UK Politics Thread X: Immigration, Housing, Strikes oh my

[Celritannia]

Sooo, British food? Seems like a pro-immigration argument.

They're caused by a diet consisting of too much non-fresh produce, and the impact is not binary but cumulative. The more food we have to import the worse the impact will be, and we're already above the carrying capacity of our locale with just the native population. Each extra mouth to feed will make the population that can't afford to pay premium food prices for at least 81% of their diet stupider, more obese, more diseased, and facing cognitive decline earlier in life. The impacts on social mobility and equality also shouldn't be dismissed as a consequence of this as the availability of fresh produce begins to become even more limited over time and eventually completely out of reach for most people, tipping their diet into the fully processed range. The impact of this is that they effectively experience "Old Age" far earlier in life, which is why there's not much impact on people over 60 eating processed foods. They've already started to decline mentally and physically. But if you do it before that you end up "Old" in terms of mental ability and physical health, and the process does not appear to be reversible once triggered. Eventually you hit a point and your body decides to pack it in. The more processed food you eat, the earlier that happens.

This is definitely a very sensible way to handle our population pyramid crisis and only racists would say otherwise.

Let's also not consider what it will do to a society if by the time people have reached managerial and top governmental positions, their brains are goop and they should instead be in a care home. Oh. I suddenly understand everything.

We already eat 60% of our food locally on average, and that's using "Locally" as a metric. 60% of our diet is already low-quality as we also turn some of that local produce into processed foods. So it's making a problem that is already measurable and harming our society even worse each time we increase the population.

I did read the articles, but the evidence of immigration and a burden on the UK health Sector, wages, and housing are limited and are only supported by nationalists with no evidence.

Link one;

was estimated to cost between £60 million and £80 million per year.

Link two;

Low-wage workers are more likely to lose out from immigration, while medium and high-paid workers are more likely to gain, but the effects are small

Link three was you, not the link you gave, suggesting immigrants don't impact the housing market because they rent rather than buying. I do hope you understand why this is a nonsense link to show compared to total new residences VS immigration rate per year.

£60 and £80 for what? Cost of the NHS? No correlation that is related to increase of immigration.

The affects are small, meaning they are not massive as you think they are.

This does not prove immigration is a problem to the housing crisis.

Your racism is clear though.

[Celritannia]

I'm sorry, what? Lower intelligence? Earlier onset diseases? Cognative decline? What BS is this?

All are things caused by a low quality diet.

Thats not comes across in Ostro's points.

[Ostroeuropa]

They're caused by a diet consisting of too much non-fresh produce, and the impact is not binary but cumulative. The more food we have to import the worse the impact will be, and we're already above the carrying capacity of our locale with just the native population. Each extra mouth to feed will make the population that can't afford to pay premium food prices for at least 81% of their diet stupider, more obese, more diseased, and facing cognitive decline earlier in life. The impacts on social mobility and equality also shouldn't be dismissed as a consequence of this as the availability of fresh produce begins to become even more limited over time and eventually completely out of reach for most people, tipping their diet into the fully processed range. The impact of this is that they effectively experience "Old Age" far earlier in life, which is why there's not much impact on people over 60 eating processed foods. They've already started to decline mentally and physically. But if you do it before that you end up "Old" in terms of mental ability and physical health, and the process does not appear to be reversible once triggered. Eventually you hit a point and your body decides to pack it in. The more processed food you eat, the earlier that happens.

This is definitely a very sensible way to handle our population pyramid crisis and only racists would say otherwise.

Let's also not consider what it will do to a society if by the time people have reached managerial and top governmental positions, their brains are goop and they should instead be in a care home. Oh. I suddenly understand everything.

We already eat 60% of our food locally on average, and that's using "Locally" as a metric. 60% of our diet is already low-quality as we also turn some of that local produce into processed foods. So it's making a problem that is already measurable and harming our society even worse each time we increase the population.



Link one;

Link two;

Link three was you, not the link you gave, suggesting immigrants don't impact the housing market because they rent rather than buying. I do hope you understand why this is a nonsense link to show compared to total new residences VS immigration rate per year.

£60 and £80 for what? Cost of the NHS? No correlation that is related to increase of immigration.

The affects are small, meaning they are not massive as you think they are.

This does not prove immigration is a problem to the housing crisis.

Your racism is clear though.

1. Your link says otherwise. It calculates that the increase in immigration costs 60 to 80 million to the NHS.

2. The effects on raising the income of high earners is small. Not the impact of lowering the income of low earners. Your own link tells you this. Moreover, even if the impact on low earners were small, disparate impact comes into play when discussing "Small" impacts on income of low earners. This is something leftists tend to comprehend when it comes to extremely minor cuts to the welfare budget, but conveniently forget when discussing immigrants. Then suddenly they morph into David Cameron and waffle about how reducing the monthly income of an impoverished person by just a hundred pounds or so isn't that big a deal.

3. To be clear, you don't think showing you that we have built less houses than we have net migration proves that as a result of immigration has an impact on the availability of housing? Is that your position? I was about to say you're not likely to find an academic text that can "Prove" to you the concept that some numbers are larger than other ones, but then I remembered this.

https://lesharmoniesdelesprit.files.wor ... olumei.pdf

Have fun. You can extrapolate from the conclusion that 1+1 = 2 (Proven after the first several hundred pages) that indeed, if there are X Million houses and Y million people, you can determine that there are A houses per person. If you then have X+1 and Y+2, then the result is <A. In other words, there are less houses available per person.

