Keir Starmer

[AngryOfTuebrook]

19 hours ago, Jairzinho said:

 In the grand scheme of things I couldn't give a flying fuck about an MP blagging herself a new phone over a decade ago.

She didn't even do that.

[Bjornebye]

45 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

She didn't even do that.

Yeah but ask a Tory and she was slashing kids in the hours leading up to her attack and eating kittens afterwards 

[an tha]

7 hours ago, Jairzinho said:

 

People like Cuntberg and Mason write things like this...

 

 

...as if they're bystanders with no influence on the perception.

 

I genuinely fucking despise the BBC.

 

 

Exfuckingactly

[Strontium]

On 30/11/2024 at 11:12, AngryOfTuebrook said:

That's easily done: just be as honest as Lou Haigh has been and you're nothing like those corrupt cunts.

 

Nobody in their right mind honestly thinks that if a 26 year-old mugging victim follows her lawyer's advice, which later turns out to be wrong, she should be barred from a job 11 years later.

 

Sounds like it was good advice from her lawyer to be quite honest.

https://news.sky.com/story/louise-haighs-photo-of-stolen-phone-taken-after-alleged-theft-13263796

 

Louise Haigh's photo of stolen phone 'taken after alleged theft'

[Bjornebye]

6 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Sounds like it was good advice from her lawyer to be quite honest.

https://news.sky.com/story/louise-haighs-photo-of-stolen-phone-taken-after-alleged-theft-13263796

 

Louise Haigh's photo of stolen phone 'taken after alleged theft'

Im pretty sure you’re a champion of not focusing on things from the past. All of a sudden you can’t shut up about this from 10 years ago? Give me an H and a Y and a P …. Etc 

[Strontium]

4 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

All of a sudden you can’t shut up about this

 

*posted twice about it in three days.

[Section_31]

It's like watergate.

[Bjornebye]

9 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

*posted twice about it in three days.

Ones enough to call you a hypocrite. Twice…. Well let the hounds of hell go easy on your ginger bones 

[Strontium]

Anyone else think I'm a hypocrite for posting about it? Can anyone else even conceive a reason why I would be? 

[Bjornebye]

23 minutes ago, Strontium said:

Anyone else think I'm a hypocrite for posting about it? Can anyone else even conceive a reason why I would be? 

Because you’re a hypocrite? You’ve said on this very forum that stuff from years ago shouldn’t be brought up. 
 

If you hadn’t said that then of course bring it up all you want but you said that stuff so it’s only moral and legal to point it out. 

[Strontium]

Even assuming that whatever it was even had any relevance here (doubtful), I suspect that's not quite what I said, was it. I think I'd rather see some direct quotes rather than your vague memories of it.

 

I also rather thought I was discussing something current, in the news right now.

[Bjornebye]

6 hours ago, Strontium said:

Even assuming that whatever it was even had any relevance here (doubtful), I suspect that's not quite what I said, was it. I think I'd rather see some direct quotes rather than your vague memories of it.

 

I also rather thought I was discussing something current, in the news right now.

Nice try. I’ve always know that your terms are your terms and nobody else’s. Which is why I will always call you a hypocrite and quite often a liar. And I can back it up as much as you ignore it.

 

Tell me I’m wrong. Ginger bollocks 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

[Pidge]

1m a year is unsustainable by anyone's measure, surely. Particularly when we still aren't building enough affordable homes. And the ones we do build are shite.

 

Global politics more of a driver than anything. Let Sudan, Ukraine and Palestine get dismantled and it'll only lead to more people rightfully needing a home. Need more detail on those ONS figures.

[Numero Veinticinco]

So my response to Nadia is, if we aren’t willing to accept that immigration is too high, then surely the only thing to derive is that she wants Labour to go to the country with the message that immigration isn’t too high and it should either stay the same or rise. It’s not outflanking on the right to accept immigration is too high, it’s not even a traditionally Labour Party position. I swear these young politicians throw these terms around without knowing what they mean. 

[skend04]

Isn't the 1m an outlier because we've taken in the  British citizens/passport holders from Hong Kong and continue to assist Ukrainians?

 

Isn't it better to explain that's why it's happened rather than pander to Torykippers that didn't vote for you in the first place by throwing around numbers like confetti?

[Numero Veinticinco]

6 minutes ago, skend04 said:

Isn't the 1m an outlier because we've taken in the  British citizens/passport holders from Hong Kong and continue to assist Ukrainians?

