Quo Vadis, Democrats?

[Barrister]

Although using Santa's holiday was a tad mean

That would be Jesus's holiday.

[HVC]

Although using Santa's holiday was a tad mean

That would be Jesus's holiday.

Not anymore Coca Cola won the culture war

[Razgovory]

I think you have lost the plot if you think Raz is right wing.

And BB was trying to be complimentary. 

I put it to you that you are the one lacking perspective, not them.

It's up to him to identify how he wants.
I said he keeps saying right wing things. Far from uncommon for people to have a mix of views.
In this case his idea people can't actually be for equality and must have some sinister ulterior motive.... Yeah. Typical online rightist spleel that shows a fundmantal lack of comprehension of the idea people might have a different morality to them.

It's helpful to remember that Josq thinks that, despite about all his talk about avoiding black-and-white thinking, his world view is summed up as "left-wing good, right-wing".  So when he talks about right wing thinking or a rightwing lens he's just saying that it is evil, defective and bad.

As per usual rather than actually talking about the points it's an idiotic ad hom for you then.

What else could a failure to understand a left wing morality be but right wing thinking? I suppose it could just be apolitical idiocy.. But hey ho.
Good and evil doesn't come into this.
It's about difference.
I support freedom and equality because... They're good things in my book. Not because I stand to profit (which if I was the elite you think I am... Keep the status quo plz. Better let's roll it back a few years.)  but because they're my fundamental moral values.

sigh.  It's not about sinister motives.  It's about self interest, everyone acts in self-interest in some regard.  It's not out of the ordinary for someone's self-interest and their fundamental moral values to be aligned.  Someone can hold an elite position and justify it by thinking that they are helping the less fortunate or for being for freedom and equality.  In fact, people can and do justify their position by believing they are for things that are good.


Look, people may hold views you don't like.  Views that you find objectionable.  They are still your fellow citizens, and you still need to work with them.  It's possible to give them some of what they want without tainting yourself.  Conceding to some restrictions on immigration now would be better than facing a landslide defeat and having all immigration banned in the future.  Simply writing them off as "far-right" or dismissing their views as really being about something else isn't helpful.

[Josquius]

]

My recommendation is that you take some time away from this place.  When you come back, reread what BB said to you.  I think you will likely want to apologize.

I have been thinking of doing a lot more than just leaving for a while. But that would be an over reaction despite all the other shit.

But no. I had no beef with him but in he comes saying he hates my guts, ignoring what I actually say in favour ofprojection, and thinking so little of me that I wouldn't listen to something on the topic a few people have recommended because.... I'm shit or something.
I've just learned there's an ignore list and I'm going to use it.

But seriously. Fuck this drama.

[Barrister]

But no. I had no beef with him but in he comes saying he hates my guts, ignoring what I actually say in favour ofprojection, and thinking so little of me that I wouldn't listen to something on the topic a few people have recommended because.... I'm shit or something.

Not sure if this is better or worse:

Josquis I do not hate your guts.

I do not however respect your opinions.  I find you to be a lazy black-and-white thinker with no self-awareness.  That being said I do wish you all the best in your future.

If you put me on ignore and didn't read this that's probably for the best.

[Sheilbh]

Just to flag for context migration has been at (very high) record levels in the last few years


It's falling sharply now following policies introduced by Sunak, Starmer intends to cut it further and has been accusing the previous government of conducting a "one-nation experiment in open borders" through its policies. There is something to this, his point is that fundamentally it wasn't a lot of accidents or shocked that led to those numbers (though some, like Hong Kong and Ukraine were exceptional), instead this was the result of policies introduced by Johnson's government after which Brexit which massively liberalised immigration for the rest of the world.

In part that's because British people have for decades said they'd like an "Australian style points system", which was introduced about 15 years ago but quite restrictively. Johnson then expanded it so we have an Australian style points system. What people had, perhaps, not noticed was that Australia has historically had quite significantly higher migration than the UK It's also slightly challenging because basically people think the overall numbers are too high - but also don't really agree with cutting any of the individual categories. So a lot of the numbers are visas for people who want to work in the health or social care sectors, there's lots of students, Ukraine, Hong Kong - these are all individual forms of migration with broad public support, but in the aggregate is too high.

(This is, I think, the issue with a lot of British politics right now - there's an unwillingness to confront the public with actual difficult choices. See also we want to get to net zero and to keep the lights on and cheaper energy and no building pls - something has to give. Instead politicians won't lead and confront with difficult truths so make false promises that everyone knows are false and then further disappoint and disillusion when they're not delivered.)

