And what about SNP supporters?
Is there a limit on how far we go back when apportioning blame or do we keep going back to the creation of the Universe?
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 1 minute ago
And what about SNP supporters?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about them?
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 8 minutes ago
Now Satters, if you were in a “flinging mud at Labour while doing mental gymnastics” mood, I am surprised you haven’t picked up on the entertaining scolding that a Labour Lord received from a conservative minister for falling asleep during a debate but then trying to speak on it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I really don’t like it when you act condescendingly. Now you will say, as you do quite regularly, that you apologise and don’t mean to come across that way et cetera.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You were clearly entrenched so I tried to lighten the mood by taking a jibe at a Labour peer 🤷♂️ I can’t help it if you didn’t take it in jest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your sense of humour leaves a lot to be desired in that case. But I refer more to lexical choices such as floundering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence why I tried to lighten the mood!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you use condescending language then try to lighten the mood? Ok makes sense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I actually don’t think I was being particularly condescending, but as I said I could sense you were becoming entrenched and enjoying it less so I tried to lighten the mood. I mean FFS I was blowing you kisses 😂😂😂
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 40 seconds ago
Is there a limit on how far we go back when apportioning blame or do we keep going back to the creation of the Universe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a difficult question really, the numbers jumped in 1998 then when the problem started, and increased hugely again in 2004. By 2006 attempting to reverse the trend was taking place.
It’s not really that long a period of time to follow. 2006-2022
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted about a minute ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 1 minute ago
And what about SNP supporters?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are they allowed opinions on the inhumane Tory policies or will there be some comment from a junior minister that makes it hypocritical in your eyes?
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 8 minutes ago
Now Satters, if you were in a “flinging mud at Labour while doing mental gymnastics” mood, I am surprised you haven’t picked up on the entertaining scolding that a Labour Lord received from a conservative minister for falling asleep during a debate but then trying to speak on it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I really don’t like it when you act condescendingly. Now you will say, as you do quite regularly, that you apologise and don’t mean to come across that way et cetera.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You were clearly entrenched so I tried to lighten the mood by taking a jibe at a Labour peer 🤷♂️ I can’t help it if you didn’t take it in jest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your sense of humour leaves a lot to be desired in that case. But I refer more to lexical choices such as floundering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence why I tried to lighten the mood!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you use condescending language then try to lighten the mood? Ok makes sense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I actually don’t think I was being particularly condescending, but as I said I could sense you were becoming entrenched and enjoying it less so I tried to lighten the mood. I mean FFS I was blowing you kisses 😂😂😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kisses aren’t enough.
Maybe don’t start with smiley faces and using words like floundering? I was not struggling mentally at all, this was a course of action that both parties were taking and that is obvious to anyone willing to look at the facts and the trends, as I have set out.
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted about a minute ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 1 minute ago
And what about SNP supporters?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are they allowed opinions on the inhumane Tory policies or will there be some comment from a junior minister that makes it hypocritical in your eyes?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who knows
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 42 seconds ago
I didn’t call you a Labour supporter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, so when you said in reply directly to a post by me;
“So in 2022, I find it quite when Labour supporters or MPs simply point at and blame the 2012 action and nothing else.”
That was not suggesting that I was a Labour supporter? Or suggesting I was not taking my “partisan glasses” off? What party’s glasses were you suggesting I was wearing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-conservative glasses?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah those ones. Ah they’re worn down by now, need some new lenses.
And on your other post, I think what you’ve engaged in is what I would call a false equivalence. Equating in some way the consultation paper from Labour with the decade of Tory enacted and embedded policy.
Hostile immigration policy is not the same as the 2006 bill you mention IMO; why do you think it is?
Oh and I asked about some of the characteristics of the Conservative party’s hostile immigration policy and whether you supported them? Far more interesting discussion than semantic wordplay no?
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 42 seconds ago
I didn’t call you a Labour supporter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, so when you said in reply directly to a post by me;
“So in 2022, I find it quite when Labour supporters or MPs simply point at and blame the 2012 action and nothing else.”
That was not suggesting that I was a Labour supporter? Or suggesting I was not taking my “partisan glasses” off? What party’s glasses were you suggesting I was wearing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-conservative glasses?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah those ones. Ah they’re worn down by now, need some new lenses.
And on your other post, I think what you’ve engaged in is what I would call a false equivalence. Equating in some way the consultation paper from Labour with the decade of Tory enacted and embedded policy.
