Starmergeddon: They Came And Ate Us

[Yeeb]

I think it challenges your desire to brush Thatcher under the carpet and the disastrous policies of privatisation of rail and utilities etc and selling off assets such as affordable housing.

No one is listening?







https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/ ... even-years

I’m not sweeping anything under the rug and you’ll note I haven’t attacked or defended any of her policies, I’m just not interested in discussing someone who left office 34 years ago and died 12 years ago as if it is a pressing national issue. The youngest people who could have voted for or against her in a general election are now 56, going to have to move on at some point.

And yes, no one listens as is shown by the constant failures of going on about Thatcher at the ballot box.

There was a very definite switch of economic policy during her tenure - Shirely this is not controversial in the slightest? If you're not prepared to trace back to the beginning of neoliberal policies in the UK then what is the point of entering in to any discussion on the topic?

As for the ballot box, I have no idea why people vote Tory, far less Reform but that's another topic, so I have no idea why the electorate vote against policies they support. Forget the man here, but look at the policies Corbyn's Labour set out in 2019 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50501411

The only one I can't find hard polling data in favour of those six policies is on the National Care Service and that's that's possibly only because the first search didn't come back with lots of results on it, I didn't do a more detailed search.

I know Populist Bozo won on Getting Brexit Done innit, but that was even more a case of the electorate voting against their own best interests.

If you can’t see why people vote differently to you that shows stunning lack of empathy , but does kind of account for your posts

[Yeeb]

Does a line of best fit really need to be put on there, I mean I can do it, but do you actually require it?

Ja, a South African would know nothing about populist policies creating a disaster and feeding into yet more populist policies, ultimately junking decades. I called the Tories before most, and even predicted they would end up in a crisis involving the Treasury and BoE one year out from when it happened. It's not the first time I'm watching this movie.

98 onwards was the first real spike, blaming thatcher for that is just mental.

Oh dear, the claim Tony Blair is to blame for something that started under Thatcher and accelerated after him. The right wing got away with it pre-Big Dog, just sad to be saying that still in 2025. Anyway here's the updated graph for you.

You obviously don’t really what I’m mimicking , as you have no problem attributing events that occurred 17 years before her and 34 years after her to thatcher.
For you it’s a very simple bad = thatcher, good = everyone else

[Yeeb]

Doesn’t change anything I’ve said really - the left need to change the record as no one is listening to it or ever has. Migration point was a tag on to Yeeb and Os’s discussion

I think it challenges your desire to brush Thatcher under the carpet and the disastrous policies of privatisation of rail and utilities etc and selling off assets such as affordable housing.

No one is listening?

Two-thirds of people, 65%, support the expansion of social housing by making it available to people to people who cannot afford the cost of private renting and not just the most vulnerable people in society.
This was backed by 76% who voted Labour in 2019 and 63% who voted Conservative.

Public opinion polls indicate that a significant majority of British people support renationalizing water services. The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management reports that 83% of British people favor this, and this figure is echoed in other polls and reports,. The high level of public support for renationalization reflects concerns about the performance of privatized water companies, particularly regarding environmental stewardship and water quality.

Support for nationalising utilities and public transport has grown significantly in last seven years

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/ ... even-years

I’m not sweeping anything under the rug and you’ll note I haven’t attacked or defended any of her policies, I’m just not interested in discussing someone who left office 34 years ago and died 12 years ago as if it is a pressing national issue. The youngest people who could have voted for or against her in a general election are now 56, going to have to move on at some point.

And yes, no one listens as is shown by the constant failures of going on about Thatcher at the ballot box.

Fairly sure he’s just on the wind up now , just a less terse version of FHHD

[_Os_]

98 onwards was the first real spike, blaming thatcher for that is just mental.

Oh dear, the claim Tony Blair is to blame for something that started under Thatcher and accelerated after him. The right wing got away with it pre-Big Dog, just sad to be saying that still in 2025. Anyway here's the updated graph for you.

You obviously don’t really what I’m mimicking , as you have no problem attributing events that occurred 17 years before her and 34 years after her to thatcher.
For you it’s a very simple bad = thatcher, good = everyone else

One of Thatcher's favoured economists was Milton Friedman. Both Thatcher and Friedman revered Hong Kong as a low regulation economic miracle. Basically the UK copied that model.

Hong Kong used to have a strong manufacturing sector, but fell behind Japan/SK/Taiwan because the state didn't support industry. Hong Kong ended up being only services, with massively high property costs despite having plenty of land in the New Territories (government blocks building). Hong Kong was also sustained by massive waves of immigration from the mainland who formed the underclass. Today its economy is characterised by high degrees of monopolisation and a high cost of living.

Does any of that sound familiar?

[Yeeb]

Oh dear, the claim Tony Blair is to blame for something that started under Thatcher and accelerated after him. The right wing got away with it pre-Big Dog, just sad to be saying that still in 2025. Anyway here's the updated graph for you.

You obviously don’t really what I’m mimicking , as you have no problem attributing events that occurred 17 years before her and 34 years after her to thatcher.
For you it’s a very simple bad = thatcher, good = everyone else

One of Thatcher's favoured economists was Milton Friedman. Both Thatcher and Friedman revered Hong Kong as a low regulation economic miracle. Basically the UK copied that model.

Hong Kong used to have a strong manufacturing sector, but fell behind Japan/SK/Taiwan because the state didn't support industry. Hong Kong ended up being only services, with massively high property costs despite having plenty of land in the New Territories (government blocks building). Hong Kong was also sustained by massive waves of immigration from the mainland who formed the underclass. Today its economy is characterised by high degrees of monopolisation and a high cost of living.

Does any of that sound familiar?

