Jim Ratcliffe - claims the UK is being “colonised”

[robbieh]

He is absolutely right, it has accelerated over the last few years to.
Previously predominantly white working class areas are now multicultural paradises's with a huge influx of immigrants.
Usually the local population is not asked how they feel about it and if they express an opinion they are dismissed as racist xenophobes

Massive cultural change forced on local populations without consultation or any regard for their wishes.

Successive governments have outright lied to the British people and have no intention of halting the influx.

We are not a multicultural paradise proudly welcoming all creeds and races from every corner of the globe.
We are fractured society with millions of unwelcome, un-integrated and in large part uncivilised migrants who are simply not wanted.

On top of all that we are expected to pay vast sums of money to support literally millions of immigrants we never wanted.

If wankers like Ratcliffe paid tax and stopped spouting bollocks we would have better public services.
It's the same nonsense as wankers living in the Costa del Sol voting for Brexit.

The 50 richest families in the UK own more than 34 million Brits. That's the fucking problem and to think that the problem is immigrants is utter idiocy.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

Because they are all the same?

I don't really get your point, sorry.

I’m sorry that you don’t understand.

 

[domalino]

I know it's not organic but the soil it's growing in is.

No it isn’t.

People are unhappy because money is tight, wages are stagnant, debt is increasing and public services have been cut. Why? because we’ve not recovered from the 5% GDP hit Brexit cost us.

What lead to Brexit? A decade of austerity after the financial crisis. Who sponsored that? Billionaires like Jim Ratcliffe, to the point where we had people inside the government like Mandelson bought and paid for and sabotaging the government’s response, coaching JP Morgan how to threaten and blackmail Brown’s government so he couldn’t respond to it in a more effective way.

These people created the poor economic conditions which have always lead to discontent, and then poured billions into people like Farage so he has the platform to tell them to blame immigrants for all their problems, and then poured billions into exacerbating that division with technology.

There is nothing organic about it.

 

[The perfect fumble]

“What exactly is Nigerian? I bet many aren’t 100% Nigerians”

Two words changed to show what a ridiculous and offensive post it was.

Nigerian is a nationality, it's not an ethnicity per se, there are over two hundred tribes in Nigeria, but three big ones. Nigerians are likely to call themselves Nigerian to non Nigerians, but, and I did live there, they're more likely to identify themselves to other Nigerians along tribal or ethnic lines.

As an aside, there are folk in here who've accused me of muddled thinking who've spent the last few pages denying the very existence of English ethnicity! And they wonder why they're losing the argument when they've lost the plot.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

He is absolutely right, it has accelerated over the last few years to.
Previously predominantly white working class areas are now multicultural paradises's with a huge influx of immigrants.
Usually the local population is not asked how they feel about it and if they express an opinion they are dismissed as racist xenophobes

Massive cultural change forced on local populations without consultation or any regard for their wishes.

Successive governments have outright lied to the British people and have no intention of halting the influx.

We are not a multicultural paradise proudly welcoming all creeds and races from every corner of the globe.
We are fractured society with millions of unwelcome, un-integrated and in large part uncivilised migrants who are simply not wanted.

On top of all that we are expected to pay vast sums of money to support literally millions of immigrants we never wanted.

I think what’s really changed over the last few years is the speed of it all. A lot of places have seen huge changes in a very short space of time, and it’s happened with little to no consultation or planning. People are bound to react to that, especially when they feel like it’s being done to them rather than with them.

What really doesn’t help is that as soon as anyone raises these points they’re often written off as racist or xenophobic. That shuts down any honest discussion. You can be in favour of immigration and still think there should be limits and better planning. That happens a lot in these threads.

There should be nothing controversial about wanting immigration to be managed properly, at a level the country can handle, with real attention paid to integration.

 

[Blue and true]

That is simply incorrect.

When you see the rise of ultra nationalism, here, throughout Europe, Russia, the United States and you hate it and I do, then you have to counter it, but the challenge is how?

Clearly whatever the liberal left is selling has too few takers, so you have one of two options, you analyse why it is that the liberal left message is failing or you double down on the personal attacks, call everyone racists, bigots and flag shagging morons.

I won't insult your intelligence by stating which route the left has decided to take.

And that's why they're losing.