4. See the redlisting point for why this is a nonsense observation on your part. The race of the people isn't relevant to my arguments. It would be the same regardless of their point of origin, and the food point even implies we should be aiming for population decline until we reach carrying capacity, which happily our birth rate would cause in any case. Meanwhile, the pro-immigration side routinely argues about the necessity of our current system despite the deadly implications abroad for primarily African countries, speaking in breathless terms about how we have a "Shortage" so we "need them" in possibly the most self-absorbed and tone deaf response to critics of immigration i've ever seen.

International organization: "We're banning food exports from these countries because they're having a famine."

Progressives: "We need to import food because I don't have enough butter on my bagel. I *need* it, or my quality of life will suffer and that's not fair".

Critics: "Maybe we should leave the butter where it came from."

Progressives: "Why, do you hate foreigners? Just like you racists, always turning your nose up at foreign food.".

I guess we'll just ignore the systematized killing of thousands or millions of brown people. Calling it out would be racist.

The Enlightened 1840's Progressive Government: "What are you, anti-irish? What's wrong with Irish produce? What? Potatoes? Never heard of them."

Oh wait. They were Tories. So they just had the same policy but were more blunt about it and didn't rationalize their own self-interest as benevolence towards others. I suppose the equivalent would be; "Ah yes, but by recruiting from red listed countries, their weak and degenerate will simply die, and the resulting improvement of the gene pool will help them get back on their feet." alongside "Well if they didn't want to catch typhoid they should have been less lazy.".

Where have I see this before... Ah.

“The white liberal differs from the white conservative in one way. The liberal is more deceitful and hypocritical than the conservatives. Both want power. But, the white liberal has perfected the art of posing as the negro’s (sic) friend and benefactor... The fox is always more dangerous than the wolf. The wolf you can see coming, you know what he's up to. The fox will fool you, he comes at you in such a way that even though he bares his teeth he tells you he's just smiling."

Funnily enough, also a nationalist. And this observation applies broadly, not merely to the NHS.

How precisely is it racism to oppose the brain drain of third world countries?

All are things caused by a low quality diet.

Thats not comes across in Ostro's points.

If I understood it, and sniffage understood it...

Oh. I remembered something else too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0

I fucking love Bernie...

[Tinhampton]

I've talked/moped about Clubcard Prices before but it now looks like Sainsbury's is starting to offer discounts for Nectar card holders too. (The Sainsbury's-Nectar connection is two decades old. Asda and Morrisons still use a points-based system.)

Normally I wouldn't raise this here - but why did Sainsbury's tie this to Nectar? About a year ago, they were aggressively pushing their new "Smart Shop" app and how it could offer app-holders personalised prices based on what they buy; I never set foot in that particular outlet but I wouldn't be surprised if they're now abandoning that principle in favour of a Tesco-style flat-rate discount on certain products for all cardholders.

In response to my December question: Yes, people do apparently still earn Clubcard points. I know this because I read an article in the Daily Express saying that, in two weeks from now, the fuel calculation will move from 1pt/£2 to 1pt/2litre.

[Ostroeuropa]

I've talked/moped about Clubcard Prices before but it now looks like Sainsbury's is starting to offer discounts for Nectar card holders too. (The Sainsbury's-Nectar connection is two decades old. Asda and Morrisons still use a points-based system.)

Normally I wouldn't raise this here - but why did Sainsbury's tie this to Nectar? About a year ago, they were aggressively pushing their new "Smart Shop" app and how it could offer app-holders personalised prices based on what they buy; I never set foot in that particular outlet but I wouldn't be surprised if they're now abandoning that principle in favour of a Tesco-style flat-rate discount on certain products for all cardholders.

In response to my December question: Yes, people do apparently still earn Clubcard points. I know this because I read an article in the Daily Express saying that, in two weeks from now, the fuel calculation will move from 1pt/£2 to 1pt/2litre.

I think it'll probably come down to which scheme gets them the most customers, obviously, but figuring out how many customers a particular scheme nets them is probably an impossible task beyond "Some, probably.". The particulars of that scheme are I suspect less important than an advertisement implying "Free shit if you shop with us." which is the primary pull. The number of people who actually sit down and calculate their optimal supermarket is probably limited to the people who came up with the schemes in the first place.

Changes then are based on a bunch of people stood in a room shrugging at eachother and looking bewildered before altering some numbers in a spreadsheet and going "ooooh!" and "ahhh!" as other numbers change without clearly understood relationship. When they make the card worth less they don't make a fuss of it. When they make it worth more, they make a fuss of it. This drives the actual utility of the project. Everything else is probably too esoteric and complex to get a firm grip on beyond "We should occasionally make the card worth less quietly and then make it worth more in a different way such that it's still broadly costing us as much, but allows us to talk about it again as though it's a new development of free shit.".

[Ostroeuropa]

"What Marxist infiltration of Academia?"

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23554 ... s-ukraine/

https://roarnews.co.uk/2023/ucu-congres ... g-ukraine/

Members of the University and Colleges Union (UCU), which has been holding its Congress at Glasgow's SEC, backed a motion accusing President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of wanting the country to become an “armed, illiberal outpost of US imperialism”.

(Motion passed the vote).

So you know what sort of people professors in universities are these days.

Dr Yuliya Yurchenko, of Greenwich University, tweeted: “To colleagues compelled (like me) to just leave the union: let's stay and fight this.

“We can't grant red-brown tankies (or managers hoping to weaken the union) the satisfaction nor the upper hand. They won't defeat us.”

Dr Anna Hájková, a historian at Warwick University, said members were considering leaving the union over the row.

She tweeted: “Many, many, many good members are leaving." “I may leave, too, If I don't, it is not because I have any faith in the UCU, but because the alternative – neoliberal university management – is worse.”