6% of Hong Kong is reclaimed land you utter bellend, probably top ten globally for places that precisely do not have ‘plenty of land’.
Personally I would hace said having the vast cultural and geographic / military / political / economic juggernaut that is China next door is perhaps of greater influence than Thatcher.

Your turned this into a kind of gsce Sociology game along the lines of six degrees of separation from Kevin bacon film thing.
I already mentioned Friedman btw so you need to work on your material some more .

[Tichtheid]

Oh dear, the claim Tony Blair is to blame for something that started under Thatcher and accelerated after him. The right wing got away with it pre-Big Dog, just sad to be saying that still in 2025. Anyway here's the updated graph for you.

You obviously don’t really what I’m mimicking , as you have no problem attributing events that occurred 17 years before her and 34 years after her to thatcher.
For you it’s a very simple bad = thatcher, good = everyone else

One of Thatcher's favoured economists was Milton Friedman. Both Thatcher and Friedman revered Hong Kong as a low regulation economic miracle. Basically the UK copied that model.

Hong Kong used to have a strong manufacturing sector, but fell behind Japan/SK/Taiwan because the state didn't support industry. Hong Kong ended up being only services, with massively high property costs despite having plenty of land in the New Territories (government blocks building). Hong Kong was also sustained by massive waves of immigration from the mainland who formed the underclass. Today its economy is characterised by high degrees of monopolisation and a high cost of living.

Does any of that sound familiar?

Hayek was another favourite - she recommend him for Companion of Honour gong in 1984. Hayek's love of privatisation, deregulation and tax cutting were adopted by Thatcher, but not his advocacy of social services.

[_Os_]

You obviously don’t really what I’m mimicking , as you have no problem attributing events that occurred 17 years before her and 34 years after her to thatcher.
For you it’s a very simple bad = thatcher, good = everyone else

One of Thatcher's favoured economists was Milton Friedman. Both Thatcher and Friedman revered Hong Kong as a low regulation economic miracle. Basically the UK copied that model.

Hong Kong used to have a strong manufacturing sector, but fell behind Japan/SK/Taiwan because the state didn't support industry. Hong Kong ended up being only services, with massively high property costs despite having plenty of land in the New Territories (government blocks building). Hong Kong was also sustained by massive waves of immigration from the mainland who formed the underclass. Today its economy is characterised by high degrees of monopolisation and a high cost of living.

Does any of that sound familiar?

6% of Hong Kong is reclaimed land you utter bellend, probably top ten globally for places that precisely do not have ‘plenty of land’.
Personally I would hace said having the vast cultural and geographic / military / political / economic juggernaut that is China next door is perhaps of greater influence than Thatcher.

Your turned this into a kind of gsce Sociology game along the lines of six degrees of separation from Kevin bacon film thing.
I already mentioned Friedman btw so you need to work on your material some more .

The New Territories definitely exist, Yeeb. Building an airport isn't the same land requirement as building houses/apartments.

Why is the Thatcherite think tank, the IEA, pro-immigration and regards the free movement of people as being the same as the free movement of goods and capital?

How are you going to maintain a Thatcherite economy without immigration? When you know, look at the graph.

[_Os_]

You obviously don’t really what I’m mimicking , as you have no problem attributing events that occurred 17 years before her and 34 years after her to thatcher.
For you it’s a very simple bad = thatcher, good = everyone else

One of Thatcher's favoured economists was Milton Friedman. Both Thatcher and Friedman revered Hong Kong as a low regulation economic miracle. Basically the UK copied that model.

Hong Kong used to have a strong manufacturing sector, but fell behind Japan/SK/Taiwan because the state didn't support industry. Hong Kong ended up being only services, with massively high property costs despite having plenty of land in the New Territories (government blocks building). Hong Kong was also sustained by massive waves of immigration from the mainland who formed the underclass. Today its economy is characterised by high degrees of monopolisation and a high cost of living.

Does any of that sound familiar?

Hayek was another favourite - she recommend him for Companion of Honour gong in 1984. Hayek's love of privatisation, deregulation and tax cutting were adopted by Thatcher, but not his advocacy of social services.

The great irony is the refusal to see things as they are, just means more immigration. Pretty sure I told Yeeb years back that Brexit would mean more people from the Commonwealth taking the working opportunities which Europeans wouldn't be interested in post-Brexit. That no actually it would be the opposite of what he wanted.

It really is completely crazy. Vote for Reform the turbo Thatcherites to end immigration. If he gets in I wouldn't rule out a Farage Wave.

[Slick]

Does a line of best fit really need to be put on there, I mean I can do it, but do you actually require it?

Ja, a South African would know nothing about populist policies creating a disaster and feeding into yet more populist policies, ultimately junking decades. I called the Tories before most, and even predicted they would end up in a crisis involving the Treasury and BoE one year out from when it happened. It's not the first time I'm watching this movie.

98 onwards was the first real spike, blaming thatcher for that is just mental.

Oh dear, the claim Tony Blair is to blame for something that started under Thatcher and accelerated after him. The right wing got away with it pre-Big Dog, just sad to be saying that still in 2025. Anyway here's the updated graph for you.

I feel dirty backing up Yeeb, but how anyone can look at that graph you have kindly updated and not see a massive and sustained increase when Blair came to power is utterly beyond me.

[_Os_]

98 onwards was the first real spike, blaming thatcher for that is just mental.

Oh dear, the claim Tony Blair is to blame for something that started under Thatcher and accelerated after him. The right wing got away with it pre-Big Dog, just sad to be saying that still in 2025. Anyway here's the updated graph for you.

I feel dirty backing up Yeeb, but how anyone can look at that graph you have kindly updated and not see a massive and sustained increase when Blair came to power is utterly beyond me.