I can't answer your first question definitively, but I can tell you what the answer isn't; appeasement. Ultra-nationalism shouldn't be met with a shrug of the shoulders from neutrals and introspection of the Left. The Left's message has never changed, as evidenced by the Green party manifesto pledge. What's changed is the platform political parties now operate from; namely social media. It's a platform that is conducive to hate and misinformation spreading virulently, it just so happens to be more conducive for the Right. Parties like reform can't be challenged because their MO is unchanged and has been for decades. Any challenge will simply be resisted and supplanted by other easy targets. Think about the attitude towards immigration predating the Stop The Boats Zeitgeist. Think about Brexit, and how Eastern Europeans were blamed for all the countries ills. Think about the BNP, and their easy targets. Think about the Windrush generation and the disdain and prejudice they were subjected to. An undercurrent of racism has existed in this country for years, it's generational, but it's there, and that's an uncomfortable truth for too many. As a rule of thumb, I disregard any politician, of any persuasion, that slaps anti-immigration front and center of their flag, because it's lowest-common-denominator; it takes the undercurrent I have just mentioned and simplifies what is a very complex issue. I have worked with many immigrants, every one of them diligent, personable, and a testament to our organisation. That's how my view of immigrants is shaped and no propaganda from the likes of Farage will change that.

It shouldn't be the Left's job to find the answer as to why this happens. Should they resist these attitudes? Yes, absolutely. But that it is entirely different to assuming blame for current attitudes and looking for answers.

That should be the Right's introspection.

Let me ask you, how would you counter it?

 

[BlueBas]

 

[bluethrunthru]

I wonder if he will ever show his face at the swamp for the rest of the season - I am eagerly anticipating reports on the reception he gets from the HOME fans

 

[mosssideblue]

Scruffy rag ****

 

[bluethrunthru]

Scruffy rag ****

who tried to buy Chelsea FC never let that be forgotten

 

[Coatigan]

Scruffy rag ****

Inconvenient truth!

 

[meltonblue]

I think what’s really changed over the last few years is the speed of it all. A lot of places have seen huge changes in a very short space of time, and it’s happened with little to no consultation or planning. People are bound to react to that, especially when they feel like it’s being done to them rather than with them.

What really doesn’t help is that as soon as anyone raises these points they’re often written off as racist or xenophobic. That shuts down any honest discussion. You can be in favour of immigration and still think there should be limits and better planning. That happens a lot in these threads.

There should be nothing controversial about wanting immigration to be managed properly, at a level the country can handle, with real attention paid to integration.

Your second paragraph is a tricky one (much like it was during the Brexit debates.

It is absolutely not racist to have concerns about immigration and the levels of it or that there are some that haven’t integrated as much as they should. That doesn’t detract from there also being a lot of racist bad actors seeking to exploit that side of the argument and some of their behaviours, in terms of rhetoric and being flexible with their facts to say the least have been normalised and a lot of people are now saying things that absolutely would have previously been considered racist.

The phone ins I’ve listened to about Ratcliffes comments over the last few days have had prime examples of it, where people have called in and said about not seeing a white face on a walk, something Jenrick also publicly said about his visit to Birmingham. If that person is then told that’s a racist comment, then they’d be more offended by the fact they were being called a racist (well not even that, just accused of making a racist comment) than wanting to understand why it is in the first place.

Even the comment you replied to with your post says that we have “millions of unwelcome, un-integrated and in large part uncivilised migrants”. No we don’t have millions! Vastly over exaggerating the numbers lends itself to Radcliffes comments though and begins to normalise his of the term colonised.

It’s a tricky one though as I really don’t know what the answer is to get the balance right in order to be able to influence the debate and allow it to happen without the increased influence of those bad actors, we are allowing the basic definitions of words to be changed. In a world with social media, I’m not sure it’s doable.

 

[hilts]

No it isn’t.

People are unhappy because money is tight, wages are stagnant, debt is increasing and public services have been cut. Why? because we’ve not recovered from the 5% GDP hit Brexit cost us.

What lead to Brexit? A decade of austerity after the financial crisis. Who sponsored that? Billionaires like Jim Ratcliffe, to the point where we had people inside the government like Mandelson bought and paid for and sabotaging the government’s response, coaching JP Morgan how to threaten and blackmail Brown’s government so he couldn’t respond to it in a more effective way.

These people created the poor economic conditions which have always lead to discontent, and then poured billions into people like Farage so he has the platform to tell them to blame immigrants for all their problems, and then poured billions into exacerbating that division with technology.

There is nothing organic about it.

Its 5% today is it bwaaaah, yeah everyone was holding hands till brexit happened and made everyone skint. Makes you wonder why Brexit happened, hilarious stuff.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

It’s a tricky one though as I really don’t know what the answer is to get the balance right in order to be able to influence the debate and allow it to happen without the increased influence of those bad actors, we are allowing the basic definitions of words to be changed. In a world with social media, I’m not sure it’s doable.

Whatever the answer is, I don’t think it’s going to be easily achievable. The main contenders for power in 2029 will be the Greens and Reform, who are basically polar opposites. One takes a much more relaxed approach to borders, the other wants much tougher immigration controls. In that situation, it’s hard to see either side being able to fully implement their policies.


I wish there were a solution that kept everyone happy, but zero chance of that.

