5 ms·

A) people had an issue with immigration when it was mostly from the EU as well, one of the main drivers of Brexit B) leaving the EU did not mean that non-EU mi

by sefrost 3mo ago

A) people had an issue with immigration when it was mostly from the EU as well, one of the main drivers of Brexit B) leaving the EU did not mean that non-EU migration had to go up C) immigration going down for one or two years doesn’t change the fact that millions of people are in the UK that most British people didn’t want to enter in the first place over a period of 15+ years D) net immigration going down still means lots of people are entering the UK from elsewhere, while people from the same culture (ie grew up in the UK) are leaving which still changes the culture of the country Note: I’m not saying I personally agree with any of those points but it’s clear what the issues are if you’re prepared to listen. There is opinion polling on all of this.

10xDev 3mo ago
Yeah this is just nonsense, not really worth dealing with for anyone even mildly serious. If you want to halt all immigration or deport all immigrants then you are on the wrong forum. There certainly are forums for what you are suggesting though.
- sefrost 3mo ago
  I didn’t suggest either of those things. Like I said I’m not voicing my personal opinion. But we can look at the polling data going back decades now on this issue. People were not happy when it was 50,000 net migration. At one point it hit 950,000. Obviously the issues that people are concerned about on housing, on transport, on education and more aren’t resolved by reducing the flow for a couple of years. My point is simply that these feelings have existed for a long time and the government has generally gone against what the electorate have asked for. Are you prepared to concede that point? If so, then I think blaming it on big tech is a major stretch since this all happened before they had as much command of our attention.
  - jltsiren 3mo ago
    > My point is simply that these feelings have existed for a long time and the government has generally gone against what the electorate have asked for. The electorate repeatedly asked for those policies by voting the parties that enacted them. If they had other opinions, they didn't express them in any way that actually matters. That's a feature of first-past-the-post elections. The system deliberately prioritizes regional representation over public opinion. If you want a parliament that prioritizes public opinion, you need a different electoral system.
    - sefrost 3mo ago
      There has never been a British election where the majority votes cast have been for parties that pledged to increase immigration. I take your FPTP point, but when has the winning party under FPTP had a manifesto commitment to increase immigration? Let’s just face facts. We might disagree personally but a majority of people have always voted against immigration and it’s regularly a top 3 issue. Often the top issue!
      - jltsiren 3mo ago
        People pay too much attention on what politicians say, and too little on what kind of people those politicians and their allies are. My impression is that Reform and the Greens are the only mainstream parties with an actual opinion on immigration. The other parties approach immigration from a more technocratic perspective. They form policies based on expected outcomes, regardless of what the people with opinions think about that kind of immigration. (Except to the extent those opinions influence the outcomes.) As long as people keep voting Tories, Labour, or Lib Dems, they are effectively saying that immigration is not that important issue after all.
      - roryirvine 3mo ago
        In 2019, the Conservatives stood on a manifesto that promised, amongst other things, to ditch immigration targets (in favour of a more generous points-based system), to increase foreign recruitment of healthcare workers, and to introduce a new student visa which would attract "more students from all over the world" and encourage them to stay on and apply for work in the UK after graduation. They won a big majority as a result.
        sefrost 3mo ago
        They campaigned on reducing the net figure to below 100,000 in the 2019 election. Instead they took it from 185,000 to 950,000. After that, they are now polling at all time lows (17%). https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50524262 https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50524262

by sefrost 3mo ago

10xDev 3mo ago

Yeah this is just nonsense, not really worth dealing with for anyone even mildly serious. If you want to halt all immigration or deport all immigrants then you are on the wrong forum. There certainly are forums for what you are suggesting though.

sefrost 3mo ago
I didn’t suggest either of those things. Like I said I’m not voicing my personal opinion. But we can look at the polling data going back decades now on this issue. People were not happy when it was 50,000 net migration. At one point it hit 950,000. Obviously the issues that people are concerned about on housing, on transport, on education and more aren’t resolved by reducing the flow for a couple of years. My point is simply that these feelings have existed for a long time and the government has generally gone against what the electorate have asked for. Are you prepared to concede that point? If so, then I think blaming it on big tech is a major stretch since this all happened before they had as much command of our attention.
- jltsiren 3mo ago
  > My point is simply that these feelings have existed for a long time and the government has generally gone against what the electorate have asked for. The electorate repeatedly asked for those policies by voting the parties that enacted them. If they had other opinions, they didn't express them in any way that actually matters. That's a feature of first-past-the-post elections. The system deliberately prioritizes regional representation over public opinion. If you want a parliament that prioritizes public opinion, you need a different electoral system.
  - sefrost 3mo ago
    There has never been a British election where the majority votes cast have been for parties that pledged to increase immigration. I take your FPTP point, but when has the winning party under FPTP had a manifesto commitment to increase immigration? Let’s just face facts. We might disagree personally but a majority of people have always voted against immigration and it’s regularly a top 3 issue. Often the top issue!
    - jltsiren 3mo ago
      People pay too much attention on what politicians say, and too little on what kind of people those politicians and their allies are. My impression is that Reform and the Greens are the only mainstream parties with an actual opinion on immigration. The other parties approach immigration from a more technocratic perspective. They form policies based on expected outcomes, regardless of what the people with opinions think about that kind of immigration. (Except to the extent those opinions influence the outcomes.) As long as people keep voting Tories, Labour, or Lib Dems, they are effectively saying that immigration is not that important issue after all.
    - roryirvine 3mo ago
      In 2019, the Conservatives stood on a manifesto that promised, amongst other things, to ditch immigration targets (in favour of a more generous points-based system), to increase foreign recruitment of healthcare workers, and to introduce a new student visa which would attract "more students from all over the world" and encourage them to stay on and apply for work in the UK after graduation. They won a big majority as a result.
      - sefrost 3mo ago
        They campaigned on reducing the net figure to below 100,000 in the 2019 election. Instead they took it from 185,000 to 950,000. After that, they are now polling at all time lows (17%). https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50524262 https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50524262