There was no net immigration trend pre-Thatcher, it started under her. Net immigration did not start with Tony Blair. That is the point.

The con job is immigration can be reduced to zero, without changing the economy as much as Thatcher did. But check out the graph.

[Slick]

Oh dear, the claim Tony Blair is to blame for something that started under Thatcher and accelerated after him. The right wing got away with it pre-Big Dog, just sad to be saying that still in 2025. Anyway here's the updated graph for you.

I feel dirty backing up Yeeb, but how anyone can look at that graph you have kindly updated and not see a massive and sustained increase when Blair came to power is utterly beyond me.

There was no net immigration trend pre-Thatcher, it started under her. Net immigration did not start with Tony Blair. That is the point.

The con job is immigration can be reduced to zero, without changing the economy as much as Thatcher did. But check out the graph.

But it also went down to below zero for a few years between her and Blair, you can’t just ignore that.

On your second point, completely agree, and not a chance in hell it will happen

[_Os_]

I feel dirty backing up Yeeb, but how anyone can look at that graph you have kindly updated and not see a massive and sustained increase when Blair came to power is utterly beyond me.

There was no net immigration trend pre-Thatcher, it started under her. Net immigration did not start with Tony Blair. That is the point.

The con job is immigration can be reduced to zero, without changing the economy as much as Thatcher did. But check out the graph.

But it also went down to below zero for a few years between her and Blair, you can’t just ignore that.

On your second point, completely agree, and not a chance in hell it will happen

Doubt she even knew what forces she was unleashing. She would be horrified by the UK today. Sure there were some blips, but the trend clearly starts in the 1980s.

Tracks some of her other changes. She wanted to create a share owning democracy, if everyone had a stake then they could create better utility providers as both owners and consumers than the state could, took awhile for that to become what it is. Right to buy, she wanted a nation of property owners, it benefitted one generation and no one after (those who benefitted have backed the Tories since, which arguably made it a good move). I expect you know the oil situation better than myself, the UK's oil money was spent on tax cuts (consumption) Norway's was invested, again it takes time to become visible.

Labour had a chance to undo some of the Thatcherite economics after 1997, they did not. Blair's big thing was inserting market competition into the public sector (especially the NHS), he also made PPP/PFI standard in public sector spending/infrastructure. A turbo Thatcher on the economy (and by all accounts that is all he cared about and ID cards and wars, everything else was Brown/others). Seemed to be working until 2008. The only big change in direction since has been Brexit. As Neeps posted immigrants are being used to mask the failure, which is why the number keeps going up.

[Paddington Bear]

I think it challenges your desire to brush Thatcher under the carpet and the disastrous policies of privatisation of rail and utilities etc and selling off assets such as affordable housing.

No one is listening?







https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/ ... even-years

I’m not sweeping anything under the rug and you’ll note I haven’t attacked or defended any of her policies, I’m just not interested in discussing someone who left office 34 years ago and died 12 years ago as if it is a pressing national issue. The youngest people who could have voted for or against her in a general election are now 56, going to have to move on at some point.

And yes, no one listens as is shown by the constant failures of going on about Thatcher at the ballot box.

There was a very definite switch of economic policy during her tenure - Shirely this is not controversial in the slightest? If you're not prepared to trace back to the beginning of neoliberal policies in the UK then what is the point of entering in to any discussion on the topic?

As for the ballot box, I have no idea why people vote Tory, far less Reform but that's another topic, so I have no idea why the electorate vote against policies they support. Forget the man here, but look at the policies Corbyn's Labour set out in 2019 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50501411

The only one I can't find hard polling data in favour of those six policies is on the National Care Service and that's that's possibly only because the first search didn't come back with lots of results on it, I didn't do a more detailed search.

I know Populist Bozo won on Getting Brexit Done innit, but that was even more a case of the electorate voting against their own best interests.

No one says there wasn’t - I’m saying that you need to live in the present and not keep re-litigating someone who no one under 56 could have voted for or against. It’s as absurd as someone voting in 1979 based on wartime policies and the left need to get over it

[Paddington Bear]

98 onwards was the first real spike, blaming thatcher for that is just mental.

Oh dear, the claim Tony Blair is to blame for something that started under Thatcher and accelerated after him. The right wing got away with it pre-Big Dog, just sad to be saying that still in 2025. Anyway here's the updated graph for you.

I feel dirty backing up Yeeb, but how anyone can look at that graph you have kindly updated and not see a massive and sustained increase when Blair came to power is utterly beyond me.

The key is to make up stuff and hope no one bothers to check

[Tichtheid]

I’m not sweeping anything under the rug and you’ll note I haven’t attacked or defended any of her policies, I’m just not interested in discussing someone who left office 34 years ago and died 12 years ago as if it is a pressing national issue. The youngest people who could have voted for or against her in a general election are now 56, going to have to move on at some point.

And yes, no one listens as is shown by the constant failures of going on about Thatcher at the ballot box.

There was a very definite switch of economic policy during her tenure - Shirely this is not controversial in the slightest? If you're not prepared to trace back to the beginning of neoliberal policies in the UK then what is the point of entering in to any discussion on the topic?

As for the ballot box, I have no idea why people vote Tory, far less Reform but that's another topic, so I have no idea why the electorate vote against policies they support. Forget the man here, but look at the policies Corbyn's Labour set out in 2019 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50501411

The only one I can't find hard polling data in favour of those six policies is on the National Care Service and that's that's possibly only because the first search didn't come back with lots of results on it, I didn't do a more detailed search.

I know Populist Bozo won on Getting Brexit Done innit, but that was even more a case of the electorate voting against their own best interests.

