Just to say, I might have been wrong about Uncharted 4. It's not my kind of thing at the moment but it does look like it's going to be really good in its genre. I think the graphics look good, too.
I'm looking forward to the Brand/Farage Question Time Extravaganza myself.
But really, immigration is a fun issue to talk about. The "i-word" makes people absurdly nervous of the taboo because they are desperately afraid of appearing to be the "r-word." So it's got to the stage where anybody who brings up the i-word is most certainly an r-word and so only r-words would be concerned with it.
It's also really common that people absolutely fail to distinguish between different kinds of migration. Legal migration of skilled/unskilled labour, illegal migration and asylum are different things that should be treated differently. If a person is fleeing genuine persecution then yes, we should help shelter them, for example, when Idi Amin expelled Asians from Uganda in 1972 we were right to help.
Legal immigration is a mixed bag. Of course skilled labour is highly valuable, especially health workers. Nobody wants less doctors. You occasionally hear that argument that doctors and nurses and other professionals from developing countries should stay where they are and help their fellow countrymen, that's its unfair for Britain to hoover up foreign talent. I see the logic in that, but I'm always suspicious that the argument is being used as a cover for prejudice.
When it comes to un-skilled labour you get the other argument, that the unemployed in this country are too lazy to do those jobs so we need migrants there. I'm really not fond of sweeping generalizations when it comes to millions of people.
Essentially my stance on the subject is this: I wish people saw it more as a numbers issue and left the emotion at the door. But at the same time, statistics are used by all sides to persuade the public one way or another. I want to see a set of reliable, agenda-free reports that give us the hard maths on a few things. Like how much wealth immigrants bring to the country, whether current trends are sustainable etc. I feel like that's not something that's ever going to happen though. Every face in the debate has a study they can refer to which supports their argument. And of course you can't trust a politician not to omit or misconstrue figures, nor you can you 100% trust that the study is unbiased or reliable.
-
This has taken far too long. Turns out I'm more self conscious about potentially "getting it wrong" than I thought. Sorry if I was a tease and had people waiting for my post.
I feel that the numbers argument might be a bit of a smokescreen, to be honest. My impression is that the complaint some people have is more relating to the "visible effects" of immigration; the sense that areas become relatively ghettoised in the sense of only containing one ethnic group that supposedly fails to integrate. It's not really about numbers, it's about the number of "ethnic restaurants", the number of Arabic signs or the number of polish delis.
I don't have a solution (not sure there is one), but in my gut I feel that the immigration debate is just hot air. I believe we've ended up navel-gazing; saying "oh no, the system is overloaded because of foreigners!", instead of "how can we improve a system that has been shitty for an awfully long time?".
I don't really want to give any more space on the internet to the nutters that live at the fringes of immigrant communities (including my own), so I won't - apart from saying they're a tiny sideshow being used by some rather manipulative people for their own ends.
Cool, it's a really neat game but for whatever reason I never really got into it. Apparently the pc community is dead now so I uninstalled it.
I just lost a good hour to it (on 360). Yeah, it is good, isn't it? Away from all of the hype (and the full price!) I'm really quite pleased with it. It feels really newbie-friendly (either that or my wasted hours in Destiny PvP have paid off) and I just love any kind of game which runs at such a fast pace.
Rambling post incoming
Business academics tend to speak in a string of acronyms punctuated with conjunctions. They and economists have a very bad habit of being too rigid in their thinking, seeing reason where there is none, trying to objectively analyse far too much... etc. Libertarianism is very common in this area as is a distinct lack of empathy. Obviously I'm generalising!
I have a lot of respect for these two fields (I nick from them all the time) but democracy is best, there is just a severe lack of democratic action by the electorate. People used to riot as a means of expressing political discontent (look up food riots) but politicians are largely unaccountable. I don't think having academics or doctors or whomever in charge will make for better decision-making in the long term. They are as vulnerable to idiocy, corruption, laziness and obliviousness as anyone else.
The lawyers are wonderful of course
Yes, I can understand the absurdity of all of the acronyms. I work in a large firm which practically has its own language. I think there's something to be said for a person's language influencing the way they think or structure arguments; in short, I don't think it's particularly healthy for people to talk in such a way.
I utterly despise politicians, almost as much as The Sun. To hear David Cameron respond to the Archbishop of Canterbury's food bank report by spinning it into all of the things the Conservatives have achieved for "the poor" made my blood boil.
I don't believe academics have the answer, either. Too much theory and not enough life. Doctors and nurses should be guiding the NHS, with facilitators for all of the legal/accountancy/admin stuff. Teachers should be guiding education policy with consultants and facilitators. It's absurd to think that anybody that hasn't worked in a particular field for a decent length of time should be able to tell others that do how they should be.
And don't worry about insulting lawyers. I have no particular loyalty to my profession. We're far too amoral and far too emotionless to be able to comment on anything. Our basic skillset is to spin arguments out of any material and to be able to control how much information we put across (i.e. 1% information per 100,000 words). It's effectively being an analytical robot. Sometimes I genuinely enjoy it - I work in the most black-letter law area there is and it's fun to actually have to apply every ounce of my brain to a particular problem. But it's necessarily completely disconnected from everything that, to my mind, makes a human being a human being.