Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not! VOL 2

[B'stard Child]

///ajd said:

B'stard Child said:

That ship sailed on the 24th June

There was an opportunity to discuss and examine all those things before a binary vote - unfortunately in many areas concern was ridiculed and people got shouted down called racist, xenophobic, little Englanders and what was it again from DC "quitters"

Terribly damaging for debate..... I am waiting for you to recognise that - I fear it may take some time

I see it slightly differently

You may recall Ihave tried to debate the actual impacts of immigration to inform a debate, but all too often the other party screams "you are calling me racist!" before actually having any debate.

Really - that's why perspective is always interesting - I did raise some of my concerns regarding the effects of immigration in my local area - how did that discussion go between us??

///ajd said:

When are we going to start talking, and not insulting?

Oh I don't know - maybe when the two parties actually start to recognise they are both being listened too.... Maybe - Who knows.....

Can you think of any reasons why you would have voted leave rather than remain?

The insults - yeah pointless please stop and I'm sure others will too

///ajd said:

I remain ready to debate whether immigration control is a bigger issue than trading access during the forthcoming debate on what sort of brexit we need.

Wasn't on the ballot paper, both sides lied, so need for a fresh debate.

I have said on many occasions I have 273 reasons to leave none of them relate to immigration - none of them are racist or xenophobic at all.....

I've posted 6 so far - not a single one has been quoted & dissected/debunked and proved to be false

I'm not alone I'm sure of it

[jjlynn27]

Ridgemont said:

don'tbesilly said:

The scared people....

What are they scared of do you think?
You say it's easily, can you say how or why it's easy.

He means that people scared of immigrants voted leave because of posters. I wonder how he gets his head around a lead for leave probably since 2007. and probably caused by the signing of Lisbon as both Tim Shipman and Craig Oliver acknowledge in their Brexit books..

If someone spends £7.5mil of his own money, engaging 'merikens PR company, does polling to determine where to put most of his money, and after the referendum comes with the 'immigration was the biggest issue by country mile' I'd say he knows what he's talking about. What lead since 2007, what are you on about?

There was absolutely no reason, that I can see, for Banks to make things up.

[Stickyfinger]

///ajd said:

B'stard Child said:

That ship sailed on the 24th June

There was an opportunity to discuss and examine all those things before a binary vote - unfortunately in many areas concern was ridiculed and people got shouted down called racist, xenophobic, little Englanders and what was it again from DC "quitters"

Terribly damaging for debate..... I am waiting for you to recognise that - I fear it may take some time

I see it slightly differently

You may recall Ihave tried to debate the actual impacts of immigration to inform a debate, but all too often the other party screams "you are calling me racist!" before actually having any debate.

When are we going to start talking, and not insulting?

I remain ready to debate whether immigration control is a bigger issue than trading access during the forthcoming debate on what sort of brexit we need.

Wasn't on the ballot paper, both sides lied, so need for a fresh debate.

The above is a little rich considering what you post and how you edit others posts in the quotes you use....

[technodup]

///ajd said:

When it comes to immigration - it is true there needs to be a debate.

No there doesn't. We've been debating immigration endlessly since Blair's time ffs.

The fact that one side didn't listen to the other gave rise to UKIP.
Which in turn caused Cameron to call a referendum.
Where a majority voted for the option which would in theory allow us to control our borders.

It's surely common sense to accept those we need and reject those we don't. What more is there to debate?

[alfie2244]

///ajd said:

I see it slightly differently

You may recall Ihave tried to debate the actual impacts of immigration to inform a debate, but all too often the other party screams "you are calling me racist!" before actually having any debate.

When are we going to start talking, and not insulting?

I remain ready to debate whether immigration control is a bigger issue than trading access during the forthcoming debate on what sort of brexit we need.

Wasn't on the ballot paper, both sides lied, so need for a fresh debate.

You Pinocchio you.