No one says there wasn’t - I’m saying that you need to live in the present and not keep re-litigating someone who no one under 56 could have voted for or against. It’s as absurd as someone voting in 1979 based on wartime policies and the left need to get over it

Elsewhere I've argued for many years that Thatcher herself became an irrelevance as soon as she stepped down, but that does not change the fact that the neoliberal policies she introduced cast a long shadow. She is quoted as saying her greatest achievement was Tony Blair and New Labour who didn't change direction from that path until utter failure and bankruptcy without taxpayer subsidy forced some train lines to be brought back into state ownership. Water is just another industry going the same way. The economic crash of '08 was down to neoliberal deregulation, etc

If you bury your head in the sand and refuse to look at what got us here there is no chance of a solution, it's not just pointing at Thatcher, which I understand is uncomfortable for some, it's looking at where we are and how we got here and trying to not make the same mistakes.

[Yeeb]

Thatch caused the credit crunch now ? Okaaaaaaayyy…

[Yeeb]

One of Thatcher's favoured economists was Milton Friedman. Both Thatcher and Friedman revered Hong Kong as a low regulation economic miracle. Basically the UK copied that model.

Hong Kong used to have a strong manufacturing sector, but fell behind Japan/SK/Taiwan because the state didn't support industry. Hong Kong ended up being only services, with massively high property costs despite having plenty of land in the New Territories (government blocks building). Hong Kong was also sustained by massive waves of immigration from the mainland who formed the underclass. Today its economy is characterised by high degrees of monopolisation and a high cost of living.

Does any of that sound familiar?

Hayek was another favourite - she recommend him for Companion of Honour gong in 1984. Hayek's love of privatisation, deregulation and tax cutting were adopted by Thatcher, but not his advocacy of social services.

The great irony is the refusal to see things as they are, just means more immigration. Pretty sure I told Yeeb years back that Brexit would mean more people from the Commonwealth taking the working opportunities which Europeans wouldn't be interested in post-Brexit. That no actually it would be the opposite of what he wanted.

It really is completely crazy. Vote for Reform the turbo Thatcherites to end immigration. If he gets in I wouldn't rule out a Farage Wave.

Ah, now you are professing to know what I wanted ? Really ?

Iiirc it was pretty much only me who said Brexit was because of immigration and not bendy bananas and sides of buses. The ‘more people from the commonwealth ‘ thing was always going to happen if the euro intake decreased , following the big upward trend started by (checks some weirdos graph) Blair circa 1998.

If anything you claim is true , then you would have to realise that immigrants don’t tend to vote Tory (until they get rich) so why on earth Thatcher would want to import people more likely to vote against her party all in the guise of free market , is illogical.
Unlike say Blair who of course would love to flood UK with people pre disposed to vote for him and his parties policies.

Go back further and see which party introduced the British nationality act 1948, which party introduced tighter controls subsequently and which one legislated repeals to those amendments, and your whole argument falls down really. Reforms rise is due mostly purely because neither Labour or Tories are perceived as having handled immigration issues at all well, either recently or historically .

[I like neeps]

Hayek was another favourite - she recommend him for Companion of Honour gong in 1984. Hayek's love of privatisation, deregulation and tax cutting were adopted by Thatcher, but not his advocacy of social services.

The great irony is the refusal to see things as they are, just means more immigration. Pretty sure I told Yeeb years back that Brexit would mean more people from the Commonwealth taking the working opportunities which Europeans wouldn't be interested in post-Brexit. That no actually it would be the opposite of what he wanted.

It really is completely crazy. Vote for Reform the turbo Thatcherites to end immigration. If he gets in I wouldn't rule out a Farage Wave.

Ah, now you are professing to know what I wanted ? Really ?

Iiirc it was pretty much only me who said Brexit was because of immigration and not bendy bananas and sides of buses. The ‘more people from the commonwealth ‘ thing was always going to happen if the euro intake decreased , following the big upward trend started by (checks some weirdos graph) Blair circa 1998.

If anything you claim is true , then you would have to realise that immigrants don’t tend to vote Tory (until they get rich) so why on earth Thatcher would want to import people more likely to vote against her party all in the guise of free market , is illogical.
Unlike say Blair who of course would love to flood UK with people pre disposed to vote for him and his parties policies.

Go back further and see which party introduced the British nationality act 1948, which party introduced tighter controls subsequently and which one legislated repeals to those amendments, and your whole argument falls down really. Reforms rise is due mostly purely because neither Labour or Tories are perceived as having handled immigration issues at all well, either recently or historically .

Surely everyone thought that the main reason Brexit was voted for was immigration.

[_Os_]

[following the big upward trend started by (checks some weirdos graph) Blair circa 1998.

Last try using a graph for you.

I've cut the graph so that it stops in 1997, the skyscrapers to the right don't cloud the picture. That section from 1979-1997 is clearly different from all the red lines to the left of it. If there was any data 1979-1997 would stand out from the hundreds of years before that too. The years 1979-1997 would probably stand out on a 1700-1997 graph.

If you don't believe me, try and work out who is captured in the 1947-1979 section. In roughly chronological order: Holocaust survivors, immediate post-WW2 Italians and Poles, Windrush West Indians, old colonials moving to the UK post-empire, the original South Asian immigrants, Ugandan Asians. Your own father is during that time I think? Nearly all of that is net emigration, negative population growth through migration nearly every year 1947-1979. Thatcher gets in and the opposite happens.

[_Os_]

Surely everyone thought that the main reason Brexit was voted for was immigration.

Most Brexiters (but not Yeeb tbf, it was always "pool shitters" with him) would argue the point if you said it was about immigration. They would say you were calling them racist or whatever and it was actually about sovereignty (aka bendy bananas). They would take it as an insult if you said it was about immigration. There was even a claim by Brexiters that the Single Market was racist as it privileged whites (Patel saying there needs to be more curry chefs, Frog Face saying he wanted more Indian migration as they're more like English people than Europeans).

