Politics Thread!

[snaff]

So, yes, exactly. The immigration problem is not "small boats". The immigration problem is folks coming in legitimately - tourist or educational visas - and then overstaying. And the biggest demographic that does that? It's actually Americans and Australians. Coming over on study visas and then never going home again.

No, the top sources of immigration are India, Pakistan and Nigeria on work visas.

Year Ending June 2025:

India continued to be the leading source, though exact 2025 percentages are not explicitly published. The downward trend in overall immigration (from 1,299,000 in YE June 2024 to 898,000 in YE June 2025) affected all major source countries
Work- and study-related visas accounted for 69% of non-EU immigration in YE June 2025, with notable declines in dependant visas (85% fewer study-dependant visas issued compared to YE December 2024)
Top non-EU source countries mirrored 2024 patterns but with reduced volumes, particularly for:
India (skilled work and student visas)
Nigeria, Pakistan, and Ghana (work and study pathways)
Romania and Poland (EU nationals, though at lower levels than pre-Brexit)

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... ata-tables

[zip accident]

That geezer has a cookie. I'm talking about the millions who don't.

The people who've been hounded by the state for decades, because they were unemployed (and suddenly under Blair, the long term unemployed weren't unemployed, they were sick so unemployment went down without the creation of any jobs).

If something isn't done, those people are going to explode. Into nazism possibly, if Yaxley-Lennon gets his way.

If Labout keeps up this "We're the party of working people, the unemployed can fuck right off", attitude, then fascism is going to win easily.

[tufty]

That geezer has a cookie. I'm talking about the millions who don't.

Actually, they do have a cookie. In fact, they have a whole bunch of cookies that an asylum seeker doesn't have. But if you're insisting that they don't, how do we give the "foreigner" negative cookies?

It's like explaining to very underprivileged white people how they actually do have white privilege.

[zip accident]

That geezer has a cookie. I'm talking about the millions who don't.

Actually, they do have a cookie. In fact, they have a whole bunch of cookies that an asylum seeker doesn't have. But if you're insisting that they don't, how do we give the "foreigner" negative cookies?

I don't know, and I don't really care, it's about the underpriveleged getting more, not punishing others.

It's like explaining to very underprivileged white people how they actually do have white privilege.

They've got rents that are seem unreasonable, can't afford to leave and the NHS is less effective in their areas. I don't think they're going to listen to people telling them they've never had it so good. If you want to reduce benefits, to them you are part of their problem.

The Beatle's "taxman" was a mistake, the top rate had come down to silly levels due to not being index linked and goverments of all stripes loving getting more tax without increasing the tax rates.

[KlaxonCow]

No, the top sources of immigration are India, Pakistan and Nigeria on work visas.

Fair enough. Then it's changed in recent years because of that DELIBERATE spike in immigration on the graph I showed you, that EXACTLY corresponds to when the Tories "took back control" of the border from overall EU policy and, purposefully, with malice, let every fucker in to reduce domestic wages.

Because, you know, the exact point when it can be blamed on no-one else - as Westminster took back 100% control of immigration policy - that's when it went absolutely mental, letting millions in.

Indeed, the numbers shot up at that point to such a degree, I wonder if it was as brazen as has been found on the US-Mexico border, where businesses - like McDonald's - near the border were caught advertising on the Mexican side. Big corporate campaigns on the other side of the border, promoting low wage jobs on the American side. Come on in, lads, and help us suppress wages even further.

It's all a game to these rich cunts. They're living it so large, they have no fucking idea what forces they're messing with, just to "one up" their rich mates, in their internal "who's the biggest rich cunt around?" pissing competition.



But, no, sure. Keep voting for the exact cunts who ruined your life again and again. As if ex-banker Nigel Farage - whose open Reform policy is to sell off the NHS to rich American private healthcare insurance schemes because they're giving him a bung in a brown envelope - gives a toss that you're dying in the gutter. As if he's really the "chaos candidate" that's going to shake things up, by just cementing even more corporate greed for himself and his very rich friends.

[tufty]

That geezer has a cookie. I'm talking about the millions who don't.

Actually, they do have a cookie. In fact, they have a whole bunch of cookies that an asylum seeker doesn't have. But if you're insisting that they don't, how do we give the "foreigner" negative cookies?

I don't know, and I don't really care, it's about the underpriveleged getting more, not punishing others.

Except that it's not. The underprivileged will not get more. They'll get less, and they'll be told it's because there are still too many immigrants. Their benefits will be slashed, and the NHS will be further gutted or sold off, and they'll be told it's because there are still too many immigrants. It's not that they've never had it so good, because they clearly haven't. But it's not the immigrants that are the cause of their plight.

If the rich wanted, the underprivileged could be given a better lot. But the rich don't want that. The rich want more for themselves.

[zip accident]

That geezer has a cookie. I'm talking about the millions who don't.

Actually, they do have a cookie. In fact, they have a whole bunch of cookies that an asylum seeker doesn't have. But if you're insisting that they don't, how do we give the "foreigner" negative cookies?

I don't know, and I don't really care, it's about the underpriveleged getting more, not punishing others.