[Troubleatmill]

technodup said:

It's surely common sense to accept those we need and reject those we don't. What more is there to debate?

You know - you might be onto something.....Do you think other countries have considered adopting such a wacky idea?

[AstonZagato]

The trouble is that one can choose to change almost any issue

For instance, earlier in the thread, the Ashcroft pool stated that nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”.
One can choose to see that as polite code for, we have to control our borders - and therefore it becomes an immigration issue again. Or you can choose to take it at face value and see it as indeed a sovereignty issue.

Or one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Code for worried about immigration from Turkey or the increase in undemocratic power grabs from Bussells?

Banks may be taking the former interpretation.

[JagLover]

AstonZagato said:

The trouble is that one can choose to change almost any issue

For instance, earlier in the thread, the Ashcroft pool stated that nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”.
One can choose to see that as polite code for, we have to control our borders - and therefore it becomes an immigration issue again. Or you can choose to take it at face value and see it as indeed a sovereignty issue.

Or one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Code for worried about immigration from Turkey or the increase in undemocratic power grabs from Bussells?

Banks may be taking the former interpretation.

You cant really separate it.

Sovereignty has many aspects. One important aspect of which is the right to decide who lives in a country and what benefits and public services they are entitled to.

[JagLover]

The Don of Croy said:

I watched the first two questions and though the audience were very good - prepared to put a point across and refreshingly backed by other members too.

I clocked off when LP just got going with her "...because racism..." in her opening remarks.

She needs to read the piece in yesterdays Grauniad by Simon Jenkins - why identity politics has hacked off too many people by backing the wrong horse;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec...

Well worth a read

[Smollet]

Northern Munkee said:

WTF is BBC This Week putting this buffoon on for, a party political broadcast for the people's republic of Islington and Liverpool 'great Labour working class heroes like Jamie Carragher'?

He struck me as a complete tt. So some footballer supports something he supports. Are we all supposed to be in awe of this.

[don'tbesilly]

JagLover said:

The Don of Croy said:

I watched the first two questions and though the audience were very good - prepared to put a point across and refreshingly backed by other members too.

I clocked off when LP just got going with her "...because racism..." in her opening remarks.

She needs to read the piece in yesterdays Grauniad by Simon Jenkins - why identity politics has hacked off too many people by backing the wrong horse;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec...

Well worth a read

It was, thanks for drawing attention to the article,the Johnathan Pie YouTube video (on Trump) was along similar lines

[B'stard Child]

don'tbesilly said:

JagLover said:

The Don of Croy said:

I watched the first two questions and though the audience were very good - prepared to put a point across and refreshingly backed by other members too.

I clocked off when LP just got going with her "...because racism..." in her opening remarks.

She needs to read the piece in yesterdays Grauniad by Simon Jenkins - why identity politics has hacked off too many people by backing the wrong horse;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec...

Well worth a read

It was, thanks for drawing attention to the article,the Johnathan Pie YouTube video (on Trump) was along similar lines

I make a rule to not click on Maily Dail or Grauniad links - you are indicating I should make an exception for this one

[don'tbesilly]

B'stard Child said:

don'tbesilly said:

JagLover said:

The Don of Croy said:

I watched the first two questions and though the audience were very good - prepared to put a point across and refreshingly backed by other members too.

I clocked off when LP just got going with her "...because racism..." in her opening remarks.

She needs to read the piece in yesterdays Grauniad by Simon Jenkins - why identity politics has hacked off too many people by backing the wrong horse;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec...

Well worth a read

It was, thanks for drawing attention to the article,the Johnathan Pie YouTube video (on Trump) was along similar lines

I make a rule to not click on Maily Dail or Grauniad links - you are indicating I should make an exception for this one

Ordinarily I would agree with you, I made that leap,the exception, and was surprised,it was refreshing

[B'stard Child]

Simon Jenkins said:

British liberals, of whatever party, have spent the past six months fleeing one trauma after another, hurling insults over their shoulders. But as John Stuart Mill said: “He who knows only his own side of a case, knows little of that.”