Edit: I'd add, obsessively, that in the difficult choices on immigration that no building pls is an issue there too....

[HVC]

Your charts are obviously far right and thus wrong

[Barrister]

So the thing about the points system (at least in Canada) - is that's not how most people come into the country.

I have no real objection to the existing points system.  It seems perfectly valid.

How most immigrants come to Canada however is through either a temporary foreign worker visa, a student visa, or family re-unification.

Putting aside family re-unification, if you are resident in Canada for the specified amount of time (through a TFW visa or student visa) you're eligible to apply to permanent residence.  Once you've then had PR status for long enough you're entitled to citizenship (although for some/many getting PR status is good enough).

[Josquius]

I think you have lost the plot if you think Raz is right wing.

And BB was trying to be complimentary. 

I put it to you that you are the one lacking perspective, not them.

It's up to him to identify how he wants.
I said he keeps saying right wing things. Far from uncommon for people to have a mix of views.
In this case his idea people can't actually be for equality and must have some sinister ulterior motive.... Yeah. Typical online rightist spleel that shows a fundmantal lack of comprehension of the idea people might have a different morality to them.

It's helpful to remember that Josq thinks that, despite about all his talk about avoiding black-and-white thinking, his world view is summed up as "left-wing good, right-wing".  So when he talks about right wing thinking or a rightwing lens he's just saying that it is evil, defective and bad.

As per usual rather than actually talking about the points it's an idiotic ad hom for you then.

What else could a failure to understand a left wing morality be but right wing thinking? I suppose it could just be apolitical idiocy.. But hey ho.
Good and evil doesn't come into this.
It's about difference.
I support freedom and equality because... They're good things in my book. Not because I stand to profit (which if I was the elite you think I am... Keep the status quo plz. Better let's roll it back a few years.)  but because they're my fundamental moral values.

sigh.  It's not about sinister motives.  It's about self interest, everyone acts in self-interest in some regard.  It's not out of the ordinary for someone's self-interest and their fundamental moral values to be aligned.  Someone can hold an elite position and justify it by thinking that they are helping the less fortunate or for being for freedom and equality.  In fact, people can and do justify their position by believing they are for things that are good.

So I'm super duper rich. Why I pay my bills on time every month.
I also happen to have a lot of contacts with tradespeople. I can get work done cheap.
Pretty sure my "credit" is good.
I've actually given thought to becoming a landlord. With things as they are it could be a sensible way to gain secure income.

... But I support policies that heavily discourage private landlords. I support policies that will damage house price rises (already an issue for me even without the theoretical landlording).
I support heavy investment in social housing.
All things that are directly harmful to landlords.... But which I believe are the right thing to do.

Oh sure. There's a bit of an aspect of self interest in my unstable wealth and what if things go wrong (I'm working class remember you're always one slip away from doom), and then there's self interest in a more equal country being a more pleasant place for everyone.
But this not the direct self interest of having my fingers in the pie (as far right always insist) or somehow looking good and getting laid/jobs/whatever for supporting these things.

Look, people may hold views you don't like.  Views that you find objectionable.  They are still your fellow citizens, and you still need to work with them.  It's possible to give them some of what they want without tainting yourself.  Conceding to some restrictions on immigration now would be better than facing a landslide defeat and having all immigration banned in the future.  Simply writing them off as "far-right" or dismissing their views as really being about something else isn't helpful.

Except we weren't talking about sensible immigration policies. We were talking about banning all immigration.
Far right isn't an insult. It's a pretty accurate descriptor of such a  populist policy.
Sensible workable immigration policies would actually be one thing researching what these people really want would likely throw up- but the bother with making your campaign all about that is you're up against the nutter with the populist ban em all.
This is where figuring out appeals beyond immigration in order to tackle anti immigration feeling is so important for the left and centre.

Reality must be faced. There absolutely are some people who the left and centre are never going to win around.
Same too for the right and centre.
The key is those who do not have such strong affiliations and winning them around. Swaying them away from the simple answers to complex problems and offering them a genuine believable alternative.

I never once said we should dismiss their views. That's literally the opposite of what I said. I said we should try to understand their views. Understand why they've come to the conclusions they have. Dig deeper than the surface.

To go off this topic and  loop right back to the original point a big problem of the dems is that their policies are too centrist/right leaning whilst the perception of them is too left wing (in ways that will annoy a lot of people but won't actually win many people around)
There's a big disconnect here.
And I say the optimum solution lies not in turning to hate and competing against maga on that front, but rather in offering something more practical and making sure the message of what they're about matches this.