Then when it didn't go so well they switched to immigration. Then post-Boris Wave, they just say it shouldn't be talked about.

[shaggy]

Surely everyone thought that the main reason Brexit was voted for was immigration.

Most Brexiters (but not Yeeb tbf, it was always "pool shitters" with him) would argue the point if you said it was about immigration. They would say you were calling them racist or whatever and it was actually about sovereignty (aka bendy bananas). They would take it as an insult if you said it was about immigration. There was even a claim by Brexiters that the Single Market was racist as it privileged whites (Patel saying there needs to be more curry chefs, Frog Face saying he wanted more Indian migration as they're more like English people than Europeans).

Then when it didn't go so well they switched to immigration. Then post-Boris Wave, they just say it shouldn't be talked about.

The reasons for voting for an exit from the EU were actually way more complex than immigration. There were many polls conducted at the time and it varied from perceived lack of democracy, sending money to EU and not getting enough back, an EU army, a drive towards further integration, ‘taking back control’, being a rule taker, fishing rights, etc. immigration was there but it was not the sole or main reason quoted.

[Biffer]

Surely everyone thought that the main reason Brexit was voted for was immigration.

Most Brexiters (but not Yeeb tbf, it was always "pool shitters" with him) would argue the point if you said it was about immigration. They would say you were calling them racist or whatever and it was actually about sovereignty (aka bendy bananas). They would take it as an insult if you said it was about immigration. There was even a claim by Brexiters that the Single Market was racist as it privileged whites (Patel saying there needs to be more curry chefs, Frog Face saying he wanted more Indian migration as they're more like English people than Europeans).

Then when it didn't go so well they switched to immigration. Then post-Boris Wave, they just say it shouldn't be talked about.

The reasons for voting for an exit from the EU were actually way more complex than immigration. There were many polls conducted at the time and it varied from perceived lack of democracy, sending money to EU and not getting enough back, an EU army, a drive towards further integration, ‘taking back control’, being a rule taker, fishing rights, etc. immigration was there but it was not the sole or main reason quoted.

And every single one of those reasons is now in a worse state than it was then.

[Yeeb]

Surely everyone thought that the main reason Brexit was voted for was immigration.

Most Brexiters (but not Yeeb tbf, it was always "pool shitters" with him) would argue the point if you said it was about immigration. They would say you were calling them racist or whatever and it was actually about sovereignty (aka bendy bananas). They would take it as an insult if you said it was about immigration. There was even a claim by Brexiters that the Single Market was racist as it privileged whites (Patel saying there needs to be more curry chefs, Frog Face saying he wanted more Indian migration as they're more like English people than Europeans).

Then when it didn't go so well they switched to immigration. Then post-Boris Wave, they just say it shouldn't be talked about.

The reasons for voting for an exit from the EU were actually way more complex than immigration. There were many polls conducted at the time and it varied from perceived lack of democracy, sending money to EU and not getting enough back, an EU army, a drive towards further integration, ‘taking back control’, being a rule taker, fishing rights, etc. immigration was there but it was not the sole or main reason quoted.

Nah, all that stuff was just mentioned so that leave voters would feel they didn’t fit the ‘thick and racist’ agenda being constantly hurled at them by remainers. Truthfully , it was immigration, particularly Islamic types - nobody under the age of 60 really looks at skin colour much, but does notice little things like kids getting blown up at concerts or stabbed at craft shops or groomed for sex slavery.

[Yeeb]

[following the big upward trend started by (checks some weirdos graph) Blair circa 1998.

Last try using a graph for you.

I've cut the graph so that it stops in 1997, the skyscrapers to the right don't cloud the picture. That section from 1979-1997 is clearly different from all the red lines to the left of it. If there was any data 1979-1997 would stand out from the hundreds of years before that too. The years 1979-1997 would probably stand out on a 1700-1997 graph.

If you don't believe me, try and work out who is captured in the 1947-1979 section. In roughly chronological order: Holocaust survivors, immediate post-WW2 Italians and Poles, Windrush West Indians, old colonials moving to the UK post-empire, the original South Asian immigrants, Ugandan Asians. Your own father is during that time I think? Nearly all of that is net emigration, negative population growth through migration nearly every year 1947-1979. Thatcher gets in and the opposite happens.

If you actually read the source of your data you would find the bit where they say that net movements +/- 100k per year are deemed to have no effect on overall county demographics due to being under 0.02% of the population and immaterial to the vagaries of normal birth and death rates across different demographics. That aligns to past targets from Cameron etc that +100k per year is ‘sustainable’ , whilst 1.1m per year is not. All you have really proved is that any net movements pre Blair were in fact sustainable and immaterial (backed up by the overall population growth during years of net emigration from the Uk)

Looking at only Net figures are a bit silly really, if 1m white Essex chavs emigrated to Costa del Boys in 1979 and 1m Pakistani males under 30 moved to Essex in the same year, there would be zero net movement and yet the demographics of the area would change considerably - this is in fact what has happened, not your Thatch-fest 2+2=5 dumbness of aligning cause and effect for your own agenda.

[Yeeb]

The great irony is the refusal to see things as they are, just means more immigration. Pretty sure I told Yeeb years back that Brexit would mean more people from the Commonwealth taking the working opportunities which Europeans wouldn't be interested in post-Brexit. That no actually it would be the opposite of what he wanted.

It really is completely crazy. Vote for Reform the turbo Thatcherites to end immigration. If he gets in I wouldn't rule out a Farage Wave.