Hostile immigration policy is not the same as the 2006 bill you mention IMO; why do you think it is?
Oh and I asked about some of the characteristics of the Conservative party’s hostile immigration policy and whether you supported them? Far more interesting discussion than semantic wordplay no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re failing to properly read what I’m writing so I think any other discussion would be more interesting.
The only false equivalence is you comparing what I have written with “ Hostile immigration policy is not the same as the 2006 bill you mention IMO; why do you think it is?”
Honestly, the only wordplay at work here is from you and it’s as tedious as ever. Please stop wasting my time.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 42 seconds ago
I didn’t call you a Labour supporter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, so when you said in reply directly to a post by me;
“So in 2022, I find it quite when Labour supporters or MPs simply point at and blame the 2012 action and nothing else.”
That was not suggesting that I was a Labour supporter? Or suggesting I was not taking my “partisan glasses” off? What party’s glasses were you suggesting I was wearing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-conservative glasses?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah those ones. Ah they’re worn down by now, need some new lenses.
And on your other post, I think what you’ve engaged in is what I would call a false equivalence. Equating in some way the consultation paper from Labour with the decade of Tory enacted and embedded policy.
Hostile immigration policy is not the same as the 2006 bill you mention IMO; why do you think it is?
Oh and I asked about some of the characteristics of the Conservative party’s hostile immigration policy and whether you supported them? Far more interesting discussion than semantic wordplay no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re failing to properly read what I’m writing so I think any other discussion would be more interesting.
The only false equivalence is you comparing what I have written with “ Hostile immigration policy is not the same as the 2006 bill you mention IMO; why do you think it is?”
Honestly, the only wordplay at work here is from you and it’s as tedious as ever. Please stop wasting my time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am reading what you’re writing, and indeed even took a look at the bills you mentioned, which prompted my view of false equivalence and asking you to explain why your view is that they are part of the same “hostile immigration” strategy?
If you clarifying or explaining that is a waste of your time, that’s up to you, I don’t manage your diary. But bringing something up and then not wanting to fully explain your perspective isn’t hugely helpful.
The 4 questions I asked are still open if you want to share your own views on immigration.
I mean predictably this has now been bogged down on how people talk to each other rather than the facts
- Labour didn't anticipate huge numbers of EU migrants because they erroneously thought all EU countries would allow the Eastern European into their labour market, when in actual fact most imposed controls initially
- Labour looked to address this but mostly through words to address feeling rather than any policy
- The Tories imposed the hostile environment
And crucially for this debate at this time...
- refugees aren't migrants, Gove having a tantrum about what previous govts might have done is childish and pointless. He's right in that this country is generous and welcoming... This govt isn't
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 40 seconds ago
Is there a limit on how far we go back when apportioning blame or do we keep going back to the creation of the Universe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a difficult question really, the numbers jumped in 1998 then when the problem started, and increased hugely again in 2004. By 2006 attempting to reverse the trend was taking place.
It’s not really that long a period of time to follow. 2006-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but what was the cause before 2006. The decisions then would have been influenced by what came before.
Or do we just stop at the last Labour government each time?
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 4 minutes ago
I mean predictably this has now been bogged down on how people talk to each other rather than the facts
- Labour didn't anticipate huge numbers of EU migrants because they erroneously thought all EU countries would allow the Eastern European into their labour market, when in actual fact most imposed controls initially
- Labour looked to address this but mostly through words to address feeling rather than any policy
- The Tories imposed the hostile environment
And crucially for this debate at this time...
- refugees aren't migrants, Gove having a tantrum about what previous govts might have done is childish and pointless. He's right in that this country is generous and welcoming... This govt isn't
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Selective yet again.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 40 seconds ago
Is there a limit on how far we go back when apportioning blame or do we keep going back to the creation of the Universe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a difficult question really, the numbers jumped in 1998 then when the problem started, and increased hugely again in 2004. By 2006 attempting to reverse the trend was taking place.
It’s not really that long a period of time to follow. 2006-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but what was the cause before 2006. The decisions then would have been influenced by what came before.
Or do we just stop at the last Labour government each time?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The cause was the huge increase of net migration in 1998? Was that not abundantly clear?
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 40 seconds ago
Is there a limit on how far we go back when apportioning blame or do we keep going back to the creation of the Universe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a difficult question really, the numbers jumped in 1998 then when the problem started, and increased hugely again in 2004. By 2006 attempting to reverse the trend was taking place.
