes to ultranationalism. But I think he has the will and the authority to do it. Farage himself is, as best I'm aware, not a racist. I have never seen footage of him saying something unambiguously racist. If such footage existed it would go viral.

If Farage can mould the Reform Party in his image, they have to be taken seriously. People on the centre right like him. He's not as extreme as leftists wish he was, and he has more charisma than any other politician I can think of, excluding the Monster Raving Loony Party of course.

Some classic British election comedy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVI5ZOT5QEM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Farage needs to do the same with Reform when it comes to ultranationalism. But I think he has the will and the authority to do it.

---

Lol, the guy campaigning for him in Clacton called Sunak a Paki. That hardly seems like someone who has ultranationalism under control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Farage himself is, as best I'm aware, not a racist.

---

If you lead a party full of racists, you're pretty much a racist whether you come out and admit or not. Either that, or he's just a political opportunist. Either way he's associated himself with racists and that's why he'll never be PM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

If Farage can mould the Reform Party in his image, they have to be taken seriously.

---

If you mean not extremist, then good luck with that. The party attracts extremists, that's their whole reason for existing. Farage is not going to change them into a Tory party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

People on the centre right like him. He's not as extreme as leftists wish he was, and he has more charisma than any other politician I can think of, excluding the Monster Raving Loony Party of course.

---

Right, people should vote for him because he's not as openly extremist as the extremist party he leads. Or, because he's a charmer. Remember the last time someone with a lot of charisma was PM? How did that end?

There is no way someone like Farage will ever be PM. You can dream all you want, it's not happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

Lol, the guy campaigning for him in Clacton called Sunak a Paki. That hardly seems like someone who has ultranationalism under control.

---

Presumably this campaigner no longer works for Reform?

You can't know someone is racist until they say or do something racist. All Farage can do is act swiftly and decisively when someone in his party makes it obvious.

Quote:

---

If you lead a party full of racists...

---

How many members of Reform are undeniably racist? Because I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's a small number, with most of the people you consider to be "racist" having done or said nothing to actually deserve that charge.

To give you some idea where my line is drawn... calling Sunak a Paki... racist... opposing immigration... not racist.

Quote:

---

Remember the last time someone with a lot of charisma was PM?

---

No. I don't recall being alive when Churchill was PM.

Oh you're referring to Boris.

I'm not sure "charisma" is the right word. "Character" is probably better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Presumably this campaigner no longer works for Reform?

---

He never did according to Farage. He was a Channel 4 plant. lol good one Nige, straight out of the Trump playbook that was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You can't know someone is racist until they say or do something racist.

---

True, but when racists keep turning up in your party, you might start to wonder what the appeal of that party is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

All Farage can do is act swiftly and decisively when someone in his party makes it obvious.

---

By calling it a stitch-up. Yeah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

To give you some idea where my line is drawn... calling Sunak a Paki... racist... opposing immigration... not racist.

---

I agree. The problem is the degree of overlap between being racist and opposing immigration. There's a pretty obvious relationship between someone not liking brown people and someone not wanting brown people to immigrate to their country.

Another way to frame the question is: How many racists welcome immigration of the people they're racist against? I reckon that number is close to zero.

You don't have to be racist to oppose immigration, but it helps.

Expecting racists to be so blind to the consequences of explicitly showing racism in public seems a ridiculous move.
It's not the 1970's, anymore. Public acceptance of people who are openly racist is all but gone.
That doesn't mean racism doesn't exist, anymore. It just means being open about it is suppressed.

It's no longer culturally accepted to be openly racist in public, true.
Humans gonna human, though.

Opposing immigration is not necessarily racism. Racism can be a part of it or not. Controlling your nations borders isn't really a partisan issue. No one's suggesting fully open borders or that the country doesn't have a responsibility to know who's coming and going, or that the country should be without any limits on immigration whatsoever.

I don't doubt that plenty of people calling for border controls are motivated by racism, but is it conscious, open, out loud racism? Almost certainly not. People don't see themselves as the problem. That doesn't mean they aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

He never did according to Farage. He was a Channel 4 plant.

---

I mean, this isn't out of the question. We know how filthy the media are. They hack phones of missing children. If you're asking me whose integrity I trust more, Farage or Channel 4, that's not a difficult question to answer.