 

Isn't it better to explain that's why it's happened rather than pander to Torykippers that didn't vote for you in the first place by throwing around numbers like confetti?

 

It's been on a steep upward trajectory since 2020/21 since the end of the EU transition period and introduction of the new immigration system. That said, I certainly agree that better communication needs to happen. Even then, without recognising that - no matter the reason - it's too high, you're necessarily sending the message that you're right okay with current numbers or you want it to be higher. Good luck winning any election on that basis. Maybe some people think it's not high enough, which is plenty fair enough if they think that, and they should be allowed to make that case; I'm just saying, you ain't winning any election that way, and in tern you ain't representing any working class interests. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Any mature debate about immigration doesn't include the phrase "x  is too high, we'll limit it to y"

 

Numbers, on their own, are fairly meaningless, and (as NV seems to have missed Whittome highlighting) voters realise that.  The stuff that really matters are the quality of life issues: pay, bills, housing, services, etc.  By joining in the stupid shouting over numbers, you legitimise the false claims that the racist right make to scapegoat "the other" for their own robbery.  (These are the kind of terms that young politicians like Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn have been throwing around for decades.)

 

@Numero Veinticinco you can't be serious with all this talk about "going to the country".  Labour have just won an election with a promise to improve living standards; that doesn't necessitate acting like dishonest Tory twats around numbers of immigrants.

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

5 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Any mature debate about immigration doesn't include the phrase "x  is too high, we'll limit it to y"

 

Why not? Crime is too high, wages are too low, poverty levels too high... these are all obvious truisms and it's acceptable to talk about them in such terms. It's not immature to talk about immigration being too high when it's at a record high. 

 

6 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Numbers, on their own, are fairly meaningless, and (as NV seems to have missed Whittome highlighting) voters realise that. 

 

I haven't missed it, I'm responding to a different comment. I also disagree that numbers - on their own or not - are meaningless. As for voters realising that, well, I disagree; I needn't point out the amount of votes that Reform got, which is more than the Lib Dems, or the Tories got even after a massive disaster over the last 14 years. Voters, many millions of them, are not seeing this the same way as you. You can ignore them or dismiss them, but their vote counts as much as my vote and your vote. 

 

7 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

The stuff that really matters are the quality of life issues: pay, bills, housing, services, etc.

 

Those things also matter but, as traditional Labour used to argue, so does controlling immigration to ensure no detrimental impact on working people is important. You can, as Labour pledged to do, reduce numbers and increase quality of life. These aren't mutually exclusive. 

 

8 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

By joining in the stupid shouting over numbers, you legitimise the false claims that the racist right make to scapegoat "the other" for their own robbery.

 

So if I talk about the immigration numbers, supplied by the ONS, I'm stupidly legitimising false claims and emboldening the right and racists? This is why the Left keep losing, over and over and over on this debate, because the very second somebody disagrees, they're dismissed as stupid racists (or racist apologists, sympathisers, emboldeners, and legitimisers). This doesn't work, mate. It just doesn't work to win an argument and it doesn't work to win elections. It's a stick for the right to beat us with, and it works brilliantly for them. Why the fuck do we keep doing it? We lost Brexit doing it, we lost multiple elections doing it, and it wasn't until Labour stopped doing it that they won an election. Now we're intent on keeping it goes. 

 

12 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

you can't be serious with all this talk about "going to the country".  Labour have just won an election with a promise to improve living standards; that doesn't necessitate acting like dishonest Tory twats around numbers of immigrants.

 

Labour absolutely did just win an election, and they did so promising to significantly reduce the amount of immigration. I used the term 'going to the country' in reference to what's logically derived from her comments, and yes I am serious about it. My question is, does she want to go to the country (either at the next election or or now) and change from the promise to significantly reduce immigration in favour of sustaining or increasing numbers, or does she just want to ignore the numbers and hope the problem goes away? Those are the options. 

[Strontium]

If you've decided that numbers are irrelevant, then you still need to explain to the public how you're going to build a city the size of Birmingham every single year to accommodate the ones coming in.

[Bjornebye]

1 hour ago, Strontium said:

If you've decided that numbers are irrelevant, then you still need to explain to the public how you're going to build a city the size of Birmingham every single year to accommodate the ones coming in.

More bullshit. Your mask slipped a long time ago but you’re putting the Tommeh into the gobshite now. 

[Strontium]

4 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

More bullshit. Your mask slipped a long time ago but you’re putting the Tommeh into the gobshite now. 