The apostles of identity liberalism have fallen into Mill’s trap. They see authoritarianism in others, but not in themselves. They see discrimination in others, but not their own. In guarding their chosen tribes, they fail democracy’s ultimate test, of tolerance for the concerns of those with whom they disagree. Someone else is always to blame.

Such tunnel vision has jeopardised the progress made by the cause of European liberalism over the past half-century. It has been given a bloody nose, and there are more on the way.

Well well well - It was worth reading - In fact Good Lord - if they start writing commentary like that I might have to reconsider my veto of Guardian Links

I'm very sure my Daily Mail Veto will never be dropped

[Halb]

John145 said:

I don't get why polls are even considered with any seriousness; they are wrong, consistently wrong and useless for any kind of planning or engagement.

[Halb]

Nice chat with Daniel Kawczynski on th DP tpday, and some utter balloon of a neocon propagandist as well.

[Thorodin]

Saw that. His refusal to allow his 'opponent' the right of reply to his low-key hysteria was just rude. He has made an art form out of his unsubtle thinly veiled contempt for lesser beings. Another blessing and boost for the leavers from the remainder side.

[SunsetZed]

///ajd said:

His point was about foreign languages being spoken between foreign parents.

He was asked how that upset him. He gave an answer that suggested he was just intolerant of it, because.

Do people speaking foreign languages wind you up?

Bit late to this party having only just watched the episode but I thought he answered it perfectly. It's the divisions along cultural lines in his classroom which he believes stems from this, I would have been interested to see her reply to that.

For me personally this was a really interesting point for me seeing as I believe there is too much unskilled immigration but I have no problem with people speaking in their own languages and passing on their heritage to their children in a foreign country. That said I also think that they should try to integrate into society here and should learn English as well, a balance I believe is perfect ably possible and reasonable to attain and which I see in friends of mine who were born abroad.

Andy Zarse said:

That wasn't his point and you bloody well know it. He was talking about the cohesiveness of society.

That's how I read it as well.

alock said:

There is a massive difference in a class room between everyone speaking English in different accents, and everyone speaking a different language.

To answer your question, I do have a problem if a teacher cannot do their job to a satisfactory level due to being unable to communicate with some children in their class.

Also agree with that, it's a big issue if the children can't speak English to a good level similar to that with their peers as it impacts the ability of the teaching staff to spend similar amounts of time with each pupil.

[SunsetZed]

williamp said:

768 said:

///ajd said:

Did he say in Wakefield? Well it is reasonable to assume he is from the area and 95% are the local stats. So assuming in his area the immigrant levels are 5%, is this likely to be the cause of him not being able to get a doctors appointment?

I haven't seen this yet, but from a straightforward perspective (putting aside budgets, local availability of doctors, etc) that if you had a 5% smaller population he probably would be able to get an appointment, yes I suspect it is likely.

5% more of anything could be very noicable: road at 97% capacity, road flows well. Busy but well. An additioal 5% would mean gridlock.
97% capacity in local hospital: busy but everyone can be seen. An additional 5% and it couldnt cope.
School at 97% capacit,y again busy but fine. The aditional 5% means understaffed, classroom sizes too big etc etc
5% additional in pay packet is more then inflation so you've got a payrise.

So yes, 5% **CAN** make all the difference.

Also, and sorry for going back to the languages again, but it's a good example, hypothetically, if none of the 5% spoke English then they would take up a lot more than 5% of the time to work through appointments at a doctors surgery all the way through the booking, then the diagnosis and any treatment.

[anonymous-user]

Question Time panel for 8th December 2016

Dr Sarah Wollaston from the Conservatives
Richard Burgon from Labour
Louise Mensch
Nigel Farage from UKIP
Will Self from DrugsrUs