Quote:

---

You don't have to be racist to oppose immigration, but it helps.

---

Of course. You don't have to be antisemitic to support Palestinian rights, but it helps. You gonna tell me there's no overlap there? Extremism exists in all political movements. If you're going to allow the racists to tell you what Reform is all about, then you should let the antisemites tell you what Palestinian rights are all about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mojo

...but is it conscious, open, out loud racism? Almost certainly not.

---

If racism is subconscious, then is it even fair to judge people for it?

When we talk about people who still cling on to Nazi ideology, or any other political and social movement that has clear hatred for people based on their ethnicity or colour, this is clearly conscious racism. People might not be open about it, but you can't lie to yourself, can you? You can't sanely think both "maybe Hitler was right" and "I'm not antisemitic".

I understand people are not so willing to expose their racist opinions in the modern age. That's great. If people are forced to completely supress their racism, then are they even racist any more? People can think whatever the fuck they like, it's what you say and do that matters.

The vast majority of true racists, they can't hide it forever. There will be red flags, and strong opposition to immigration would be one of them, but it's ok to wait for someone to show their true colours before we judge them. Judging someone because they share some traits with racists, but haven't actually proven themself to be racist, is that how we want our society to function?

Getting rid of racism means forcing people to understand that we as a people are not going to allow racism to play a role in our society.
It's not forcing people to stop thinking thoughts we disagree with. Unfortunately we can't control what people think, and even if we could, is that any better than hating people for no good reason? Is that a better society?

People who are racist now might not be in a year or two. And people who aren't racist now might be in the future. It's a fluid, not a solid.

Ezposed.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4Rq7avG234


I'm sure it's all different now that they changed their name to Reform though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

If racism is subconscious, then is it even fair to judge people for it?

When we talk about people who still cling on to Nazi ideology, or any other political and social movement that has clear hatred for people based on their ethnicity or colour, this is clearly conscious racism. People might not be open about it, but you can't lie to yourself, can you? You can't sanely think both "maybe Hitler was right" and "I'm not antisemitic".

I understand people are not so willing to expose their racist opinions in the modern age. That's great. If people are forced to completely supress their racism, then are they even racist any more? People can think whatever the fuck they like, it's what you say and do that matters.

The vast majority of true racists, they can't hide it forever. There will be red flags, and strong opposition to immigration would be one of them, but it's ok to wait for someone to show their true colours before we judge them. Judging someone because they share some traits with racists, but haven't actually proven themself to be racist, is that how we want our society to function?

Getting rid of racism means forcing people to understand that we as a people are not going to allow racism to play a role in our society.
It's not forcing people to stop thinking thoughts we disagree with. Unfortunately we can't control what people think, and even if we could, is that any better than hating people for no good reason? Is that a better society?

People who are racist now might not be in a year or two. And people who aren't racist now might be in the future. It's a fluid, not a solid.

---

Here here!

> If racism is subconscious, then is it even fair to judge people for it?
I mean... judge people on whatever you choose. If you chose race, that's racism.

If someone is acting in a racist way, it's fair to judge them as acting racist. Racism in the UK is not at all the same as racism in the US, I'd wager. Hard to tell as a white guy in both places, but the UK seems much better about it than the US, what with our history of slavery that the US gov't allowed to continue until the 1940's in at least 1 documented instance. Add on the conspiracy of lawmakers to criminalize anything they saw as "black culture." Add on the conspiracy of banks to keep imposing redlining practices well into the mid 1990's. Add on more and more and more... many documentaries more. The insidious morphing of old, obvious racism into new, hidden racism isn't ancient history. It's not like, "We had the civil war and then everything was fine." It's not, "People in my generation aren't responsible." here.

It's the million tiny things I get to take for granted as "normal" or "how it should be" as a white cys male that people who don't fit those 3 words do not get to take for granted. Without my awareness of those advantages, I denied white privilege still existed. I was subconsciously racist. It was judgement worthy. Someone took the time to show me the subtlety of it, and then pointed me at a bunch of documentaries and histories of *my own country* that I'd never been shown.

Now I'm much more aware of all this. Am I still subconsciously racist? Almost certainly. But I don't want to be. And I am 100% willing to educate myself if I'm simply informed what I need to look for.