It’s not really that long a period of time to follow. 2006-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but what was the cause before 2006. The decisions then would have been influenced by what came before.
Or do we just stop at the last Labour government each time?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The cause was the huge increase of net migration in 1998? Was that not abundantly clear?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but what was the cause of the decisions in 1998? Surely we need to keep going back to look at things on a 'macro level'.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 40 seconds ago
Is there a limit on how far we go back when apportioning blame or do we keep going back to the creation of the Universe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a difficult question really, the numbers jumped in 1998 then when the problem started, and increased hugely again in 2004. By 2006 attempting to reverse the trend was taking place.
It’s not really that long a period of time to follow. 2006-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but what was the cause before 2006. The decisions then would have been influenced by what came before.
Or do we just stop at the last Labour government each time?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The cause was the huge increase of net migration in 1998? Was that not abundantly clear?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but what was the cause of the decisions in 1998? Surely we need to keep going back to look at things on a 'macro level'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it lunchtime at school, yeah?
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 40 seconds ago
Is there a limit on how far we go back when apportioning blame or do we keep going back to the creation of the Universe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a difficult question really, the numbers jumped in 1998 then when the problem started, and increased hugely again in 2004. By 2006 attempting to reverse the trend was taking place.
It’s not really that long a period of time to follow. 2006-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but what was the cause before 2006. The decisions then would have been influenced by what came before.
Or do we just stop at the last Labour government each time?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The cause was the huge increase of net migration in 1998? Was that not abundantly clear?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but what was the cause of the decisions in 1998? Surely we need to keep going back to look at things on a 'macro level'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it lunchtime at school, yeah?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidently not, as you haven't been booted out of the IT block yet.
Was migration not rising during the Major government?
Should clarify; net migration.
Anyway, there's the answer. To look at things from Sat Nav's 'macro perspective', you just need to look back to the last Labour government.
I think it is a more interesting discussion to understand what aspects of the hostile immigration policy and how it was put into practice are supported or not, and why. I mentioned the dawn raids, the vans with the signs, the access to public services as 3 areas.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 4 minutes ago
Anyway, there's the answer. To look at things from Sat Nav's 'macro perspective', you just need to look back to the last Labour government.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
“We developed a massive backlog, particularly on asylum where we had cases waiting literally five years to be solved,”
“That was the core problem that had built up behind an unmanageable set of issues. It was a complete nightmare and led to a sense of complete ungovernability of the whole system and that I think has undermined confidence in it.”
And who said this? Charles Clarke Labour Home Secretary 2004
Backlog was a core problem
Unmanageable set of issues
Complete nightmare
Ungovernability of whole system
That doesn’t sound good
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 22 seconds ago
I think it is a more interesting discussion to understand what aspects of the hostile immigration policy and how it was put into practice are supported or not, and why. I mentioned the dawn raids, the vans with the signs, the access to public services as 3 areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And how upset the cabinet are getting about people criticising their policies being applied to Ukrainian refugees now.
There's a lot of "but I thought this was what you wanted" about it
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 22 seconds ago
I think it is a more interesting discussion to understand what aspects of the hostile immigration policy and how it was put into practice are supported or not, and why. I mentioned the dawn raids, the vans with the signs, the access to public services as 3 areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And how upset the cabinet are getting about people criticising their policies being applied to Ukrainian refugees now.
There's a lot of "but I thought this was what you wanted" about it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the difficulty the government has is that they are putting things and have put policies in place to limit the net figures and certainly the economic migrants and to undo that now for Ukrainians is going to leave ‘the door’ open for future refugees.
It’s not as simple as ‘let them all in’. No-one here wants Ukrainians to suffer but blanket changes are also not good for our country.
Personally, I would opt for sponsorship of other countries’ relief efforts, countries like Poland who will shoulder the biggest influx of refugees I would imagine.
