Sunak faces Tory meltdown as deputy chairs back Rwanda bill rebellion

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

No. You did that.

 

You said extreme right wingers blame immigrants. You did not differentiate. Now that you are just proves a point.

 

 

Well yes, extreme right wingers do scapegoat immigrants.

 

 

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Tories screaming about ditching human rights laws, placing Government above the law and scapegoating immigrants not ‘Conservative’ enough for you?

 

It would appear you have redefined Conservatism to suit your narrow and biased view of the world. 

[youreavinalaff]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well yes, extreme right wingers do scapegoat immigrants.

 

 

So, as I said, if right wingers are the ones blaming immigrants..........

[JonnyF]

55 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Ah, a return to days of Empire and good Tory governance. 

 

Only two problems with that with that theory: Britain no longer has an empire and Tory governance was rarely good.

 

Why on earth are you mentioning Empire? Talk about Strawman. That's more like a StrawArmy. 

 

Still, if it makes you feel better about yourself to imagine everyone else thinks like that then you go for it Champ. Don't let reality get in the way of your jaded world view. 

[The Cyclist]

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are making the not uncommon mistake of grouping all concerns on a subject into the same pot.

 

You are accusing others of doing exactly what you are doing

 

27 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

One voter might simply be concerned about the number of immigrants.

 

Another might be concerned about where the immigrants are coming from.

 

Another, might be concerned about the costs related to immigration.

 

Another might be concerned about immigrants dying in the Channel.

 

The list goes on.

 

It is quite simple

 

Quote

Polling shows illegal migration has become a top-four issue among voters — but suggests far less worry about legal migration.

 

Illegal migration is the issue, not legal migration.

 

And it will be way more than Tory voters who are concerned about it.

 

No need to come back with any strawmen.

[The Cyclist]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh did I make any comment on legal/illegal immigration?

 

You tried conflating legal immigration with legal immigration

 

A common tactic your type.

 

When you tried to stereotype me yesterday, it will come back at you in spades.

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

It would appear you have redefined Conservatism to suit your narrow and biased view of the world. 

Can you point to where I have given a definition of Conservatism.

 

Listing some of the characteristics of this failing Conservative Government that is itself engaging in internal strife over what the party stands for is not by any means or sense ‘redefining Conservatism’.

 

But please go ahead provide a quote from any of my posts that substantiates your claim.

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Can you point to where I have given a definition of Conservatism.

 

Short memory?

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

You are accusing others of doing exactly what you are doing

 

 

It is quite simple

 

 

Illegal migration is the issue, not legal migration.

 

And it will be way more than Tory voters who are concerned about it.

 

No need to come back with any strawmen.

Odd then that the Government should have set about increasing the income threshold, a many other means,  in order to ‘slash’ immigration to the UK.

 

Most of these Government moves aim to reduce legal immigration:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-unveils-plan-to-cut-net-migration

 

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Odd then that the Government should have set about increasing the income threshold, a many other means,  in order to ‘slash’ immigration to the UK.

 

Most of these Government moves aim to reduce legal immigration:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-unveils-plan-to-cut-net-migration

 

 

Why should immigration numbers be unlimited?

 

They should be matched to the demand of the country for immigrants. Immigrants with specific skills that the country needs should be prioritized. The UK is not a charity case to make lefties feel better about themsleves. 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Short memory?

 

 

An observation of factual Tory posturing is not a redefinition of Conservatism.

 

.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, JonnyF said:

 

Why should immigration numbers be unlimited?

 

They should be matched to the demand of the country for immigrants. Immigrants with specific skills that the country needs should be prioritized. The UK is not a charity case to make lefties feel better about themsleves. 

Did I say immigrant numbers should be unlimited?

 

I simply pointed out the fact that all immigration is a issue, not simply ‘illegal immigration’.

 

That the Tories have failed on all fronts doesn’t help.

[The Cyclist]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Odd then that the Government should have set about increasing the income threshold, a many other means,  in order to ‘slash’ immigration to the UK.

 

Nothing odd about it. £18k was far too cheap for entry to the UK.

 

And a Net inflow of legal immigration comparible to a city the size of Manchester every year is not sustainable.

 

If you really want to debate the issue, you will need to come up with something way more substantial than you have so far.

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

An observation of factual Tory posturing is not a redefinition of Conservatism.

 

.

 

 

 

Observation?

 

More like a biased, spiteful, vitriolic attack from someone so far to the left they couldn't see the centre ground using a NASA telescope.

[Rimmer]

A post deliberately misgendering another poster and replies have been removed, you need to stop that please

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Observation?

 

More like a biased, spiteful, vitriolic attack from someone so far to the left they couldn't see the centre ground using a NASA telescope.

Opinions differ.

 

Tory statements on withdrawing from humans rights law, proposals to place Government above the law and scapegoating immigrants are all a matter of public record.

 

 

[JonnyF]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Did I say immigrant numbers should be unlimited?

 

I simply pointed out the fact that all immigration is a issue, not simply ‘illegal immigration’.