And yeah. Spirit animal there by noting "Oh look. Tankies are the majority of UK academics. We can't leave, we've got to fight them.".

Honorable mention to the second person who at least decides to stay and deal with the Tankies even if they're taking an L on suggesting neoliberals are worse.

And reddit comment;

Why should I care about you needing a raise any more? It is just some kind of expansionism I don't have to care about. If your Union can't stand in Solidarity with the workers if Ukraine then you are all a bunch of scabs.

UCU is an organisation of scabs.

You disagree with your Union's stance? Leave. Join a Union that isn't full of scum.

I broadly support this sentiment, though do not necessarily endorse the way it is phrased. I no longer support negotiation with the UCU over pay. If any union you found will find itself overrun with Tankies, then just ban tankies and start doing more to actually root them out and we can have "Union and non-union teaching staff.", and quietly purge the non-union types due to a lack of protections or negotiating power.

[Mtwara]

The UK can still up its food productivity game quite substantially, using emerging technologies such as hydroponics.

Demand for housing and migration is not evenly spread across the country. Where demand is high, it's a wonder that we don't see more apartment buildings.

[The Archregimancy]

"What Marxist infiltration of Academia?"

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23554 ... s-ukraine/

https://roarnews.co.uk/2023/ucu-congres ... g-ukraine/

Members of the University and Colleges Union (UCU), which has been holding its Congress at Glasgow's SEC, backed a motion accusing President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of wanting the country to become an “armed, illiberal outpost of US imperialism”.

(Motion passed the vote).

So you know what sort of people professors in universities are these days.

The UCU vote on Ukraine was a terrible decision, and one many of my colleagues in academia strongly oppose (though obviously not effectively enough).

But that terrible vote is not itself in any way evidence of rampant Marxism within the halls of British academia. There are plenty of politicians on the American far right who are in favour of ending active Western military support for Ukraine while asking for an immediate ceasefire; and the last time I checked, no one is accusing Marjorie Taylor Greene and Ron DeSantis of being Marxists.


Edit:

I've done a bit more digging into the UCU vote over Ukraine.

The vote was, it seems, pushed by the UCU Marxist group and part of the UCU Left group (which is deeply divided over Ukraine), so Ostro is part-right, though I think it's still valid to point out that calling for an end for Western support for Ukraine and an immediate ceasefire is not an inherently Marxist position. As I wrote in the Ukraine thread, short-sighted idiocy is not ideology dependent; and indeed, a significant number of left-wing UCU members continue to support Ukraine.

However, the overwhelming majority of UCU members had no idea that the motion on Ukraine was going to go to a vote in Glasgow. Essentially, a small group of extreme anti-war left-wing activists pushed through a floor vote on the Ukraine motion when only a small number of delegates were present, and over the objections of the General Secretary.

None of which is to try and excuse a moronic activist ambush that's done serious reputational damage to UCU, as well as distracting from the more pressing pay and pension issues. However, moves are now underway to review that vote; which they more or less will have to do given the extent to which they're currently haemorrhaging appalled members.

[Ostroeuropa]

"What Marxist infiltration of Academia?"

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23554 ... s-ukraine/

https://roarnews.co.uk/2023/ucu-congres ... g-ukraine/


(Motion passed the vote).

So you know what sort of people professors in universities are these days.

The UCU vote on Ukraine was a terrible decision, and one many of my colleagues in academia strongly oppose (though obviously not effectively enough).

But that terrible vote is not itself in any way evidence of rampant Marxism within the halls of British academia. There are plenty of politicians on the American far right who are in favour of ending active Western military support for Ukraine while asking for an immediate ceasefire; and the last time I checked, no one is accusing Marjorie Taylor Greene and Ron DeSantis of being Marxists.

I might agree if not for the fact it were a union vote and that one of the Dr's commented on the process specifically mentioned Tankies. I doubt many on the far-right are actively involved in union politics. When we also consider the broader political stances of Academia and their tendency towards the left, I think it strains credulity to propose this isn't likely to be a marxist phenomanae. I will agree it doesn't in itself prove it. But with contextual information it is highly suggestive, especially as commentary on the marxist infiltration of academia has been an ongoing criticism.

If we saw for example years of criticism of Islamo-Fascist infiltration of the police, survey data indicating Islamic predominance within the police (Though not strictly fundamentalism), and a bunch of other shit, and then one day;

"Police federation votes to condemn Jews", I think it would be contextually justifiable to say "It was islamo-fascists. There's too many of them." and the suggestion that it "Might have been neo-nazis" is something only possible in an alternate timeline, and pointing to a different institution like say the Anglican Church and its neo-nazi problem and saying "They also say the same nonsense" doesn't do anything except draw the (Apt) comparison that British Academia is as intellectually robust as Marjorie Taylor Greene and that there are similarities between Marxists and Fascists in a very relevant sense.

[The Archregimancy]

I might agree if not for the fact it were a union vote and that one of the Dr's commented on the process specifically mentioned Tankies. I doubt many on the far-right are actively involved in union politics. When we also consider the broader political stances of Academia and their tendency towards the left, I think it strains credulity to propose this isn't likely to be a marxist phenomanae. I will agree it doesn't in itself prove it. But with contextual information it is highly suggestive, especially as commentary on the marxist infiltration of academia has been an ongoing criticism.

See the additional information in my edit.