Sign in if you want to comment
Arguing w/strangers cause I'm lonely thread
Page 2586 of 4863
2587 | 2588 | 2589 | 2590 | 2591
posted on 15/3/22
And what about SNP supporters?
posted on 15/3/22
Is there a limit on how far we go back when apportioning blame or do we keep going back to the creation of the Universe?
posted on 15/3/22
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 1 minute ago
And what about SNP supporters?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about them?
posted on 15/3/22
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 8 minutes ago
Now Satters, if you were in a “flinging mud at Labour while doing mental gymnastics” mood, I am surprised you haven’t picked up on the entertaining scolding that a Labour Lord received from a conservative minister for falling asleep during a debate but then trying to speak on it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I really don’t like it when you act condescendingly. Now you will say, as you do quite regularly, that you apologise and don’t mean to come across that way et cetera.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You were clearly entrenched so I tried to lighten the mood by taking a jibe at a Labour peer 🤷♂️ I can’t help it if you didn’t take it in jest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your sense of humour leaves a lot to be desired in that case. But I refer more to lexical choices such as floundering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence why I tried to lighten the mood!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you use condescending language then try to lighten the mood? Ok makes sense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I actually don’t think I was being particularly condescending, but as I said I could sense you were becoming entrenched and enjoying it less so I tried to lighten the mood. I mean FFS I was blowing you kisses 😂😂😂
posted on 15/3/22
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 40 seconds ago
Is there a limit on how far we go back when apportioning blame or do we keep going back to the creation of the Universe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a difficult question really, the numbers jumped in 1998 then when the problem started, and increased hugely again in 2004. By 2006 attempting to reverse the trend was taking place.
It’s not really that long a period of time to follow. 2006-2022
posted on 15/3/22
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted about a minute ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 1 minute ago
And what about SNP supporters?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are they allowed opinions on the inhumane Tory policies or will there be some comment from a junior minister that makes it hypocritical in your eyes?
posted on 15/3/22
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 8 minutes ago
Now Satters, if you were in a “flinging mud at Labour while doing mental gymnastics” mood, I am surprised you haven’t picked up on the entertaining scolding that a Labour Lord received from a conservative minister for falling asleep during a debate but then trying to speak on it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I really don’t like it when you act condescendingly. Now you will say, as you do quite regularly, that you apologise and don’t mean to come across that way et cetera.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You were clearly entrenched so I tried to lighten the mood by taking a jibe at a Labour peer 🤷♂️ I can’t help it if you didn’t take it in jest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your sense of humour leaves a lot to be desired in that case. But I refer more to lexical choices such as floundering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence why I tried to lighten the mood!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you use condescending language then try to lighten the mood? Ok makes sense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I actually don’t think I was being particularly condescending, but as I said I could sense you were becoming entrenched and enjoying it less so I tried to lighten the mood. I mean FFS I was blowing you kisses 😂😂😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kisses aren’t enough.
Maybe don’t start with smiley faces and using words like floundering? I was not struggling mentally at all, this was a course of action that both parties were taking and that is obvious to anyone willing to look at the facts and the trends, as I have set out.
posted on 15/3/22
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted about a minute ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 1 minute ago
And what about SNP supporters?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are they allowed opinions on the inhumane Tory policies or will there be some comment from a junior minister that makes it hypocritical in your eyes?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who knows
posted on 15/3/22
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 42 seconds ago
I didn’t call you a Labour supporter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, so when you said in reply directly to a post by me;
“So in 2022, I find it quite when Labour supporters or MPs simply point at and blame the 2012 action and nothing else.”
That was not suggesting that I was a Labour supporter? Or suggesting I was not taking my “partisan glasses” off? What party’s glasses were you suggesting I was wearing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-conservative glasses?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah those ones. Ah they’re worn down by now, need some new lenses.
And on your other post, I think what you’ve engaged in is what I would call a false equivalence. Equating in some way the consultation paper from Labour with the decade of Tory enacted and embedded policy.
Hostile immigration policy is not the same as the 2006 bill you mention IMO; why do you think it is?
Oh and I asked about some of the characteristics of the Conservative party’s hostile immigration policy and whether you supported them? Far more interesting discussion than semantic wordplay no?
posted on 15/3/22
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 42 seconds ago
I didn’t call you a Labour supporter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, so when you said in reply directly to a post by me;
“So in 2022, I find it quite when Labour supporters or MPs simply point at and blame the 2012 action and nothing else.”
That was not suggesting that I was a Labour supporter? Or suggesting I was not taking my “partisan glasses” off? What party’s glasses were you suggesting I was wearing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-conservative glasses?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah those ones. Ah they’re worn down by now, need some new lenses.
And on your other post, I think what you’ve engaged in is what I would call a false equivalence. Equating in some way the consultation paper from Labour with the decade of Tory enacted and embedded policy.