> You can't sanely think both "maybe Hitler was right" and "I'm not antisemitic".
C'mon, ong. You've met people, right?
Famously, the fucking head of the KKK constantly proclaimed he wasn't racist.

Starmer's already done more for the country in one week than the Tories did in 14 years.

He's going after the water companies.

He's going after the energy companies.

He's telling the nimbys ("not in my backyard" -i.e., don't build new houses near where I live) to fuck off, they're going to build more houses whether they like it or not.


Meanwhile, Liz Truss came out and blamed Fishi for the Tories getting their asses kicked at the election, because he criticised her batshit economic plans. You really have to admire the delusional self-confidence of that woman.

Oh, and he also flushed the plan to send refugees to Rwanda straight down the toilet where it belongs. Forgot about that because it was practically the first thing he did once he got the keys to no. 10.

Oh, and he also flushed the plan to send refugees to Rwanda straight down the toilet where it belongs. Forgot about that because it was practically the first thing he did once he got the keys to no. 10.

Looks like it's Starmergeddon for the fat cats trying to exploit the workers.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47wuLWAYG-g

Looks like it's Starmergeddon for the fat cats trying to exploit the workers.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47wuLWAYG-g

I'm gonna go get the papers, get the papers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfW-MPUjC_0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mojo

> You can't sanely think both "maybe Hitler was right" and "I'm not antisemitic".
C'mon, ong. You've met people, right?
Famously, the fucking head of the KKK constantly proclaimed he wasn't racist.

---

Emphasis on the word "sanely".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I'm gonna go get the papers, get the papers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfW-MPUjC_0

---

If you don't live my double-posting, why don't you go like somewhere else?

Not even going to try to fix that typo or it'll end up as six different posts.

No worries, mate. I got your back.

So...anything interesting happening there lately?

Just some anti immigration riots. Nothing much.

They're saying these riots are being caused by misinformation. I don't agree with that. Everyone knows the stabber wasn't a Muslim, or at least his parents weren't. It's not misinformation doing this, it's manipulation. I think most people who attend these things think they are going to a peaceful protest about immigration, which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, and then there's a bunch of football hooligan twats who are using these protests as an excuse to express their Islamophobia, xenophobia and racism, they're just there to riot, and there's a minority of local youth twats who just want a bit of fun setting fire to cop cars and hopefully robbing some new trainers but don't actually give a shit about the politics. Oh and there's the anti-fascists who hope for a big fuck off fight against the twats, and Allah Akbar vigilante jihad gangs with machetes guarding their mosques.

My town has seen absolutely no issues whatsoever. People are partying in the summer sun here, we had a VW Beetle festival in town this weekend and a small music festival a mile out into the country.

Yeah that was pretty much my read as well. Seems like there's a lot of pent-up anger and frustration, fertile ground to stir some shit up with some targeted tiktoks and tweets. Can definitely see the exact same building up here, already leading to some race-motivated attacks. I'm sure we're gonna see a lot more crap like this in Europe unfortunately. People are hurting, scared and angry, while there's clearly issues with immigration in many countries that need fixing, those problems aren't nearly on the level of what many feel they are.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GUN6G_1W...g&name=900x900

idk what the chart is saying. It can either be saying there's less violent crime, or it could be saying the police are less competent than they were. I'd be inclined to think the latter.

Reported crimes.

It seems optimistic, to the point surely the numbers are being fluffed up here. The actual number of violent crimes reported is going down as the population goes up? You really believe that? I don't. I wish it were true, that the British people were slowly becoming nicer people. I'm far from convinced. Unless people are more afraid to act violently because of fear of getting caught due to improved technology, it's likely just someone being creative with the numbers.

It's not the point, anyway. Most of the people who are rioting do not have a problem with migration per se. For the most part, it's naked Islamophobia. These people probably don't have a problem with Polish migrants, and I doubt they even care about skin colour.

The fact there's no reason yet to believe that the Southport attack was carried out by a Muslim is a rather moot point, and if anything shows it's more about Islamophobia than anything else. The people who are actually attacking mosques and hotels don't care for facts, and are more than happy to use the tragic death of children as an excuse to stir up racial tensions.

Unfortunately, this is the predictable outcome when you import an oppressive culture into a nation of thick pissed up twats.