[Ostroeuropa]

I might agree if not for the fact it were a union vote and that one of the Dr's commented on the process specifically mentioned Tankies. I doubt many on the far-right are actively involved in union politics. When we also consider the broader political stances of Academia and their tendency towards the left, I think it strains credulity to propose this isn't likely to be a marxist phenomanae. I will agree it doesn't in itself prove it. But with contextual information it is highly suggestive, especially as commentary on the marxist infiltration of academia has been an ongoing criticism.

See the additional information in my edit.

Thankyou for that additional context. In the event the vote is overturned my evaluation of the scope of the problem will change to reflect that. I suppose we're in wait and see territory.

[Celritannia]

£60 and £80 for what? Cost of the NHS? No correlation that is related to increase of immigration.

The affects are small, meaning they are not massive as you think they are.

This does not prove immigration is a problem to the housing crisis.

Your racism is clear though.

1. Your link says otherwise. It calculates that the increase in immigration costs 60 to 80 million to the NHS.

2. The effects on raising the income of high earners is small. Not the impact of lowering the income of low earners. Your own link tells you this. Moreover, even if the impact on low earners were small, disparate impact comes into play when discussing "Small" impacts on income of low earners. This is something leftists tend to comprehend when it comes to extremely minor cuts to the welfare budget, but conveniently forget when discussing immigrants. Then suddenly they morph into David Cameron and waffle about how reducing the monthly income of an impoverished person by just a hundred pounds or so isn't that big a deal.

3. To be clear, you don't think showing you that we have built less houses than we have net migration proves that as a result of immigration has an impact on the availability of housing? Is that your position? I was about to say you're not likely to find an academic text that can "Prove" to you the concept that some numbers are larger than other ones, but then I remembered this.

https://lesharmoniesdelesprit.files.wor ... olumei.pdf

Have fun. You can extrapolate from the conclusion that 1+1 = 2 (Proven after the first several hundred pages) that indeed, if there are X Million houses and Y million people, you can determine that there are A houses per person. If you then have X+1 and Y+2, then the result is <A. In other words, there are less houses available per person.

4. See the redlisting point for why this is a nonsense observation on your part. The race of the people isn't relevant to my arguments. It would be the same regardless of their point of origin, and the food point even implies we should be aiming for population decline until we reach carrying capacity, which happily our birth rate would cause in any case. Meanwhile, the pro-immigration side routinely argues about the necessity of our current system despite the deadly implications abroad for primarily African countries, speaking in breathless terms about how we have a "Shortage" so we "need them" in possibly the most self-absorbed and tone deaf response to critics of immigration i've ever seen.

International organization: "We're banning food exports from these countries because they're having a famine."

Progressives: "We need to import food because I don't have enough butter on my bagel. I *need* it, or my quality of life will suffer and that's not fair".

Critics: "Maybe we should leave the butter where it came from."

Progressives: "Why, do you hate foreigners? Just like you racists, always turning your nose up at foreign food.".

I guess we'll just ignore the systematized killing of thousands or millions of brown people. Calling it out would be racist.

The Enlightened 1840's Progressive Government: "What are you, anti-irish? What's wrong with Irish produce? What? Potatoes? Never heard of them."

Oh wait. They were Tories. So they just had the same policy but were more blunt about it and didn't rationalize their own self-interest as benevolence towards others. I suppose the equivalent would be; "Ah yes, but by recruiting from red listed countries, their weak and degenerate will simply die, and the resulting improvement of the gene pool will help them get back on their feet." alongside "Well if they didn't want to catch typhoid they should have been less lazy.".

Where have I see this before... Ah.

“The white liberal differs from the white conservative in one way. The liberal is more deceitful and hypocritical than the conservatives. Both want power. But, the white liberal has perfected the art of posing as the negro’s (sic) friend and benefactor... The fox is always more dangerous than the wolf. The wolf you can see coming, you know what he's up to. The fox will fool you, he comes at you in such a way that even though he bares his teeth he tells you he's just smiling."

Funnily enough, also a nationalist. And this observation applies broadly, not merely to the NHS.

How precisely is it racism to oppose the brain drain of third world countries?

Thats not comes across in Ostro's points.

If I understood it, and sniffage understood it...

Oh. I remembered something else too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0

I fucking love Bernie...

1. Again, no.

Immigrants should not be blamed for the pressures in A&E and other parts of the NHS. The reasons behind these pressures – unsurprisingly – are far more complex: a mix of growing and changing population health needs, chronic workforce shortages, a decade of austerity in funding for the NHS and other public services, and many other factors. What is clear, however, is that the health and care system depends on its international staff to help fix the mess it’s in

2. It's almost as if immigrants are not at fault for wages keeping up with inflation, but a stupid line of nationalist badgers on about when there is a crisis.
Also, please clarify what you mean by leftist.

3. Immigration is not to blame for unaffordable housing

4. Blaming immigration for the faults we are seeing is an easy target when immigration as a whole is not affecting these issues as massively as you think. I am neutral on immigration, but people jump to it when there are national crises.

5. I am not disagreeing with the fact a poor diet causes these problems, but how you wrote it does not seem like it reads like that. IT reads like all those things are individual points than a list.

[Philjia]

"What Marxist infiltration of Academia?"

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23554 ... s-ukraine/

https://roarnews.co.uk/2023/ucu-congres ... g-ukraine/


(Motion passed the vote).

So you know what sort of people professors in universities are these days.

The UCU vote on Ukraine was a terrible decision, and one many of my colleagues in academia strongly oppose (though obviously not effectively enough).

But that terrible vote is not itself in any way evidence of rampant Marxism within the halls of British academia. There are plenty of politicians on the American far right who are in favour of ending active Western military support for Ukraine while asking for an immediate ceasefire; and the last time I checked, no one is accusing Marjorie Taylor Greene and Ron DeSantis of being Marxists.