[Razgovory]

Nobody has brought up banning all immigration but you, I don't think even Trump is proposing that.  Maybe it's a UK thing, but it's not on the table in the US.

Question:  Would it be appropriate for a person from the far-right to have your job?  To do the research you do?

[Josquius]

Nobody has brought up banning all immigration but you, I don't think even Trump is proposing that.  Maybe it's a UK thing, but it's not on the table in the US.

Theoreticals usually work best if you make them extreme. Helps to have a element of "ok so we all agree this is bad right". The reality is of course more subtle.
I would expect there are some out there who actually say they want this though. I've definitely ran into them in Britain.

Question:  Would it be appropriate for a person from the far-right to have your job?  To do the research you do?

Depends how good they are at self control.
I have definitely on more than one occasion ran into people with unsavoury views and successfully held my tongue.
It's part of the job.

[Sheilbh]

So the thing about the points system (at least in Canada) - is that's not how most people come into the country.

I have no real objection to the existing points system.  It seems perfectly valid.

How most immigrants come to Canada however is through either a temporary foreign worker visa, a student visa, or family re-unification.

Putting aside family re-unification, if you are resident in Canada for the specified amount of time (through a TFW visa or student visa) you're eligible to apply to permanent residence.  Once you've then had PR status for long enough you're entitled to citizenship (although for some/many getting PR status is good enough).

Very similar here - so it's not truly Aussie style as it is linked to a skilled worker visa. But it applies for five years and after five years you can apply for indefinite leave to remain (which sounds like permanent resident - basically you become a British resident). After a year of ILR (assuming you've had 5 years of residency including on the skilled worker) you can become a citizen (subject to some tests etc). Johnson's big reforms were basically a massive liberalisation of that system such that about 50% of the labour market would basically be eligible for skilled workers (and he removed the pre-Brexit requirement to basically say there were no qualified workers within the EU).

The other categories are similar. Students have a slightly different route, but again Johnson increased the amount of time they can stay in the UK and work before getting a skilled worker visa. Then, as you say, there's family reunification. Plus in the UK Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghan resettlement routes which are varied (and practically very difficult for Afghans) but uncapped. As I say the challenge is the public object to immigration in the abstract - when questioned about each of those groups, especially broken down by types of worker, I think the only people the British public actually reject are bankers

Similarly here ILR is often enough for many people - they have a right to reside, broadly they have recourse to public funds (entitled to benefits) and (if they're Commonwealth citizens) can vote.

There is a separate temporary worker route but that is really very temporary/seasonal work.

[HVC]

Easiest fix is to break the student visa to PR link. Can use student visa to add some points to the point system if necessary (school lobbying, they make a lot of money), but not enough points to automatically qualify. Will actually help drive students to useful studies(as deemed by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship ). Theres only so many immigrant IT and hospitality students we need.

[Razgovory]

Nobody has brought up banning all immigration but you, I don't think even Trump is proposing that.  Maybe it's a UK thing, but it's not on the table in the US.

Theoreticals usually work best if you make them extreme. Helps to have a element of "ok so we all agree this is bad right". The reality is of course more subtle.
I would expect there are some out there who actually say they want this though. I've definitely ran into them in Britain.

Question:  Would it be appropriate for a person from the far-right to have your job?  To do the research you do?

Depends how good they are at self control.
I have definitely on more than one occasion ran into people with unsavoury views and successfully held my tongue.
It's part of the job.

Do theoretical work best if you use extremes?  I don't think they do.  The other extreme is to let anyone into the country at anytime no matter what.  I don't think that many people hold that opinion.  Does that theoretical help much?  Not that I can see.

This is about what the Democratic party should do.  I will note that the Labor party shifted to the right when Corbyn lost and has since won.  The Democrats lost big, and to a convicted criminal.  We need to rethink how we do things.  It might surprise you, but I think the Dems need to move left on some issues, the economic ones.

For as long as I can remember Dems have pushed an idea that education will lift up minorities, the working class and the poor.  In practice you can't pull everyone up into good job through education.  There are only so many positions and not everyone is really good at school. We can't all be gifted.  So we lift up a few people into a comfortable life style but leave the rest to rot.  Not being bright is not a good enough reason to live in poverty.

Instead, our goal should be to lift up the working class and poor as a whole to a better standard of living.  Maybe we should look into the stuff Bernie Sanders is saying.  What we are doing now isn't working.

[Syt]

Well, this is a thread I regret starting.