Ah, now you are professing to know what I wanted ? Really ?

Iiirc it was pretty much only me who said Brexit was because of immigration and not bendy bananas and sides of buses. The ‘more people from the commonwealth ‘ thing was always going to happen if the euro intake decreased , following the big upward trend started by (checks some weirdos graph) Blair circa 1998.

If anything you claim is true , then you would have to realise that immigrants don’t tend to vote Tory (until they get rich) so why on earth Thatcher would want to import people more likely to vote against her party all in the guise of free market , is illogical.
Unlike say Blair who of course would love to flood UK with people pre disposed to vote for him and his parties policies.

Go back further and see which party introduced the British nationality act 1948, which party introduced tighter controls subsequently and which one legislated repeals to those amendments, and your whole argument falls down really. Reforms rise is due mostly purely because neither Labour or Tories are perceived as having handled immigration issues at all well, either recently or historically .

Surely everyone thought that the main reason Brexit was voted for was immigration.

You would think that - consensus on PR was deffo also on daft sovereign and economics stuff, and made up left v right split , when the actual vote was kind of more rural urban split at best.
Calling people racist and thick was a gift for the leave campaign.

[Slick]

[following the big upward trend started by (checks some weirdos graph) Blair circa 1998.

Last try using a graph for you.

I've cut the graph so that it stops in 1997, the skyscrapers to the right don't cloud the picture. That section from 1979-1997 is clearly different from all the red lines to the left of it. If there was any data 1979-1997 would stand out from the hundreds of years before that too. The years 1979-1997 would probably stand out on a 1700-1997 graph.

If you don't believe me, try and work out who is captured in the 1947-1979 section. In roughly chronological order: Holocaust survivors, immediate post-WW2 Italians and Poles, Windrush West Indians, old colonials moving to the UK post-empire, the original South Asian immigrants, Ugandan Asians. Your own father is during that time I think? Nearly all of that is net emigration, negative population growth through migration nearly every year 1947-1979. Thatcher gets in and the opposite happens.

This is getting even more surreal

[Yeeb]

[following the big upward trend started by (checks some weirdos graph) Blair circa 1998.

Last try using a graph for you.

I've cut the graph so that it stops in 1997, the skyscrapers to the right don't cloud the picture. That section from 1979-1997 is clearly different from all the red lines to the left of it. If there was any data 1979-1997 would stand out from the hundreds of years before that too. The years 1979-1997 would probably stand out on a 1700-1997 graph.

If you don't believe me, try and work out who is captured in the 1947-1979 section. In roughly chronological order: Holocaust survivors, immediate post-WW2 Italians and Poles, Windrush West Indians, old colonials moving to the UK post-empire, the original South Asian immigrants, Ugandan Asians. Your own father is during that time I think? Nearly all of that is net emigration, negative population growth through migration nearly every year 1947-1979. Thatcher gets in and the opposite happens.

This is getting even more surreal

It really is, absurdity factor turned up to 11 because he’s a saffa

[Lobby]

Most Brexiters (but not Yeeb tbf, it was always "pool shitters" with him) would argue the point if you said it was about immigration. They would say you were calling them racist or whatever and it was actually about sovereignty (aka bendy bananas). They would take it as an insult if you said it was about immigration. There was even a claim by Brexiters that the Single Market was racist as it privileged whites (Patel saying there needs to be more curry chefs, Frog Face saying he wanted more Indian migration as they're more like English people than Europeans).

Then when it didn't go so well they switched to immigration. Then post-Boris Wave, they just say it shouldn't be talked about.

The reasons for voting for an exit from the EU were actually way more complex than immigration. There were many polls conducted at the time and it varied from perceived lack of democracy, sending money to EU and not getting enough back, an EU army, a drive towards further integration, ‘taking back control’, being a rule taker, fishing rights, etc. immigration was there but it was not the sole or main reason quoted.

Nah, all that stuff was just mentioned so that leave voters would feel they didn’t fit the ‘thick and racist’ agenda being constantly hurled at them by remainers. Truthfully , it was immigration, particularly Islamic types - nobody under the age of 60 really looks at skin colour much, but does notice little things like kids getting blown up at concerts or stabbed at craft shops or groomed for sex slavery.

I've always thought that a big factor in the Brexit vote was Angela Merkel's unilateral decision to open the European borders to deal with the refugee crisis in 2015. The sight of lots of mainly moslim refugees heading to Europe encouraged the view that, by leaving the EU, we could stop all of the refugees entering Europe from being able to come to the UK.

The timing of this couldn't have been worse, and led to a sharp decline in positive attitudes to immigration in this country. Historically, the UK had the most positive attitude towards immigration in Europe. That attitude changed in the period immediately before the Brexit vote, largely because of the fear of 'being swamped' by refugees from Syria and other parts of the middle East. Ironically, after the Brexit vote attitudes towards immigrants improved in the UK to the extent that they were again amongst the most positive across Europe.

As well as influencing the Brexit vote, Merkel's immigration policies also led to the rise in the AfD in Germany from 2017 onwards.

[Yeeb]

The reasons for voting for an exit from the EU were actually way more complex than immigration. There were many polls conducted at the time and it varied from perceived lack of democracy, sending money to EU and not getting enough back, an EU army, a drive towards further integration, ‘taking back control’, being a rule taker, fishing rights, etc. immigration was there but it was not the sole or main reason quoted.

Nah, all that stuff was just mentioned so that leave voters would feel they didn’t fit the ‘thick and racist’ agenda being constantly hurled at them by remainers. Truthfully , it was immigration, particularly Islamic types - nobody under the age of 60 really looks at skin colour much, but does notice little things like kids getting blown up at concerts or stabbed at craft shops or groomed for sex slavery.