All types of violence going down has been a global trend for decades, by many metrics the world is increasingly safe, poverty is down, education up. Those are gradual changes and less clickbaity so they never make the headlines, reporting every single incident of violence sells far better.

The data here is a bit dated by now but you might still be surprised about some of the answers: https://factfulnessquiz.com/

It's true that in Europe immigrants from Middle East and Africa tend to be overrepresented in some categories like sex crimes, but even then they typically add up to a pretty small percentage of the total crimes committed. It annoys me a bit that the crime stats are usually reported as x offenses per 10000 population here, and mentioning eg. that they're overrepresented by a factor of 5. That that's the case is a problem for sure, but the local pissed up twats understand that as them committing 5x more total crimes than everyone else, not that they add up to a few per cent of all crimes committed which is actually the case. They fail to realize that even within the most problematic demographics, 95%+ of them don't do crimes.

This article is interesting...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9v8272vkxpo

France basically blame the UK for the migrant crisis. What is their argument to support this claim? That our loosely regulated job market acts like a magnet for migrants.

Ergo, they are acknowledging that these people are economic migrants. Only that term won't be found anywhere in this article. Instead you'll be reminded they are "fleeing death".

People are risking their lives to sail from France to the UK for economic reasons. Of course I've been saying this for years but poop has always argued that "language and family" are sufficient motivations for people to put babies on dinghies and illegally enter another country. That's because people like poop don't like to face the reality that these people are nearly all economic migrants who can't find work in France.

The UK is better for migrants than France is. And they're blaming us for that. Hilarious.

If I were running for my life somewhere, it might still interest me what the economic opportunities are like where I'm going. This whole talk about economic migrants is a bit silly imo, who wouldn't want a better life for themselves and their family, and how is it a bad thing. All people from all countries migrate all the time for economic reasons, but it's only bad if they're incoming. And most frustrating of all, they both steal our jobs and live on social welfare.

IIRC, international policy says that a refugee from somewhere does not have any obligation to immigrate to a nearby location. They are free to seek their new life anywhere, not only in neighboring regions.

I don't agree with that part of ong's argument.

I do think it's common sense that every nation has the right and responsibility to control its borders.
There are legal limitations on immigration, which, again, I think it's common sense to see the need for regulated immigration.

The issue isn't immigration, it's illegal immigration.
The issue isn't that we don't let anyone in, it's that some people don't even ask to be let in.

If you want to be my roommate, climbing in through a window is a 0% chance I'm going to perceive you as someone who cares about me, my wishes, my property, etc. at all.
It's a shitty first impression to commit crimes on me in your effort to join me.

I'm not opposed to legal immigration.
I'm well aware that the US immigration system is totally broken.
But still. Breaking the laws is a terrible first impression if you want to be a citizen somewhere.


It's well worth noting that the majority of illegal immigrants in the US crossed the border legally, but then overstayed their visa.
So while, yes, there are illegal border crossings, no, those aren't a major source of illegal immigrants in the country.

And it's pretty frustrating to hear a conversation about illegal immigration pretend that it's caused by a thing that isn't even the top contributor to the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

who wouldn't want a better life for themselves and their family.

---

Me. I want a better life. I don't want to live in England, I prefer New Zealand. So why can't I just get on a boat and go to NZ?

Am I not allowed to improve my life like this but others can because they are poorer? Who gets to decide who gets to have a "better life"?

There are 8 billion people on the planet. Does every single one of those people have the right to choose where they live in the world?

The reason we treat economic migrants differently to refugees is because economic migrants are making a choice to leave their country and live elsewhere. Are you arguing that all of Somalia has the right to get on a boat and come to the UK because they want a "better life"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mojo

IIRC, international policy says that a refugee from somewhere does not have any obligation to immigrate to a nearby location.

---

This is why people prefer certain terms. Mojo says refugee, not economic migrant. That's a change of conversation.

A refugee does not have the right to pass through several safe countries until they reach their desired safe country. They are not "free to seek their new life anywhere" since different countries have different rules, different cultures, and different governments. If people could go where they like, then there would be nobody left in Haiti.

Quote:

---

The issue isn't immigration, it's illegal immigration.

