I know, I see it clearly now. How can they possibly lose?
I think you quite spectacularly missed the point there. There are studies showing that when you create an atmosphere, no matter how genuine or otherwise, where thereâs a perceived invasion, people tend to vote more for right-wing nationalistic parties, regardless of how good they actually are at tackling the issues.
Thatâs because these votes are votes based on values, not competency. And the reason why youâre being held up as an example, is that youâre focusing so much on the distraction that is immigration, when the whole situation of paying ÂŁ8m a day to house asylum seekers in hotels is entirely down to the Conservatives not funding the Home Office well enough to process these claims. The actual number of claims themselves havenât shot up that much.
But while you focus on immigration, you neglect that literally everything else going wrong in the country is a result of their mismanagement. And you have the perception that Labour is going to be âsoft on immigrationâ, whatever that means. Iâm guessing youâre not going to vote for them either, but as long as you were potentially going to vote for them and arenât now, then the tactic works even if you arenât voting Conservative directly.
6 Likes
Well who do you think is responsible for the countryâs ills? Iâll give you a clue - it isnât anyone who doesnât have power.
3 Likes
Not quite as basic as your saying here. But you can obviously see the advantages to the Conservative Party of scapegoating a section of humanity that people are already predisposed to dislike in order to distract from their own failings.
It wonât work for them this time, but itâs pretty much all theyâve got at this point.
I can only say what Labour have said they will do. Of course they could U-Turn in government, but it isnât really in their interests to backtrack on their immigration pledge.
If immigration is you biggest issue your choice between what the Toryâs have definitely done, or what Labour say they would do.
2 Likes
Itâs obviously Labourâs fault for not being a good enough opposition party.
3 Likes
Then youâre one of the lucky ones. Most people are more concerned about the cost of living, job security and climate breakdown.
4 Likes
No, immigration is a challenge for almost every government due to war, climate change etc. Itâs the Tory response to the crisis that is engineered for the reason you describe.
Weâll never stop immigration. Itâs a pointless aspiration. From Teresa Mayâs time the Tories have tried every threat and act of cruelty (even outside of the law) yet immigration numbers have increased.
The only discussion worth having is what we do about it. Are we agreeing that hotels, barges, Rwanda etc donât work? Ok then letâs try putting funding into proper system for processing asylum claims
Absolutely. Thatâs why it wonât work. I donât think anyone is buying their bullshit anymore.
But for a desperate Tory election strategist, trying to convince people the reason people canât get a GP appointment is because brown people are jumping the queue, at this point is probably worth a shot. I mean, it worked for Brexit.
There still are, sadly.
1 Like
One person in this thread is.
Sorry, I donât think you do.
Firstly the Brexit debate weaponised immigrants thanks to Farage seeing nothing more than an opportunity. Tories then buy into Brexit without fully understanding the implications which include the fact that borders have 2 sides and at best you can only control 1 side if it. They then do nothing to control the border, rip the guts out of the resources processing asylum seekers and are basically left with an utter shit show they created compounded by the public demanding action.
So they then weaponise further, cover up and deflect which is what youâre seeing in the press and from the likes of Braverman etc.
Iâm not buying any bullshit. I form my own opinions on what I see and read.
But of course thatâs because I get all my info from the Tory owned media isnât it? Itâs a convenient argument to refute anything you donât agree with.
The problem I have is this country is hopelessly unprepared to accommodate the number of people claiming asylum. I think we can all agree on that. It doesnât matter whoâs fault that is, itâs quite simply the reality right now.
Thatâs why I want it stopped. I have nothing against asylum seekers as people and am all for immigration in the right areas and numbers.
Whatâs happening now is a fucking disaster for this country regardless of who is in power and regardless of what you think their motives are.
If you think increasing the population of this country by 100K a year without the infrastructure in place to accept them is fine then donât complain when it goes tits up, which it already pretty much has done.
You can bang on about international law and ASâ rights as much as you like, but if youâre going to come to a country that is hopelessly unprepared to accommodate you in an acceptable way then donât disrupt other peoples lives by going on hunger strikes or threatening to throw yourself off a bridge. Maybe coming here isnât the best option for you?
I canât deny both suggestions are clearly derived from two similarly leaning brainless morons, but Iâve got to admit thereâs something kind of special with coming through a thought process and deciding that pointing a hairdrier up your nose was an interesting anti viral idea, and actually going further with the whole idea.
Iâm desperately hoping that somewhere thereâs a stockpile of hairdrierâs purchased by a mysterious start up company called âBorisâ Blowersâ
its an interesting debate.
i generally think just passing off treatment on asylum seekers as a political manouvre to garner votes is dangerous. there is definately more to it and there are definately some very unscrupulous people involved.
maybe the rules around asylum seeking need to be revisitedâŚmaybe the outdated laws set up post world war two now need to be radically changed.
a possible answer would be to remove the issue from any elected government of the day in any given country and replace it with an elected global authority.
this authority could have embassy like holdings in every country âŚyou could seek asylum in that embassy in the country you reside in, or cross a border, and seek asylum there. however, the processing would not garuntee a place in the country you fled to.
your case could be heard with preferences listed (relatives, families, comunities in certain countries) and you could be assigned from there.
then all that would have to happen is britain agree to âxâ amount of refugees per year and an international comunity to alocated from various places around the globe.
at the moment its just a perfect recipe for absolute pandemonium and rorting.
the real key point though is often overlookedâŚ
if the planet is fucked, then it makes more sense for the population to be spread out over the planet, not in concentrated masses which will then leave vast areas of habitable land unused.
the key HAS to be making living standards in countries or origin better.
âDo YoUr OWn rEseaRChâ. The epitaph of our civilisation.
2 Likes
hang on âŚlet me get a pen i have to write this downâŚ
just wanted to say you could be less abusiveâŚeven if i agree with youâŚyou could do it in a less condescending way
1 Like
Please explain.
Thatâs how it works.
I disagree with you so you are ignorant and spout nonsense.