 

[domalino]

Its 5% today is it bwaaaah, yeah everyone was holding hands till brexit happened and made everyone skint. Makes you wonder why Brexit happened, hilarious stuff.

Why even comment if you don't read the comment you're replying to?

I literally went back to the 2007 financial crisis. Are you too thick to read more than 3 lines or are you just a belligerent prick who's so thin skinned he can't take anyone pointing out the facts that Brexit fucked the economy?

Brexit Britain has 'significantly underperformed' other advanced economies, Goldman Sachs says

Post-Brexit Britain has "significantly underperformed" other advanced economies since the 2016 EU referendum, according to new analysis from Goldman Sachs.

www.cnbc.com

Brexit move has shrunk U.K. economy by 5%, Goldman Sachs economists say | Fortune

“The U.K. economy has notably underperformed other advanced economies since the EU referendum in June 2016,” the economists said.

fortune.com

How are our Brexit trade forecast assumptions performing? - Office for Budget Responsibility

Since the June 2016 EU referendum, our forecasts have incorporated a set of assumptions about the economic impact of Brexit on trade, productivity, investment, and migration. In this box, we assessed our current assumptions on trade against the latest evidence.

obr.uk

 

[Marklr]

I think what’s really changed over the last few years is the speed of it all. A lot of places have seen huge changes in a very short space of time, and it’s happened with little to no consultation or planning. People are bound to react to that, especially when they feel like it’s being done to them rather than with them.

What really doesn’t help is that as soon as anyone raises these points they’re often written off as racist or xenophobic. That shuts down any honest discussion. You can be in favour of immigration and still think there should be limits and better planning. That happens a lot in these threads.

There should be nothing controversial about wanting immigration to be managed properly, at a level the country can handle, with real attention paid to integration.

People see brown people and don't like it? Is that the "changes" that you're talking about?

 

[bluethrunthru]

Your second paragraph is a tricky one (much like it was during the Brexit debates.

It is absolutely not racist to have concerns about immigration and the levels of it or that there are some that haven’t integrated as much as they should. That doesn’t detract from there also being a lot of racist bad actors seeking to exploit that side of the argument and some of their behaviours, in terms of rhetoric and being flexible with their facts to say the least have been normalised and a lot of people are now saying things that absolutely would have previously been considered racist.

The phone ins I’ve listened to about Ratcliffes comments over the last few days have had prime examples of it, where people have called in and said about not seeing a white face on a walk, something Jenrick also publicly said about his visit to Birmingham. If that person is then told that’s a racist comment, then they’d be more offended by the fact they were being called a racist (well not even that, just accused of making a racist comment) than wanting to understand why it is in the first place.

Even the comment you replied to with your post says that we have “millions of unwelcome, un-integrated and in large part uncivilised migrants”. No we don’t have millions! Vastly over exaggerating the numbers lends itself to Radcliffes comments though and begins to normalise his of the term colonised.

It’s a tricky one though as I really don’t know what the answer is to get the balance right in order to be able to influence the debate and allow it to happen without the increased influence of those bad actors, we are allowing the basic definitions of words to be changed. In a world with social media, I’m not sure it’s doable.

Its not racist to express concerns about the number of migrants however so many concerned citizens express themselves in a racist manner. No acknowledgement that net migration number are tumbling instead there's exaggeration of out of date numbers. Then there's the Jenrick lies about not seeing a white face when anyone who knows those areas knows its bullshit. I think the simple answer is if someone sees people like him follow them and film them because you can reveal he saw white faces. Then question why they lie. Who do they seek to influence and what do they seek to gain? I know a lad who lives near where Jenrick filmed. He's a Sikh - as are his siblings all born here as was his Dad - they have run pubs and other businesses and employed people - how is that not integrating?

The answer is simply facts - debunk them and make them look stupid - you have seen how Farage gets flustered when pressured on facts - same with Zia Yusuf - you won't see Scruffy Jim for a while I bet because he will be met with the facts that have already been pointed out and people like him don't want to face facts.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

People see brown people and don't like it? Is that the "changes" that you're talking about?

If you think my post is wrong, feel free to explain why. But reframing it as “people don’t like brown people” is exactly the kind of response I was referring to when I said discussion around immigration often gets shut down.

 

[meltonblue]

Whatever the answer is, I don’t think it’s going to be easily achievable. The main contenders for power in 2029 will be the Greens and Reform, who are basically polar opposites. One takes a much more relaxed approach to borders, the other wants much tougher immigration controls. In that situation, it’s hard to see either side being able to fully implement their policies.


I wish there were a solution that kept everyone happy, but zero chance of that.

I highly doubt that, it’ll be Labour vs reform as the two main parties if reform haven’t self imploded by that point. Next election is still a long way off and reform running the councils will eat into their popularity very very quickly.

 

[Vic]

They have to accept children of other faiths to keep their funding.

Not 100%!