Hostile immigration policy is not the same as the 2006 bill you mention IMO; why do you think it is?
Oh and I asked about some of the characteristics of the Conservative party’s hostile immigration policy and whether you supported them? Far more interesting discussion than semantic wordplay no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re failing to properly read what I’m writing so I think any other discussion would be more interesting.
The only false equivalence is you comparing what I have written with “ Hostile immigration policy is not the same as the 2006 bill you mention IMO; why do you think it is?”
Honestly, the only wordplay at work here is from you and it’s as tedious as ever. Please stop wasting my time.
posted on 15/3/22
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 42 seconds ago
I didn’t call you a Labour supporter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, so when you said in reply directly to a post by me;
“So in 2022, I find it quite when Labour supporters or MPs simply point at and blame the 2012 action and nothing else.”
That was not suggesting that I was a Labour supporter? Or suggesting I was not taking my “partisan glasses” off? What party’s glasses were you suggesting I was wearing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-conservative glasses?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah those ones. Ah they’re worn down by now, need some new lenses.
And on your other post, I think what you’ve engaged in is what I would call a false equivalence. Equating in some way the consultation paper from Labour with the decade of Tory enacted and embedded policy.
Hostile immigration policy is not the same as the 2006 bill you mention IMO; why do you think it is?
Oh and I asked about some of the characteristics of the Conservative party’s hostile immigration policy and whether you supported them? Far more interesting discussion than semantic wordplay no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re failing to properly read what I’m writing so I think any other discussion would be more interesting.
The only false equivalence is you comparing what I have written with “ Hostile immigration policy is not the same as the 2006 bill you mention IMO; why do you think it is?”
Honestly, the only wordplay at work here is from you and it’s as tedious as ever. Please stop wasting my time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am reading what you’re writing, and indeed even took a look at the bills you mentioned, which prompted my view of false equivalence and asking you to explain why your view is that they are part of the same “hostile immigration” strategy?
If you clarifying or explaining that is a waste of your time, that’s up to you, I don’t manage your diary. But bringing something up and then not wanting to fully explain your perspective isn’t hugely helpful.
The 4 questions I asked are still open if you want to share your own views on immigration.
posted on 15/3/22
I mean predictably this has now been bogged down on how people talk to each other rather than the facts
- Labour didn't anticipate huge numbers of EU migrants because they erroneously thought all EU countries would allow the Eastern European into their labour market, when in actual fact most imposed controls initially
- Labour looked to address this but mostly through words to address feeling rather than any policy
- The Tories imposed the hostile environment
And crucially for this debate at this time...
- refugees aren't migrants, Gove having a tantrum about what previous govts might have done is childish and pointless. He's right in that this country is generous and welcoming... This govt isn't
posted on 15/3/22
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 40 seconds ago
Is there a limit on how far we go back when apportioning blame or do we keep going back to the creation of the Universe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a difficult question really, the numbers jumped in 1998 then when the problem started, and increased hugely again in 2004. By 2006 attempting to reverse the trend was taking place.
It’s not really that long a period of time to follow. 2006-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but what was the cause before 2006. The decisions then would have been influenced by what came before.
Or do we just stop at the last Labour government each time?
posted on 15/3/22
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 4 minutes ago
I mean predictably this has now been bogged down on how people talk to each other rather than the facts
- Labour didn't anticipate huge numbers of EU migrants because they erroneously thought all EU countries would allow the Eastern European into their labour market, when in actual fact most imposed controls initially
- Labour looked to address this but mostly through words to address feeling rather than any policy
- The Tories imposed the hostile environment
And crucially for this debate at this time...
- refugees aren't migrants, Gove having a tantrum about what previous govts might have done is childish and pointless. He's right in that this country is generous and welcoming... This govt isn't
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Selective yet again.
posted on 15/3/22
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 40 seconds ago
Is there a limit on how far we go back when apportioning blame or do we keep going back to the creation of the Universe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a difficult question really, the numbers jumped in 1998 then when the problem started, and increased hugely again in 2004. By 2006 attempting to reverse the trend was taking place.
It’s not really that long a period of time to follow. 2006-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but what was the cause before 2006. The decisions then would have been influenced by what came before.