---

Well, yes. But let's not pretend it's refugees that are breaking the law by entering illegally. Legitimate refugees are safe in France and are not going to risk their lives, that they have just saved by getting to France, by getting on a flimsy boat and crossing the channel. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

We're not talking about refugees here, for the most part.

The problem is that economic migrants want to pick their country based on how easy it is to work there. As much as it would be nice to live in that world, we don't live in that world.

Quote:

---

I'm not opposed to legal immigration.

---

Most people aren't. What I'm opposed to is this thing where people say "refugee" instead of "economic migrant" in a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters. That's not what you did, it's what government and media does. Someone who wants to improve their economic prospects should not be treated the same as someone who is fleeing oppression, war or disaster. And if someone tries to pretend they fall into the latter category when actually they are in the former, then they are dishonest and not the kind of migrant we want to encourage to our shores.

It wasn't a deliberate attempt to muddy any waters.
C'mon. You know me better than that.

A refugee is free to seek their new life anywhere. Seeking isn't taking.

Our impressions of their opportunities in another country aren't relevant. Our impressions that another country is "better for them" than ours is does not matter. It's their life, and they can choose where to live it.
Where I fall off is them ignoring the rule of law to take the life they want, regardless.

And yes, of course, every person on the planet *should* have the freedom to move about as they wish, within or beyond their country's borders. Granting that gov't's grant rights and take them away, and if your rights have been taken away, then it is what it is.

But there shouldn't be anything preventing anyone from asking if they can move countries.


Whatever your reasons for committing crimes is for a court to discern, not me. However, if you wanted my compassion for your story, you did the opposite of what you should have done to get it. 'Cause you've now shown me you don't care whether or not I am OK with what you want for you. You've shown me that you will ignore my wishes when it suits you.

That's not a good way to introduce yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mojo

It wasn't a deliberate attempt to muddy any waters.

---

I know that and I tried to make it clear that the "deliberate" tag was aimed at government and media, those that have an agenda that isn't "being nice".

Quote:

---

A refugee is free to seek their new life anywhere. Seeking isn't taking.

---

Well yeah, but that's no different to saying that anyone is free to apply for the job as the England football team manager.

A refugee does not have the right to asylum in any country of their choice.

Quote:

---

And yes, of course, every person on the planet *should* have the freedom to move about as they wish

---

I think we fundamentally disagree here, unless we're talking about some theoretical utopia. In the real world of the present, people absolutely *should not* have total global free movement. This would be impossibly impractical. The majority of people would want to go where economic opportunities are maximised, which is basically USA. Can you guys handle 80% of the world's population? There comes a breaking point, and now everyone will want to leave to go to the next best place. One by one, the most economically successful country in the world will be destroyed by massive migration.

That's the problem with 8 billion people and global competition for resources.

In Utopia, well it's different. In the future, when we're not slaves to energy, when resources are plentiful the world over, then yeah, of course people should be able to move about freely. Sadly we don't live in this world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Well yeah, but that's no different to saying that anyone is free to apply for the job as the England football team manager.

---

That's all I was saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

A refugee does not have the right to asylum in any country of their choice.

---

No, but they have the right to seek asylum in any country.
As far as I understand, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I think we fundamentally disagree here, unless we're talking about some theoretical utopia. In the real world of the present, people absolutely *should not* have total global free movement. This would be impossibly impractical. The majority of people would want to go where economic opportunities are maximised, which is basically USA. Can you guys handle 80% of the world's population? There comes a breaking point, and now everyone will want to leave to go to the next best place. One by one, the most economically successful country in the world will be destroyed by massive migration.

---

The reason I put *should not* in stars was to indicate a fantasy / unicorn utopia, so that tracks.

As far as your predictions of what world migration would look like... Call me a skeptic.
A) People think where they currently live is better than it probably really is. Familiarity and pride in who you are and where you're from paints it like that. Leaving your familiar home to go somewhere new is scary.
B) Not everyone has the practical means to move to a far away land. It's costly and there are too many open problems to solve on arrival that you simply can't plan for all of them unless you've got a healthy financial cushion to land on.

C) I'm open to learning. Has anything like that ever happened in history? Like not a normal economic migration, but a total economic migration. I mean... not just some or most people leaving, but the vast majority, and not 'cause a volcano nearby is going off, but because of economic opportunities.