I've always thought that a big factor in the Brexit vote was Angela Merkel's unilateral decision to open the European borders to deal with the refugee crisis in 2015. The sight of lots of mainly moslim refugees heading to Europe encouraged the view that, by leaving the EU, we could stop all of the refugees entering Europe from being able to come to the UK.

The timing of this couldn't have been worse, and led to a sharp decline in positive attitudes to immigration in this country. Historically, the UK had the most positive attitude towards immigration in Europe. That attitude changed in the period immediately before the Brexit vote, largely because of the fear of 'being swamped' by refugees from Syria and other parts of the middle East. Ironically, after the Brexit vote attitudes towards immigrants improved in the UK to the extent that they were again amongst the most positive across Europe.

As well as influencing the Brexit vote, Merkel's immigration policies also led to the rise in the AfD in Germany from 2017 onwards.

Pffft, I doubt whether anyone is insane enough to blame one woman who was in power ages ago for something.

Oh, wait…

[Paddington Bear]

Nah, all that stuff was just mentioned so that leave voters would feel they didn’t fit the ‘thick and racist’ agenda being constantly hurled at them by remainers. Truthfully , it was immigration, particularly Islamic types - nobody under the age of 60 really looks at skin colour much, but does notice little things like kids getting blown up at concerts or stabbed at craft shops or groomed for sex slavery.

I've always thought that a big factor in the Brexit vote was Angela Merkel's unilateral decision to open the European borders to deal with the refugee crisis in 2015. The sight of lots of mainly moslim refugees heading to Europe encouraged the view that, by leaving the EU, we could stop all of the refugees entering Europe from being able to come to the UK.

The timing of this couldn't have been worse, and led to a sharp decline in positive attitudes to immigration in this country. Historically, the UK had the most positive attitude towards immigration in Europe. That attitude changed in the period immediately before the Brexit vote, largely because of the fear of 'being swamped' by refugees from Syria and other parts of the middle East. Ironically, after the Brexit vote attitudes towards immigrants improved in the UK to the extent that they were again amongst the most positive across Europe.

As well as influencing the Brexit vote, Merkel's immigration policies also led to the rise in the AfD in Germany from 2017 onwards.

Pffft, I doubt whether anyone is insane enough to blame one woman who was in power ages ago for something.

Oh, wait…

[Hal Jordan]

Seen on Bluesky 

At least it's not an island of Starmers.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Nah, all that stuff was just mentioned so that leave voters would feel they didn’t fit the ‘thick and racist’ agenda being constantly hurled at them by remainers.

That does seem a little off, thick and/or racist would be much fairer

[tabascoboy]

Thames Water again taking the piss - and not in the only way they should be

Ministers to block Thames Water paying bosses bonuses out of emergency loan

Exclusive: Firm close to insolvency says using £3bn loan to pay ‘substantial’ bonuses is vital to retain senior managers

Ministers plan to use new powers to block bosses from Thames Water taking bonuses worth hundreds of thousands of pounds as the company fights for survival, the Guardian can reveal.

Britain’s biggest water company admitted this week that senior managers are in line for “substantial” bonuses linked to an emergency £3bn loan.

Thames claimed the payouts were vital to retain staff and prevent rival companies from “picking off” its best employees. But the disclosure provoked fury as the company has said its finances are “hair raising” and that it had come “very close to running out of money entirely” last year.

Full story at https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... dApp_Other

[sockwithaticket]

Thames Water again taking the piss - and not in the only way they should be

Ministers to block Thames Water paying bosses bonuses out of emergency loan

Exclusive: Firm close to insolvency says using £3bn loan to pay ‘substantial’ bonuses is vital to retain senior managers

Ministers plan to use new powers to block bosses from Thames Water taking bonuses worth hundreds of thousands of pounds as the company fights for survival, the Guardian can reveal.

Britain’s biggest water company admitted this week that senior managers are in line for “substantial” bonuses linked to an emergency £3bn loan.

Thames claimed the payouts were vital to retain staff and prevent rival companies from “picking off” its best employees. But the disclosure provoked fury as the company has said its finances are “hair raising” and that it had come “very close to running out of money entirely” last year.

Full story at https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... dApp_Other

Given the absolute state of Thames, I'm not sure anyone in line for a big bonus could be described as one of the 'best employees' and them fucking off elsewhere might be entirely welcome.

[I like neeps]

It is VERY funny that Starmer took Chopper and GBN on a jaunt to Albania to agree a return hubs deal only for their PM to turn him down. Very funny indeed.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

who/what is Chopper?

[_Os_]

[following the big upward trend started by (checks some weirdos graph) Blair circa 1998.

Last try using a graph for you.

I've cut the graph so that it stops in 1997, the skyscrapers to the right don't cloud the picture. That section from 1979-1997 is clearly different from all the red lines to the left of it. If there was any data 1979-1997 would stand out from the hundreds of years before that too. The years 1979-1997 would probably stand out on a 1700-1997 graph.

If you don't believe me, try and work out who is captured in the 1947-1979 section. In roughly chronological order: Holocaust survivors, immediate post-WW2 Italians and Poles, Windrush West Indians, old colonials moving to the UK post-empire, the original South Asian immigrants, Ugandan Asians. Your own father is during that time I think? Nearly all of that is net emigration, negative population growth through migration nearly every year 1947-1979. Thatcher gets in and the opposite happens.