 

That the Tories have failed on all fronts doesn’t help.

 

You were complaining that the goverment was aiming to reduce legal immigration.

 

What is wrong with that if the government has decided we do not have the resources and infrastructure to support any more? Like I said, the UK is not a charity for bleeding hearts. 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Nothing odd about it. £18k was far too cheap for entry to the UK.

 

And a Net inflow of legal immigration comparible to a city the size of Manchester every year is not sustainable.

 

If you really want to debate the issue, you will need to come up with something way more substantial than you have so far.

Regardless, the Government’s knee jerk reaction to rightwing hysteria on immigration targeted both ‘legal’  and ‘illegal’ immigration.

 

Lending a lie to the claim it’s only ‘illegal immigration’ that the extremists on the right are concerned over.

 

The ensuing embarrassing climb down was expected and unlike most of what is expected from this Government it was  delivered. 

[The Cyclist]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Regardless, the Government’s knee jerk reaction to rightwing hysteria on immigration targeted both ‘legal’  and ‘illegal’ immigration.

 

What has that got to do with, which doesn't apply to illegals.

 

12 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

Nothing odd about it. £18k was far too cheap for entry to the UK.

 

Do you want to explain to me how this is sustainable ?
 

12 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

And a Net inflow of legal immigration comparible to a city the size of Manchester every year is not sustainable.

 

And who is going to pay for all the associated infrastructure ?
 

Strawmen, soundbites and rhetoric are not answer or solutions, and they will certainly not induce debate.

 

You want to try again, or slope off skulking ?

[Chomper Higgot]

27 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

You were complaining that the goverment was aiming to reduce legal immigration.

 

What is wrong with that if the government has decided we do not have the resources and infrastructure to support any more? Like I said, the UK is not a charity for bleeding hearts. 

I was not complaining.

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

What has that got to do with, which doesn't apply to illegals.

 

 

Do you want to explain to me how this is sustainable ?
 

 

And who is going to pay for all the associated infrastructure ?
 

Strawmen, soundbites and rhetoric are not answer or solutions, and they will certainly not induce debate.

 

You want to try again, or slope off skulking ?

You appear to be arguing with yourself.

[The Cyclist]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You appear to be arguing with yourself.

 

Do I

 

Have another go

 

22 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

What has that got to do with, which doesn't apply to illegals.

 

22 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

Do you want to explain to me how this is sustainable ?

 

23 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

And who is going to pay for all the associated infrastructure ?

 

Perhaps you could take the time to read, digest and comprehend this part of my comment

 

23 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

Strawmen, soundbites and rhetoric are not answer or solutions, and they will certainly not induce debate.

 

You want to try again, or slope off skulking ?

 

And you can keep hitting the stupid face icon all you like, by doing so, it speaks volumes.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Illegal migration is the issue, not legal migration.

Just checking, that was you.

 

Before you started banging on about issues around legal immigration?

[The Cyclist]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Just checking, that was you.

 

No it wasn't me

 

It was a quote from an article in Politico

 

Quote

Polling shows illegal migration has become a top-four issue among voters — but suggests far less worry about legal migration.

 

A poll, reported in Politico, not me.

 

Clear and concise for you.

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, The Cyclist said:

 

No it wasn't me

 

It was a quote from an article in Politico

 

 

A poll, reported in Politico, not me.

 

Clear and concise for you.

You mean you quoted it, but it wasn’t you.

 

Despite in your original post you made absolutely no mention of ‘Politico’.

 

You typed it, then you hit submit reply’.

 

 

 

 

[youreavinalaff]

56 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Opinions differ.

That's the biggest contradiction you've ever posted.

 

You never acknowledge other's opinions. It's always "link please". 

[JonnyF]

33 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I was not complaining.

 

In that case we are in agreement that there is nothing wrong with cutting legal immigration if it has exceeded levels that government consider desirable.

 

Excellent. 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, youreavinalaff said:

That's the biggest contradiction you've ever posted.

 

You never acknowledge other's opinions. It's always "link please". 

Refer to the top of the forum you’ll find guidance on when a link is required, it’s along the lines of:

 

”Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source.”

 

Let me know when I ask for links that is inconsistent with that guidance.

 

In the meantime consider the difference between an opinion and a statement purporting to be a fact.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

In that case we are in agreement that there is nothing wrong with cutting legal immigration if it has exceeded levels that government consider desirable.

 

Excellent. 

Unless of course the Government decide on a level that does harm to the economy and the provision of essential public services.

 

 

[youreavinalaff]

22 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Refer to the top of the forum you’ll find guidance on when a link is required, it’s along the lines of:

 

”Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source.”

 

Let me know when I ask for links that is inconsistent with that guidance.

 

In the meantime consider the difference between an opinion and a statement purporting to be a fact.

 

 

I can hear your cornermen shouting.

 

" Chomper, Chomper, twist, turn, you've got to get off the ropes"

 

 

Edited January 17 by youreavinalaff