I'm thinking of eras like the Gold Rush in the US in the 1840's and 50's. A disproportionate number of people migrated to California on the promise of free gold just laying on the ground all over the place. Which, you wont be surprised to hear, all the gold was gone before word got out about there being gold there in the first place. You don't go telling everyone you found gold until AFTER you've collected up all the gold from where you found it, after all. Then you sell that property for even more gold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mojo

No, but they have the right to seek asylum in any country.As far as I understand, anyway.

---

Sure, but I'm not sure what value this adds to the conversation really. It's a moot point, unless you're arguing that turning up in a country undocumented amounts to "seeking". If so, I'd have to disagree. You have the right to seek asylum anywhere, from your current location. You don't have the right to move to any location on the planet and seek to remain there.

Quote:

---

People think where they currently live is better than it probably really is.

---

I think this is a Western view. I don't think there are many people in Somalia or Sudan who think it's better than it is. I think the majority of people in Africa would move to a country that offers better economic opportunities, if they were given the choice. Large swathes of Asia and South America too, and even pockets of Europe. Of course, I think nearly everyone would prefer that they had acceptable economic opportunities at home.

Quote:

---

Not everyone has the practical means to move to a far away land.

---

Not everyone has the motivation, but when you see people coming here from across the world with nothing but the clothes they wear, then it's hard to argue that people don't have the "practical means". The vast majority do have the means, it's just not easy.

Quote:

---

I'm open to learning. Has anything like that ever happened in history?

---

I mean there's likely to be examples of small scale migration into relatively small regions that might add value to the discussion, but for the most part we're talking about a very small period of time for us to study. The population is so much larger than in the past, it's much easier to travel long distances than it's ever been, and native populations are generally less xenophobic than in the past.

It's anyone's guess what happens if we open all borders tomorrow. I think it would be very bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Sure, but I'm not sure what value this adds to the conversation really. It's a moot point, unless you're arguing that turning up in a country undocumented amounts to "seeking". If so, I'd have to disagree. You have the right to seek asylum anywhere, from your current location. You don't have the right to move to any location on the planet and seek to remain there.

---

In the US, you can't even file for asylum unless you're in the US (and not a US citizen).
So you can't even officially request asylum until/unless you "turn up." The documents surely help with the process, but even without a passport and visa, you gotta be here to ask for asylum from us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Me. I want a better life. I don't want to live in England, I prefer New Zealand. So why can't I just get on a boat and go to NZ?

Am I not allowed to improve my life like this but others can because they are poorer? Who gets to decide who gets to have a "better life"?

There are 8 billion people on the planet. Does every single one of those people have the right to choose where they live in the world?

---

From what I understand NZ is notoriously hard to get into, but I fail to see why you couldn't just get up and go to dozens of different countries if you so wish, there might be some hurdles or expectations from you, but that's the case with all migration anywhere. Some people preferring UK over France is not quite the same as anyone getting to pick and choose exactly where they will go, but picking what they deem is the best choice for them sounds pretty logical and natural.

It is also frustrating how all migration is always lumped into one category, when there's quite different international treaties and national laws governing asylum seekers, family reunions and work/student migration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

The reason we treat economic migrants differently to refugees is because economic migrants are making a choice to leave their country and live elsewhere. Are you arguing that all of Somalia has the right to get on a boat and come to the UK because they want a "better life"?

---

If they meet the requirements for either asylum seekers, work/student permits or already have family there, why not? If you feel the regulations are too lax, that's more of a UK policy problem than a migrant problem, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cocco

From what I understand NZ is notoriously hard to get into...

---

It depends. I have two married British friends living over there, she was a NHS nurse in the UK and NZ were very happy for her to migrate there. He's a carpenter, he basically had to train to become one so he had a skill that NZ would want. That's the key to migrating to NZ... you need to have a skill that they consider beneficial to their economy. He couldn't just tag along with his nurse wife, they both had to offer something.

Quote:

---

...but I fail to see why you couldn't just get up and go to dozens of different countries

---

I probably can, but where can I go that certainly offers a "better life"? For a start, I can only speak English. So, if I want to improve my life, I surely want to go somewhere I don't have to learn a new language. It's not a deal breaker, but it's much easier to settle somewhere you can already communicate with the natives.