 

Hi, I didn't mention a figure of 1 million, if you want to dispute it, take it up with the person who did, thanks.

[Bjornebye]

5 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Hi, I didn't mention a figure of 1 million, if you want to dispute it, take it up with the person who did, thanks.

Hi. “A city the size of Birmingham” “the ones coming in” 

 

Even you can’t wriggle out of that. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

 

Why not? Crime is too high, wages are too low, poverty levels too high... these are all obvious truisms and it's acceptable to talk about them in such terms. It's not immature to talk about immigration being too high when it's at a record high. 

Crime is too high because it ruins lives. Wages are too low because people can't afford a decent standard of living. Poverty levels are too high because poverty ruins lives.  Immigration is too high because... what?  Unless you can answer that, you're not having a mature debate.

There's plenty of evidence that immigration drives economic growth and that some key sectors - agriculture, health, hospitality - are dependent on immigration.  Unless you're prepared to acknowledge the detrimental effect of cutting immigration, you're not having a mature debate 

 

 

 

I haven't missed it, I'm responding to a different comment. I also disagree that numbers - on their own or not - are meaningless. As for voters realising that, well, I disagree; I needn't point out the amount of votes that Reform got, which is more than the Lib Dems, or the Tories got even after a massive disaster over the last 14 years. Voters, many millions of them, are not seeing this the same way as you. You can ignore them or dismiss them, but their vote counts as much as my vote and your vote. 

You're swerving her point again. Voters care about their quality of life. They have been lied to by Reform and the Tories - and, too often, by Labour - into thinking that cutting immigration would improve things, just the way Brexit did.

 

Those things also matter but, as traditional Labour used to argue, so does controlling immigration to ensure no detrimental impact on working people is important. You can, as Labour pledged to do, reduce numbers and increase quality of life. These aren't mutually exclusive. 

Traditional Labour gave power to the Tories, with a little help from shit like the "Control Immigration" mugs.  The only time they actually improved numbers of votes and vote share was when they swerved that rubbish and focused on the stuff that matters.

 

1 hour ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

 

So if I talk about the immigration numbers, supplied by the ONS, I'm stupidly legitimising false claims and emboldening the right and racists?

No.  If you pretend that whatever the current number is is "too many" then you're stupidly legitimising false claims and emboldening the racist right.

 

This is why the Left keep losing, over and over and over on this debate, because the very second somebody disagrees, they're dismissed as stupid racists (or racist apologists, sympathisers, emboldeners, and legitimisers).

That's just untrue. I haven't dismissed anyone as a stupid racist; I refuse to accept false claims, logically inconsistent narratives and racist scapegoating that's all.  If Labour enter the debate on those grounds they legitimise dangerous nonsense and they lose, every time.

 

1 hour ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

This doesn't work, mate. It just doesn't work to win an argument and it doesn't work to win elections. It's a stick for the right to beat us with, and it works brilliantly for them. Why the fuck do we keep doing it? We lost Brexit doing it, we lost multiple elections doing it, and it wasn't until Labour stopped doing it that they won an election. Now we're intent on keeping it goes. 

Again, that's just not true. Labour won the election with fewer votes and a lower vote share than in 2019 because of the rise of the racist right.  The country needs Labour to lead the fight against the racists by showing their lies for what they are - and by solving the problems that the racists falsely claim are caused by immigration.  

1 hour ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

 

Labour absolutely did just win an election, and they did so promising to significantly reduce the amount of immigration.

It's more accurate to say the Tories lost; there's no great love for Labour from left or right. I'd be very surprised if anyone who was horny for limiting immigration voted Labour, when there were two overtly racist parties vying for that vote.

 

I used the term 'going to the country' in reference to what's logically derived from her comments, and yes I am serious about it.

It isn't logically derived from her comments.

 

My question is, does she want to go to the country (either at the next election or or now) and change from the promise to significantly reduce immigration in favour of sustaining or increasing numbers, or does she just want to ignore the numbers and hope the problem goes away? Those are the options. 

What is logically derived from her comments is the need to improve people's standards of living: if people aren't feeling any pain, they won't feel the need to look for scapegoats.

 

[Strontium]

5 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Hi. “A city the size of Birmingham” “the ones coming in” 

 

Even you can’t wriggle out of that. 

 

Are you dense? Just to repeat, I wasn't the one who first brought up the figure of 1 million a year, the figure we are discussing. Take it up with them if you have an issue with it.