Edit:

I've done a bit more digging into the UCU vote over Ukraine.

The vote was, it seems, pushed by the UCU Marxist group and part of the UCU Left group (which is deeply divided over Ukraine), so Ostro is part-right, though I think it's still valid to point out that calling for an end for Western support for Ukraine and an immediate ceasefire is not an inherently Marxist position. As I wrote in the Ukraine thread, short-sighted idiocy is not ideology dependent; and indeed, a significant number of left-wing UCU members continue to support Ukraine.

However, the overwhelming majority of UCU members had no idea that the motion on Ukraine was going to go to a vote in Glasgow. Essentially, a small group of extreme anti-war left-wing activists pushed through a floor vote on the Ukraine motion when only a small number of delegates were present, and over the objections of the General Secretary.

None of which is to try and excuse a moronic activist ambush that's done serious reputational damage to UCU, as well as distracting from the more pressing pay and pension issues. However, moves are now underway to review that vote; which they more or less will have to do given the extent to which they're currently haemorrhaging appalled members.

This is what happens when most people don't bother to be meaningfully engaged in their union, which is an issue pervasive through the whole movement, and in democratically operated membership organisations in general. Not too long ago a NASUWT ballot for strike action failed because not enough members returned completed ballots.

[Ostroeuropa]

1. Your link says otherwise. It calculates that the increase in immigration costs 60 to 80 million to the NHS.

2. The effects on raising the income of high earners is small. Not the impact of lowering the income of low earners. Your own link tells you this. Moreover, even if the impact on low earners were small, disparate impact comes into play when discussing "Small" impacts on income of low earners. This is something leftists tend to comprehend when it comes to extremely minor cuts to the welfare budget, but conveniently forget when discussing immigrants. Then suddenly they morph into David Cameron and waffle about how reducing the monthly income of an impoverished person by just a hundred pounds or so isn't that big a deal.

3. To be clear, you don't think showing you that we have built less houses than we have net migration proves that as a result of immigration has an impact on the availability of housing? Is that your position? I was about to say you're not likely to find an academic text that can "Prove" to you the concept that some numbers are larger than other ones, but then I remembered this.

https://lesharmoniesdelesprit.files.wor ... olumei.pdf

Have fun. You can extrapolate from the conclusion that 1+1 = 2 (Proven after the first several hundred pages) that indeed, if there are X Million houses and Y million people, you can determine that there are A houses per person. If you then have X+1 and Y+2, then the result is <A. In other words, there are less houses available per person.

4. See the redlisting point for why this is a nonsense observation on your part. The race of the people isn't relevant to my arguments. It would be the same regardless of their point of origin, and the food point even implies we should be aiming for population decline until we reach carrying capacity, which happily our birth rate would cause in any case. Meanwhile, the pro-immigration side routinely argues about the necessity of our current system despite the deadly implications abroad for primarily African countries, speaking in breathless terms about how we have a "Shortage" so we "need them" in possibly the most self-absorbed and tone deaf response to critics of immigration i've ever seen.

International organization: "We're banning food exports from these countries because they're having a famine."

Progressives: "We need to import food because I don't have enough butter on my bagel. I *need* it, or my quality of life will suffer and that's not fair".

Critics: "Maybe we should leave the butter where it came from."

Progressives: "Why, do you hate foreigners? Just like you racists, always turning your nose up at foreign food.".

I guess we'll just ignore the systematized killing of thousands or millions of brown people. Calling it out would be racist.

The Enlightened 1840's Progressive Government: "What are you, anti-irish? What's wrong with Irish produce? What? Potatoes? Never heard of them."

Oh wait. They were Tories. So they just had the same policy but were more blunt about it and didn't rationalize their own self-interest as benevolence towards others. I suppose the equivalent would be; "Ah yes, but by recruiting from red listed countries, their weak and degenerate will simply die, and the resulting improvement of the gene pool will help them get back on their feet." alongside "Well if they didn't want to catch typhoid they should have been less lazy.".

Where have I see this before... Ah.

Funnily enough, also a nationalist. And this observation applies broadly, not merely to the NHS.

How precisely is it racism to oppose the brain drain of third world countries?



If I understood it, and sniffage understood it...

Oh. I remembered something else too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0

I fucking love Bernie...

1. Again, no.

Immigrants should not be blamed for the pressures in A&E and other parts of the NHS. The reasons behind these pressures – unsurprisingly – are far more complex: a mix of growing and changing population health needs, chronic workforce shortages, a decade of austerity in funding for the NHS and other public services, and many other factors. What is clear, however, is that the health and care system depends on its international staff to help fix the mess it’s in

2. It's almost as if immigrants are not at fault for wages keeping up with inflation, but a stupid line of nationalist badgers on about when there is a crisis.
Also, please clarify what you mean by leftist.

3. Immigration is not to blame for unaffordable housing

4. Blaming immigration for the faults we are seeing is an easy target when immigration as a whole is not affecting these issues as massively as you think. I am neutral on immigration, but people jump to it when there are national crises.

5. I am not disagreeing with the fact a poor diet causes these problems, but how you wrote it does not seem like it reads like that. IT reads like all those things are individual points than a list.