If you actually read the source of your data you would find the bit where they say that net movements +/- 100k per year are deemed to have no effect on overall county demographics due to being under 0.02% of the population and immaterial to the vagaries of normal birth and death rates across different demographics. That aligns to past targets from Cameron etc that +100k per year is ‘sustainable’ , whilst 1.1m per year is not. All you have really proved is that any net movements pre Blair were in fact sustainable and immaterial (backed up by the overall population growth during years of net emigration from the Uk)

Looking at only Net figures are a bit silly really, if 1m white Essex chavs emigrated to Costa del Boys in 1979 and 1m Pakistani males under 30 moved to Essex in the same year, there would be zero net movement and yet the demographics of the area would change considerably - this is in fact what has happened, not your Thatch-fest 2+2=5 dumbness of aligning cause and effect for your own agenda.

First paragraph is irrelevant to the point I'm making, which is that Thatcher's economic changes in the '80s started the increase in immigration. I've made no argument about what is sustainable and if it is good or bad. The point is simply that she changed the structure of the UK economy in a significant way and the impacts have rolled out over time. Conservatives always underestimate how revolutionary the market is, which is why you never manage to conserve anything. Thatcher opened up a freer market in labour.

Second paragraph, we've been over this already and I gave you a graph for that too. Immigration went up in absolute terms and relative to emigration (net), starting with Thatcher.

[_Os_]

Yeeb, how do you actually intend to get rid of "pool shitters"? And who are they exactly, just all foreigners, only some foreigners, some British people included?

You thought Brexit would and it did not. It did the opposite.

You also seem to claim the structure of the UK economy is fine and doesn't stimulate immigration (or depend on it, however you wish to phrase it).

It's entirely obvious if you want (literally) business as usual and no immigrants, it's never going to happen.

So how do you actually propose to do it?

[Yeeb]

Last try using a graph for you.

I've cut the graph so that it stops in 1997, the skyscrapers to the right don't cloud the picture. That section from 1979-1997 is clearly different from all the red lines to the left of it. If there was any data 1979-1997 would stand out from the hundreds of years before that too. The years 1979-1997 would probably stand out on a 1700-1997 graph.

If you don't believe me, try and work out who is captured in the 1947-1979 section. In roughly chronological order: Holocaust survivors, immediate post-WW2 Italians and Poles, Windrush West Indians, old colonials moving to the UK post-empire, the original South Asian immigrants, Ugandan Asians. Your own father is during that time I think? Nearly all of that is net emigration, negative population growth through migration nearly every year 1947-1979. Thatcher gets in and the opposite happens.

If you actually read the source of your data you would find the bit where they say that net movements +/- 100k per year are deemed to have no effect on overall county demographics due to being under 0.02% of the population and immaterial to the vagaries of normal birth and death rates across different demographics. That aligns to past targets from Cameron etc that +100k per year is ‘sustainable’ , whilst 1.1m per year is not. All you have really proved is that any net movements pre Blair were in fact sustainable and immaterial (backed up by the overall population growth during years of net emigration from the Uk)

Looking at only Net figures are a bit silly really, if 1m white Essex chavs emigrated to Costa del Boys in 1979 and 1m Pakistani males under 30 moved to Essex in the same year, there would be zero net movement and yet the demographics of the area would change considerably - this is in fact what has happened, not your Thatch-fest 2+2=5 dumbness of aligning cause and effect for your own agenda.

First paragraph is irrelevant to the point I'm making, which is that Thatcher's economic changes in the '80s started the increase in immigration. I've made no argument about what is sustainable and if it is good or bad. The point is simply that she changed the structure of the UK economy in a significant way and the impacts have rolled out over time. Conservatives always underestimate how revolutionary the market is, which is why you never manage to conserve anything. Thatcher opened up a freer market in labour.

Second paragraph, we've been over this already and I gave you a graph for that too. Immigration went up in absolute terms and relative to emigration (net), starting with Thatcher.

I’m saying that if you can ignore the huge leap Blair onwards caused , then I can show your own data was largely irrelevant and that yearly changes +/-100k pa is largely irrelevant on its own as a stat, and one even the most ardent reformer says is ‘sustainable’.

[Yeeb]

Yeeb, how do you actually intend to get rid of "pool shitters"? And who are they exactly, just all foreigners, only some foreigners, some British people included?

You thought Brexit would and it did not. It did the opposite.

You also seem to claim the structure of the UK economy is fine and doesn't stimulate immigration (or depend on it, however you wish to phrase it).

It's entirely obvious if you want (literally) business as usual and no immigrants, it's never going to happen.

So how do you actually propose to do it?

It’s always been within UK’s power to be able to control its borders in theory , in practice governments of either party have been terrible at this pre, during and post Brexit. This failure is what has caused reform to exist and gain support.

You literally ask for clarification on what poolshitters entails which is of little surprise seeing as you are pretty deluded -it can be summarized as;
All people who enter country illegally
People who entered legally but then committed say a capital crime such as blowing up children at a concert
People born in Uk , possible British citizens , who then act in such as way that a few decades again would have seen them executed for treason (eg that begum sort)

Not once has anyone ever said immigration per se is bad , you just showing your own agenda with that extrapolation.

As for the how to police the borders better, well a combo of:
Greek coastguard tactics in the channel
Award far less visas to visit
Strengthen greatly the whole vetting process of who gets in, so the ratio of doctors & engineers to child murderers rapists and pool shitters is improved
Some sort of test before entry , covering not just linguistics but ability to be tolerant , intergrate, and not murder children
And a raising of the bond provided so there is a bigger financial penalty should any doctor or engineer accidentally murder a child

Plus some sort of re-vetting / register / evaluation of should they really be given a 5 bed house in London , if those already here , should be easy enough to review a few barber shops , car washes, and deliveroo bikers outside maccers.

You attributing all woes to thatcher , is akin to me attributing all woes to Blair encouraging gains in the sort of people more likely to vote for his party in the future and gaming the system. But from your own graphs , one of those assertions is closer to the truth than another…