Or do we just stop at the last Labour government each time?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The cause was the huge increase of net migration in 1998? Was that not abundantly clear?
posted on 15/3/22
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 40 seconds ago
Is there a limit on how far we go back when apportioning blame or do we keep going back to the creation of the Universe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a difficult question really, the numbers jumped in 1998 then when the problem started, and increased hugely again in 2004. By 2006 attempting to reverse the trend was taking place.
It’s not really that long a period of time to follow. 2006-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but what was the cause before 2006. The decisions then would have been influenced by what came before.
Or do we just stop at the last Labour government each time?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The cause was the huge increase of net migration in 1998? Was that not abundantly clear?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but what was the cause of the decisions in 1998? Surely we need to keep going back to look at things on a 'macro level'.
posted on 15/3/22
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 40 seconds ago
Is there a limit on how far we go back when apportioning blame or do we keep going back to the creation of the Universe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a difficult question really, the numbers jumped in 1998 then when the problem started, and increased hugely again in 2004. By 2006 attempting to reverse the trend was taking place.
It’s not really that long a period of time to follow. 2006-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but what was the cause before 2006. The decisions then would have been influenced by what came before.
Or do we just stop at the last Labour government each time?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The cause was the huge increase of net migration in 1998? Was that not abundantly clear?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but what was the cause of the decisions in 1998? Surely we need to keep going back to look at things on a 'macro level'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it lunchtime at school, yeah?
posted on 15/3/22
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 40 seconds ago
Is there a limit on how far we go back when apportioning blame or do we keep going back to the creation of the Universe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a difficult question really, the numbers jumped in 1998 then when the problem started, and increased hugely again in 2004. By 2006 attempting to reverse the trend was taking place.
It’s not really that long a period of time to follow. 2006-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but what was the cause before 2006. The decisions then would have been influenced by what came before.
Or do we just stop at the last Labour government each time?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The cause was the huge increase of net migration in 1998? Was that not abundantly clear?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but what was the cause of the decisions in 1998? Surely we need to keep going back to look at things on a 'macro level'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it lunchtime at school, yeah?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidently not, as you haven't been booted out of the IT block yet.
posted on 15/3/22
Was migration not rising during the Major government?
posted on 15/3/22
Should clarify; net migration.
posted on 15/3/22
Anyway, there's the answer. To look at things from Sat Nav's 'macro perspective', you just need to look back to the last Labour government.
posted on 15/3/22
I think it is a more interesting discussion to understand what aspects of the hostile immigration policy and how it was put into practice are supported or not, and why. I mentioned the dawn raids, the vans with the signs, the access to public services as 3 areas.
posted on 15/3/22
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 4 minutes ago
Anyway, there's the answer. To look at things from Sat Nav's 'macro perspective', you just need to look back to the last Labour government.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
“We developed a massive backlog, particularly on asylum where we had cases waiting literally five years to be solved,”
“That was the core problem that had built up behind an unmanageable set of issues. It was a complete nightmare and led to a sense of complete ungovernability of the whole system and that I think has undermined confidence in it.”
And who said this? Charles Clarke Labour Home Secretary 2004
Backlog was a core problem
Unmanageable set of issues
Complete nightmare
Ungovernability of whole system
That doesn’t sound good
posted on 15/3/22
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 22 seconds ago
I think it is a more interesting discussion to understand what aspects of the hostile immigration policy and how it was put into practice are supported or not, and why. I mentioned the dawn raids, the vans with the signs, the access to public services as 3 areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And how upset the cabinet are getting about people criticising their policies being applied to Ukrainian refugees now.
There's a lot of "but I thought this was what you wanted" about it
posted on 15/3/22
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 22 seconds ago
I think it is a more interesting discussion to understand what aspects of the hostile immigration policy and how it was put into practice are supported or not, and why. I mentioned the dawn raids, the vans with the signs, the access to public services as 3 areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And how upset the cabinet are getting about people criticising their policies being applied to Ukrainian refugees now.
There's a lot of "but I thought this was what you wanted" about it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the difficulty the government has is that they are putting things and have put policies in place to limit the net figures and certainly the economic migrants and to undo that now for Ukrainians is going to leave ‘the door’ open for future refugees.
It’s not as simple as ‘let them all in’. No-one here wants Ukrainians to suffer but blanket changes are also not good for our country.
Personally, I would opt for sponsorship of other countries’ relief efforts, countries like Poland who will shoulder the biggest influx of refugees I would imagine.
Page 2586 of 4863
2587 | 2588 | 2589 | 2590 | 2591