You are talking about the kind of business owning rich people who largely benefit from cheap labour. When I’m talking about rich people, I’m on about the billionaire class of people who earn their money from passive incomes, are consistently on the lookout for assets to put their money into and need to keep people distracted while they try and buy whatever is left of society.
By every appreciable measure Reform are extremely right wing. Park the whole immigration stuff, and just look at their economic agenda. They (as you would expect of a party designed to serve billionaire interests) are aggressively pro privatisation, anti-regulation and low taxation (especially for the rich)
I’m not. I’ve known plenty of left wing people who believe berserk shit, and I know echo chambers can work in all directions.
I’m arguing that the means of distribution are not equal. If you go into a newsagents and pick up a newspaper, the chances are you are having the agenda of a billionaire piped directly into your head.
I understand but those people own large business, property etc. and invest in businesses and they benefit from mass immigration.
Well Reform also have some centrist and even the odd left wing policy. Their manfesto also talks about hiring more doctors and increasing NHS funding and also some state intervention on energy, which you could argue is left wing. I´d say theyre centre - right overall. Their immigration stance is actually very weak.
On your edit point, possibly true though Labour won the election not any right wing parties. Restore gets no mainstream media coverage so how right wing is the media? Debatable.
Yes, you were wrong about the mobile phones and driving lessons. But I’m not trying to get you to admit you were wrong - I’m asking where have you seen that stuff that made you so convinced of it that you put it on this forum as added weight to you argument?
I’m sorry for picking on you, but this is exactly what I mean when I say the asylum debate is conducted in swamp of misinformation. No long ago I had a conversation with a lad I know who was claiming that asylum seekers are given free PS5s. It turned out they don’t get free PS5s, but occasionally charities are given old PlayStations which they will put in asylum centres for people to use. When this was pointed out, he did exactly what you’ve done - glossed over it, and resorted to a vague ‘my city has changed’ narrative.
No, you’re conflating 2 different things to suit your agenda.
You asked-
I have never claimed to have seen asylum seekers being given mobile phones, trips to the cinema or driving lessons.
I have claimed to have seen areas of my city completely transformed by the arrival of thousands of migrants without any consultation or consent. I don’t like that at all.
I’ll have seen the mobile phone etc stuff on line and again, I’ll concede I was wrong.
Maybe you can concede you are wrong for a change by admitting you distort and conflate things people post to make it sound completely different?
What the fuck have I glossed over? I’ve admitted I was wrong about phones etc several times now, while explaining what I have seen with my own eyes is something totally unconnected.
This is my point. Less immigrants doesn’t reduce energy bills, food bills or increase wages. And I’d guess doesn’t reduce rents either. Less competition for housing. A tiny amount against the much larger issue of insufficient houses having been built.
I’m fine with that unless it’s something low key.
I saw this morning that New Zealand has jobs classed as tier 1 which grant much easier access to a visa. I’m fine with that.
Not a chance. Yet again, this is you introducing stuff into a discussion and then moving the goalposts when you get called you out on it. Like you did a few weeks ago in our last spat.
Yeah, and that’s the problem right there.
It turns out, through this discussion, where we’ve got to that by and large all the points on your asylum seeker action plan can be answered by this is already happening, this isn’t actually true or well, that’s probably fair enough.
It really wouldn’t. All the cost of production and so on is still there.
No offence, but the idea that we should allow the market to drive and fix things is exactly how we got in this mess.
It’s like saying that if the UK cut it’s petrol use in half it would reduce the oil price next week while the Iran conflict is still happening. It won’t.
I have highlighted a number of instances where you have clearly distorted what I’ve written/conflated 2 different things/implied I’ve said something that I clearly haven’t and when asked to admit it your response is “Not a chance”.
You’re basically a troll at this point.
A few weeks back I said I wasn’t going to engage with you anymore and hoped you’d do the same but, like night follows day, you felt the need to quote me on several occasions. I felt I had to respond at some point and here we are again.
So I’ll say it again, let’s call it a day. Only quote me if you feel I’m breaching site rules.
I’m sorry bud, but I’m not going to apologise for calling out things you’ve posted that aren’t true.
This is the second or third time you’ve played this card. Claiming you’ve been misreprented because I’ve just followed your poorly phrased angry outbursts to their logical conclusion. You’re on the attack now because yet again your argument has evaporated in front of your face.
I’m sorry to say that if you post damaging lies that you’ve read on the internet in here I might call you out on that. If you don’t want to reply back then don’t.