Except that it's not. The underprivileged will not get more. They'll get less, and they'll be told it's because there are still too many immigrants. Their benefits will be slashed, and the NHS will be further gutted or sold off, and they'll be told it's because there are still too many immigrants.

I was talking about what I thought should be done, not what would.

It's not that they've never had it so good, because they clearly haven't.

Eh? The elder among them have clearly had it better in the past, which is why "You've never had it so good" would in their case be an obvious lie.

But it's not the immigrants that are the cause of their plight.

If the rich wanted, the underprivileged could be given a better lot. But the rich don't want that. The rich want more for themselves.

More for themselves would be more for the poor. If the poor had more, they would spend more, and that would get back to the rich pretty quickly. but the rich want a higher percentage of the cake, even if that means the cake will be much smaller and their overall gains will be smaller, I really don't understand why they want that.

[snaff]

Fair enough. Then it's changed in recent years because of that DELIBERATE spike in immigration on the graph I showed you, that EXACTLY corresponds to when the Tories "took back control" of the border from overall EU policy and, purposefully, with malice, let every fucker in to reduce domestic wages.

Because, you know, the exact point when it can be blamed on no-one else - as Westminster took back 100% control of immigration policy - that's when it went absolutely mental, letting millions in.

Immigration went into overdrive with the Boris-wave. Immigration was sustainable throughout history until Blair in 1997:



Since 1997, Blairite and Conservative policy on it has been identical, only ratcheting the level up over time. Labour did not criticise Conservative immigration levels, nor make more than token changes now. Reform are adopting the same people and policies and will not be making any changes either. Talk of illegal immigration is only to distract from legal immigration.

Everybody has their own theories as to why it's being done.

[snaff]

That geezer has a cookie. I'm talking about the millions who don't.

Actually, they do have a cookie. In fact, they have a whole bunch of cookies that an asylum seeker doesn't have. But if you're insisting that they don't, how do we give the "foreigner" negative cookies?

I don't know, and I don't really care, it's about the underpriveleged getting more, not punishing others.

Except that it's not. The underprivileged will not get more. They'll get less, and they'll be told it's because there are still too many immigrants. Their benefits will be slashed, and the NHS will be further gutted or sold off, and they'll be told it's because there are still too many immigrants. It's not that they've never had it so good, because they clearly haven't. But it's not the immigrants that are the cause of their plight.

If the rich wanted, the underprivileged could be given a better lot. But the rich don't want that. The rich want more for themselves.

Nobody is saying that mass immigration is the only problem, but it certainly is a problem, and I don't see why it should be a partisan one.

Immigration is just as much an establishment attack on traditional left-wing ideals:

* no union system can survive the flood of cheap labour out-competing its members
* extra burden on welfare systems breaks social programmes and makes the whole welfare state look unfeasible
* the backlash breaks socialist projects like EU integration
* ethnic fragmentation breaks class solidarity

[zip accident]

I'm interested in this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygpdjq9jjo

Now Hannah Spencer has already claimed her place in the history books as the first ever Green candidate to win a parliamentary by-election.

Not only did Spencer win, but she won well, significantly outperforming the expectations of the polls.

Rather than winning narrowly, the party won 40.7%, enough to put them as much as 12 points ahead of second placed Reform. It represented as much as a 27.5 point increase on the party's share in 2024.

...

Labour could once be assured in Gorton and Denton of the support of, first, less well-off working class voters and, second, those from a minority background, both of which are especially numerous in the constituency and both of which were until recently bastions of support for Labour across the country as a whole.

Meanwhile, Labour lost ground heavily in 2024 in seats with substantial Muslim-identifying populations, largely as a result of Labour's initial stance at least on Israel's actions in Gaza.

The Greens were often among the apparent beneficiaries. Indeed, in Gorton and Denton itself Labour's vote fell at the last election by 16 points.

Now ... the Greens were able to forge ahead among the many Muslim voters in the Gorton half of the constituency.

That, together with the party's strength among younger voters, provided the basis of the party's success.

...

This was, in truth, never going to be an easy contest for [Reform] to win. Its strong antipathy to immigration and its scepticism about diversity policies helps ensure that it garners relatively little support among ethnic minority voters.

The appeal its stance does have for some white working class voters in the constituency was insufficient to counteract that disadvantage.

So, according to Sir John Curtice, the Greens won among the muslims and young, and Reform won among the Working class whites.

That's the makings of a race war. I don't want that.

I think the Greens need to push up the tax the rich and increase benefits message. Immigration is less important so long as it doesn't increase any further. Taxing the rich is a necessity to enable the increasing of benefits (unless we are prepared to say money is entirely fictional, which maybe it is).

There are a lot more disaffected white poor than ethnic minority people, so if the Greens can't crack that they lose, as do the rest of us.

[F-ZeroOne]

Well, someone has got a lock on next years Nobel Peace Prize now, definitely!

[Harlequin]

Well, someone has got a lock on next years Nobel Peace Prize now, definitely!

I think he gave up on that six weeks ago:

Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace … but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.

[tufty]

Doesn't need a Nobel anyway. He's got a FIFA.

[PFVA]

He is also talking about the possibility of a friendly takeover of Cuba.
He seems to like islands.

[KlaxonCow]

He seems to like islands.

[insert Epstein island joke here.]