Celrit, your first point actually goes to support my statement. You haven't parsed it correctly because you see me saying "Immigration causes problems" and you think i'm saying "The problems are caused by immigration.", and probably don't understand how these are two extremely distinct statements. Then you link something that says immigration is a part of the cause but not the whole of it as though this disagrees with me. The quoted section specifically notes growing population as part of the factors in play. To give you an indication this is like me saying "Cigarettes cause Cancer" and you rock on up and tell me it doesn't, and then provide me with a list of carcinogenic. One of which is cigarettes. Because you've been spammed with cigarette company propoganda that has turned you into a useful pawn who will say that shit rather than wonder why they're so insistent that "Cancer is really complicated guys and there's lots of reasons it might happen. People just blame cigarettes because they don't like em.".

As for your second point, the negotiating power of workers is undermined by immigration. So it is again an extremely relevant factor and your own link explains this to you.

your third link is espousing the same nonsense you are. "Immigrants aren't to blame, we're just not building enough houses.". Enough houses for who, sir? This is equivalent to saying "Immigration hasn't caused the housing crisis, what caused it is that we haven't build enough houses to house the immigrants.". Which is just restating the problem the same way.

Your fourth point would be because it's an extremely easy thing to control. We just issue less visas. It's one of the most immediate mechanisms the government can impact. That's why during a crisis it's one of the first things people point to.

[Galloism]

Celrit mentioned the UK thread, so I popped in.

Oh my.....

your third link is espousing the same nonsense you are. "Immigrants aren't to blame, we're just not building enough houses.". Enough houses for who, sir? This is equivalent to saying "Immigration hasn't caused the housing crisis, what caused it is that we haven't build enough houses to house the immigrants.". Which is just restating the problem the same way.

I would argue this is a fundamental reframing.

You could say "We're not growing enough food to feed the poor" and "We have too many poor to feed them" and, although that's fundamentally the same problem, you're leaning towards different sources of the problem.

In the former, the next logical step, since you are looking at inadequate food as the problem, is "how do we grow more/buy more food for the poor", while the latter, viewing the excessive number of poor as the problem, leads to "what if we just kill all the poor".

[Ostroeuropa]

Celrit mentioned the UK thread, so I popped in.

Oh my.....

your third link is espousing the same nonsense you are. "Immigrants aren't to blame, we're just not building enough houses.". Enough houses for who, sir? This is equivalent to saying "Immigration hasn't caused the housing crisis, what caused it is that we haven't build enough houses to house the immigrants.". Which is just restating the problem the same way.

I would argue this is a fundamental reframing.

You could say "We're not growing enough food to feed the poor" and "We have too many poor to feed them" and, although that's fundamentally the same problem, you're leaning towards different sources of the problem.

In the former, the next logical step, since you are looking at inadequate food as the problem, is "how do we grow more/buy more food for the poor", while the latter, viewing the excessive number of poor as the problem, leads to "what if we just kill all the poor".

Absolutely Galloism, at which point we then enter a discussion of "Is it possible and affordable to build enough houses to match our current immigration rate.".

We had 1.2 million this year.

The all time record for house building was 450k in a year, at a time of record state investment and taxation, just prior to Thatcher and the neoliberal revolution. Which means even if we lurch into Corbynite economics, we're still falling remarkably short. The comparison to food is an apt one. If somebody says "There's too many poor to feed" and you reply "The problem isn't too many poor, it's too little food", that carries a certain empirical implication that it is possible to acquire more food. It is not merely a matter of framing, there are facts to be examined in the dispute.

So when people say this, I want them to just come out and say; "I want 1.2 million houses a year to be built.", perform the costing, and explain how they envision that working. As I said previously, I personally want the immigration figures fixed to a hard cap on "New houses built.".

If we build 1 house, only 1 immigrant can come. This doesn't fix the housing crisis. But it does prevent it getting worse. That way all this effort and energy people spend fighting imaginary racists in their own head could instead be spent on demanding the government builds houses or it must hate brown people. Turning the pathologically paranoid nature of the progressive left into something useful for society. A kind of perpetual motion machine for infrastructure building instead of it being just an irritant for society.

"Our housing expansion is powered by the paranoid recriminations of the left, that's why there's billions of houses" and so on. Now if we can only figure out a way to hook up some kind of energy extraction we can outlast the heat death of the universe, but housing will do for now.

Alternately with an actual concerete figure attached to their demands it becomes impossible for people to take them seriously when they accuse others of racism for wanting the housing expansion budget to be the largest government sector. Either way, it forces their nonsense to be attached to the real world rather than their axiomatic "Pure Ideology".

[Celritannia]

1. Again, no.


2. It's almost as if immigrants are not at fault for wages keeping up with inflation, but a stupid line of nationalist badgers on about when there is a crisis.
Also, please clarify what you mean by leftist.

3. Immigration is not to blame for unaffordable housing

4. Blaming immigration for the faults we are seeing is an easy target when immigration as a whole is not affecting these issues as massively as you think. I am neutral on immigration, but people jump to it when there are national crises.

5. I am not disagreeing with the fact a poor diet causes these problems, but how you wrote it does not seem like it reads like that. IT reads like all those things are individual points than a list.

Celrit, your first point actually goes to support my statement. You haven't parsed it correctly because you see me saying "Immigration causes problems" and you think i'm saying "The problems are caused by immigration.", and probably don't understand how these are two extremely distinct statements. Then you link something that says immigration is a part of the cause but not the whole of it as though this disagrees with me. The quoted section specifically notes growing population as part of the factors in play. To give you an indication this is like me saying "Cigarettes cause Cancer" and you rock on up and tell me it doesn't, and then provide me with a list of carcinogenic. One of which is cigarettes. Because you've been spammed with cigarette company propoganda that has turned you into a useful pawn who will say that shit rather than wonder why they're so insistent that "Cancer is really complicated guys and there's lots of reasons it might happen. People just blame cigarettes because they don't like em.".