In my opinion, NZ is one of very few English-speaking countries that come close to guaranteeing a better quality of life than what the UK offers. Canada would be another. USA and Australia, I'd see that as a potentially sideways move. If we include places where English is a widely-spoken second language, then that opens up a lot more doors.

Still, I'm partly being disingenuous. I have no desire to leave the UK unless I have a clear opportunity, and in that event I'd consider anywhere safe if the opportunity was big enough. However, I don't have any skills that make such an opportunity likely, and I have a job and family here, so there's no serious motivation.

Quote:

---

It is also frustrating how all migration is always lumped into one category

---

Well yes, but this is something I try very hard to avoid. It's media and disingenuous folk who are doing this. There is a world of difference between an economic migrant (which is what I'd be) and a refugee or asylum seeker.

The problem in regards the UK is that it's very difficult to be a refugee seeking asylum in the UK because we're surrounded by safe countries. It's next to impossible to arrive in the UK without coming through a safe country. So nearly everyone seeking to migrate to the UK is an economic migrant. And we have no obligation, legal or moral, to allow economic migrants to settle. It's a decision that is based on the best interest of the host nation, not the migrant.

Quote:

---

If they meet the requirements for either asylum seekers, work/student permits or already have family there...

---

Just to be clear, someone having family in another country does not itself mean that they are a refugee. My Dad is in Thailand, that makes absolutely no difference to my chances of being allowed to settle there if I wished. It might motivate me to attempt to settle there more than if I had no family there, but I have gained no extra rights through my Dad being there. I'm still an economic migrant.

If someone already has family in the UK, that can of course support an application for asylum and should certainly be taken into account. But it's something that should still be weighed against all the other factors, such as the economic benefit to the host nation.

I feel like the conversation is straying around multiple points.

I don't think anyone here has a gripe against legal immigration.
I do think everyone here agrees committing crimes is illegal.

So the issue of immigration really comes down to, who has done it legally?
And tangentially, is my country's immigration policy humane?


When an argument is made about whether or not a person has the right to migrate to a place, that's more of a question about that place's immigration laws (including international agreements that place has agreed to).

When it comes to whether illegal migration should be allowed / tolerated / excused - I don't see anyone here arguing that those aren't crimes or shouldn't be treated as crimes.

Just like all other groups of people - the vast majority of migrants do not intend to move country to live or continue a life of crime. The data (in the US at least) show roughly the same rates of criminality among immigrants as among any other cross section of society. In terms of criminal behavior, migrants are no different than any other group of people.

People who *choose* to live in a place probably have a lot of love and respect for that place. They probably have a commitment to bettering their own lives through this difficult migration, which in turn is a huge net boon to the place they're migrating to. Adding more dedicated, productive citizens to any place is going to be a boon for their economics.


At least in the US, migrants are simultaneously accused of being lazy freeloaders who are a burden on everyone's taxes, as well as "taking all our jobs." So that just doesn't mesh. It's one or the other. If it's both, the problem isn't in the migration, but the shitty jobs that pay jack shit and only someone utterly desperate would take such shitty pay for the work.

I will add that the vast majority of illegal immigrants in the US crossed the border legally, then overstayed their visa. So if a politician really wants to address the problem of illegal immigrants, focusing on the border is a high cost / low return way to do so.


It's also worth noting that birth rates in the US have been dropping. Currently, we're at about 1.7 births per woman. That number being below 2 is like a long-term nuke to an economy. The population will drop - productive citizens will drop. It's unsustainable. Increasing immigration to compensate for the decreasing internal population is a strategic move to keep the economy thriving and even growing.

The unending stupidity of Donald Trump:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUYepJ5fNp8

In the first clip, she set it up perfectly. She's trying to get under his skin, and he immediately takes the bait and runs with it in the worst possible way. She lays out what he's going to do and then he does it 30 seconds later and turns it up to 11.

The only people dumber than Trump are those clowns trying to assassinate him... and I can't believe how bad they are at it. We have technologies, and these dumdums are hiding in shrubbery like it's 1963. Embarrassing.

The man in the TV said it! He said immigrants ate his dog!

That didn't happen. The city looked into those claims, and found no evidence.

But the people on TV said!!



I honestly learn so much about human nature by this man's existence and popularity.