As for your second point, the negotiating power of workers is undermined by immigration. So it is again an extremely relevant factor and your own link explains this to you.

your third link is espousing the same nonsense you are. "Immigrants aren't to blame, we're just not building enough houses.". Enough houses for who, sir? This is equivalent to saying "Immigration hasn't caused the housing crisis, what caused it is that we haven't build enough houses to house the immigrants.". Which is just restating the problem the same way.

Your fourth point would be because it's an extremely easy thing to control. We just issue less visas. It's one of the most immediate mechanisms the government can impact. That's why during a crisis it's one of the first things people point to.

To say immigration causes problems while immigrants do seems illogical. You cannot have one without the other.
If immigrants do not cause a problem, then immigration itself is not a problem.
However, the overall problem is blaming immigration for everything, which you are doing right now.

And who would take the jobs British Citizens do not want?

[Ostroeuropa]

Celrit, your first point actually goes to support my statement. You haven't parsed it correctly because you see me saying "Immigration causes problems" and you think i'm saying "The problems are caused by immigration.", and probably don't understand how these are two extremely distinct statements. Then you link something that says immigration is a part of the cause but not the whole of it as though this disagrees with me. The quoted section specifically notes growing population as part of the factors in play. To give you an indication this is like me saying "Cigarettes cause Cancer" and you rock on up and tell me it doesn't, and then provide me with a list of carcinogenic. One of which is cigarettes. Because you've been spammed with cigarette company propoganda that has turned you into a useful pawn who will say that shit rather than wonder why they're so insistent that "Cancer is really complicated guys and there's lots of reasons it might happen. People just blame cigarettes because they don't like em.".

As for your second point, the negotiating power of workers is undermined by immigration. So it is again an extremely relevant factor and your own link explains this to you.

your third link is espousing the same nonsense you are. "Immigrants aren't to blame, we're just not building enough houses.". Enough houses for who, sir? This is equivalent to saying "Immigration hasn't caused the housing crisis, what caused it is that we haven't build enough houses to house the immigrants.". Which is just restating the problem the same way.

Your fourth point would be because it's an extremely easy thing to control. We just issue less visas. It's one of the most immediate mechanisms the government can impact. That's why during a crisis it's one of the first things people point to.

To say immigration causes problems while immigrants do not seem illogical. You cannot have one without the other.
If immigrants do not cause a problem, then immigration itself is not a problem.
However, the overall problem is blaming immigration for everything, which you are doing right now.

And who would take the jobs British Citizens do not want?

What do you think a "Cause" is Celrit?

As for who would do the jobs, I don't know. You could offer more money for British people to do them.

How many houses do you think the UK should build a year, incidentally?

About 35,000 homes are planned by 2026, paid for by £4bn of government funding - an average of £114,000 per house.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56222957

Take your time.

(I'll give you a hint. If we were to build a house for every immigrant this year, it would cost 160 billion pounds. The same annual budget as the NHS.).

[Celritannia]

To say immigration causes problems while immigrants do not seem illogical. You cannot have one without the other.
If immigrants do not cause a problem, then immigration itself is not a problem.
However, the overall problem is blaming immigration for everything, which you are doing right now.

And who would take the jobs British Citizens do not want?

What do you think a "Cause" is Celrit?

As for who would do the jobs, I don't know. You could offer more money for British people to do them.

The problem is the lack of houses being built, second or third home buyers who leave houses empty, or run-down buildings not being renovated to be used as places to live while housing prices have increased and wages have not increased with inflation.

They tried that, but it failed. Also increasing the wage of fruit pickers for British workers will also increase the prices of the fruit and veg in store.

[Galloism]

Celrit mentioned the UK thread, so I popped in.

Oh my.....


I would argue this is a fundamental reframing.

You could say "We're not growing enough food to feed the poor" and "We have too many poor to feed them" and, although that's fundamentally the same problem, you're leaning towards different sources of the problem.

In the former, the next logical step, since you are looking at inadequate food as the problem, is "how do we grow more/buy more food for the poor", while the latter, viewing the excessive number of poor as the problem, leads to "what if we just kill all the poor".

Absolutely Galloism, at which point we then enter a discussion of "Is it possible and affordable to build enough houses to match our current immigration rate.".

We had 1.2 million this year.

The all time record for house building was 450k in a year, at a time of record state investment and taxation, just prior to Thatcher and the neoliberal revolution. Which means even if we lurch into Corbynite economics, we're still falling remarkably short. The comparison to food is an apt one. If somebody says "There's too many poor to feed" and you reply "The problem isn't too many poor, it's too little food", that carries a certain empirical implication that it is possible to acquire more food. It is not merely a matter of framing, there are facts to be examined in the dispute.

So when people say this, I want them to just come out and say; "I want 1.2 million houses a year to be built.", perform the costing, and explain how they envision that working. As I said previously, I personally want the immigration figures fixed to a hard cap on "New houses built.".

If we build 1 house, only 1 immigrant can come. This doesn't fix the housing crisis. But it does prevent it getting worse. That way all this effort and energy people spend fighting imaginary racists in their own head could instead be spent on demanding the government builds houses or it must hate brown people. Turning the pathologically paranoid nature of the progressive left into something useful for society. A kind of perpetual motion machine for infrastructure building instead of it being just an irritant for society.

"Our housing expansion is powered by the paranoid recriminations of the left, that's why there's billions of houses" and so on. Now if we can only figure out a way to hook up some kind of energy extraction we can outlast the heat death of the universe, but housing will do for now.

Alternately with an actual concerete figure attached to their demands it becomes impossible for people to take them seriously when they accuse others of racism for wanting the housing expansion budget to be the largest government sector. Either way, it forces their nonsense to be attached to the real world rather than their axiomatic "Pure Ideology".

1:1 seems obviously wrong since the vast majority of homes aren't single occupancy (roommates and families are normal).

Tbh, I read this post three times, and all I can think is "we're not doing it because we choose not to".

[Ostroeuropa]

Absolutely Galloism, at which point we then enter a discussion of "Is it possible and affordable to build enough houses to match our current immigration rate.".

We had 1.2 million this year.

The all time record for house building was 450k in a year, at a time of record state investment and taxation, just prior to Thatcher and the neoliberal revolution. Which means even if we lurch into Corbynite economics, we're still falling remarkably short. The comparison to food is an apt one. If somebody says "There's too many poor to feed" and you reply "The problem isn't too many poor, it's too little food", that carries a certain empirical implication that it is possible to acquire more food. It is not merely a matter of framing, there are facts to be examined in the dispute.

So when people say this, I want them to just come out and say; "I want 1.2 million houses a year to be built.", perform the costing, and explain how they envision that working. As I said previously, I personally want the immigration figures fixed to a hard cap on "New houses built.".

If we build 1 house, only 1 immigrant can come. This doesn't fix the housing crisis. But it does prevent it getting worse. That way all this effort and energy people spend fighting imaginary racists in their own head could instead be spent on demanding the government builds houses or it must hate brown people. Turning the pathologically paranoid nature of the progressive left into something useful for society. A kind of perpetual motion machine for infrastructure building instead of it being just an irritant for society.

"Our housing expansion is powered by the paranoid recriminations of the left, that's why there's billions of houses" and so on. Now if we can only figure out a way to hook up some kind of energy extraction we can outlast the heat death of the universe, but housing will do for now.

Alternately with an actual concerete figure attached to their demands it becomes impossible for people to take them seriously when they accuse others of racism for wanting the housing expansion budget to be the largest government sector. Either way, it forces their nonsense to be attached to the real world rather than their axiomatic "Pure Ideology".

1:1 seems obviously wrong since the vast majority of homes aren't single occupancy (roommates and families are normal).

Tbh, I read this post three times, and all I can think is "we're not doing it because we choose not to".

1:1 could be a temporary measure which reduces pressure on the housing market while the ratio is evaluated, but that it be capped relative to housing construction seems fine to me, the ratio can be debated.

As for your link, it points out that it doesn't actually 3D a house. Just the walls. Googling it, the price is 99k per house. Cheaper, but still substantial.

[Ostroeuropa]

What do you think a "Cause" is Celrit?

As for who would do the jobs, I don't know. You could offer more money for British people to do them.

The problem is the lack of houses being built, second or third home buyers who leave houses empty, or run-down buildings not being renovated to be used as places to live while housing prices have increased and wages have not increased with inflation.

They tried that, but it failed. Also increasing the wage of fruit pickers for British workers will also increase the prices of the fruit and veg in store.

How many houses do you think should be built every year Celrit? Let's use Gallo's link at 99k per house.

99000 X 1.2 million?

Tell you what let's just go for the all time high of 450k.

44,550,000,000 pounds? You alright with that? Forty-four billion, five hundred fifty million?

Where do you imagine this being costed from.

Could we not, say, use that forty-four billion, five hundred fifty million pounds to... I don't know. Subsidize fruit pickets wages?

[Galloism]

1:1 seems obviously wrong since the vast majority of homes aren't single occupancy (roommates and families are normal).

Tbh, I read this post three times, and all I can think is "we're not doing it because we choose not to".

1:1 could be a temporary measure which reduces pressure on the housing market while the ratio is evaluated, but that it be capped relative to housing construction seems fine to me, the ratio can be debated.

As for your link, it points out that it doesn't actually 3D a house. Just the walls. Googling it, the price is 99k per house. Cheaper, but still substantial.

That's actually not much for a house relatively speaking.

[Galloism]

The problem is the lack of houses being built, second or third home buyers who leave houses empty, or run-down buildings not being renovated to be used as places to live while housing prices have increased and wages have not increased with inflation.

They tried that, but it failed. Also increasing the wage of fruit pickers for British workers will also increase the prices of the fruit and veg in store.

How many houses do you think should be built every year Celrit? Let's use Gallo's link at 99k per house.

99000 X 1.2 million?

Tell you what let's just go for the all time high of 450k.

44,550,000,000 pounds? You alright with that? Forty-four billion, five hundred fifty million?

Where do you imagine this being costed from.

Could we not, say, use that forty-four billion, five hundred fifty million pounds to... I don't know. Subsidize fruit pickets wages?

Taxes?

That's about half what the UK spends on education, roughly. Not to mention we can collect rents from those houses or sell them after the fact, so budget wise it would move things around, but might not actually be al oss.

[Celritannia]

The problem is the lack of houses being built, second or third home buyers who leave houses empty, or run-down buildings not being renovated to be used as places to live while housing prices have increased and wages have not increased with inflation.

They tried that, but it failed. Also increasing the wage of fruit pickers for British workers will also increase the prices of the fruit and veg in store.

How many houses do you think should be built every year Celrit? Let's use Gallo's link at 99k per house.

99000 X 1.2 million?

Tell you what let's just go for the all time high of 450k.

44,550,000,000 pounds? You alright with that?

How many buildings or houses are unused? It's not just about building them, and many millennials and Gen Zers have resorted to moving back in with family members.
Better social housing needs to be made, to the same levels as Vienna.
But again, let's keep blaming immigration for people not wanting to build adequate housing/accommodation.