FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Tory MP Dan Poulter defecs to Labour
Tory MP Dan Poulter defecs to Labour
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"This has annoyed me. It's not like something has happened in the last few months to trigger this. He's watched Rome burn and he's thrown a token bucket of water as he leaves to live elsewhere. " agree  | |||
| |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? " Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. " Yip red and blue tories | |||
 | |||
"This has annoyed me. It's not like something has happened in the last few months to trigger this. He's watched Rome burn and he's thrown a token bucket of water as he leaves to live elsewhere. " It's happened before and it's very irritating - especially for the local constituents who voted in a Tory MP, not a Labourite. It's usually treachery and dishonesty in an absurd manner and utterly selfish. Most reasonable people see straight through it. It's like those grossly, and sometimes violently, homophobic migrants, who pretend to be gay to simply benefit themselves. If a cock came within a metre of them, it'd be yanked off rather than wanked off, but we're all expected to go along with it. And, as always, the small minority of genuinely gay migrants suffer. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. " 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? " Their policies. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? " Simple act of self preservation. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Simple act of self preservation." That's my take on it as well. He obviously wants to carry on being an MP but knows he has no chance with the Tories so jumps to the party he knows will win. | |||
| |||
"This has annoyed me. It's not like something has happened in the last few months to trigger this. He's watched Rome burn and he's thrown a token bucket of water as he leaves to live elsewhere. It's happened before and it's very irritating - especially for the local constituents who voted in a Tory MP, not a Labourite. It's usually treachery and dishonesty in an absurd manner and utterly selfish. Most reasonable people see straight through it. It's like those grossly, and sometimes violently, homophobic migrants, who pretend to be gay to simply benefit themselves. If a cock came within a metre of them, it'd be yanked off rather than wanked off, but we're all expected to go along with it. And, as always, the small minority of genuinely gay migrants suffer. " Can you clarify how your bizarre anti-immigrant rant is related to your point about defecting from one party to another as a sitting MP? | |||
"This has annoyed me. It's not like something has happened in the last few months to trigger this. He's watched Rome burn and he's thrown a token bucket of water as he leaves to live elsewhere. " This - and when you are nothing in your own party - by defecting you get the delusional idea that you can become something in another. What they don't realize is that except for the immediate publicity opportunities it creates, they suddenly realize that now they have to perform even better than the underperformance in the party they just left. | |||
"This has annoyed me. It's not like something has happened in the last few months to trigger this. He's watched Rome burn and he's thrown a token bucket of water as he leaves to live elsewhere. This - and when you are nothing in your own party - by defecting you get the delusional idea that you can become something in another. What they don't realize is that except for the immediate publicity opportunities it creates, they suddenly realize that now they have to perform even better than the underperformance in the party they just left. " | |||
"He isn't standing for re-election. The motive is a tad unclear and he'll never be truly welcomed. He will be loathed by his former colleagues and won't really be particularly liked by Labour members. Though he could be getting moved upstairs but he is only 45. " It's a weird move. His voting record is fairly standard Tory. So presumably it's for some kind of publicity. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"He isn't standing for re-election. The motive is a tad unclear and he'll never be truly welcomed. He will be loathed by his former colleagues and won't really be particularly liked by Labour members. Though he could be getting moved upstairs but he is only 45. " Boris’s daughter *cough* I mean person who has done immense amounts to benefit the nation, was only 27 when she was elevated to the Lords. | |||
"This has annoyed me. It's not like something has happened in the last few months to trigger this. He's watched Rome burn and he's thrown a token bucket of water as he leaves to live elsewhere. It's happened before and it's very irritating - especially for the local constituents who voted in a Tory MP, not a Labourite. It's usually treachery and dishonesty in an absurd manner and utterly selfish. Most reasonable people see straight through it. It's like those grossly, and sometimes violently, homophobic migrants, who pretend to be gay to simply benefit themselves. If a cock came within a metre of them, it'd be yanked off rather than wanked off, but we're all expected to go along with it. And, as always, the small minority of genuinely gay migrants suffer. Can you clarify how your bizarre anti-immigrant rant is related to your point about defecting from one party to another as a sitting MP?" It wasn't an anti-immigrant rant. It was an analogy about how deceptive some people can be. Pretending to be Labour when you're a Tory. I actually mentioned how hard the fakers make it for genuinely gay migrants who deserve refuge! | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies." Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? | |||
"This has annoyed me. It's not like something has happened in the last few months to trigger this. He's watched Rome burn and he's thrown a token bucket of water as he leaves to live elsewhere. It's happened before and it's very irritating - especially for the local constituents who voted in a Tory MP, not a Labourite. It's usually treachery and dishonesty in an absurd manner and utterly selfish. Most reasonable people see straight through it. It's like those grossly, and sometimes violently, homophobic migrants, who pretend to be gay to simply benefit themselves. If a cock came within a metre of them, it'd be yanked off rather than wanked off, but we're all expected to go along with it. And, as always, the small minority of genuinely gay migrants suffer. Can you clarify how your bizarre anti-immigrant rant is related to your point about defecting from one party to another as a sitting MP? It wasn't an anti-immigrant rant. It was an analogy about how deceptive some people can be. Pretending to be Labour when you're a Tory. I actually mentioned how hard the fakers make it for genuinely gay migrants who deserve refuge! " Got you. Thanks. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? " Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. | |||
"This has annoyed me. It's not like something has happened in the last few months to trigger this. He's watched Rome burn and he's thrown a token bucket of water as he leaves to live elsewhere. It's happened before and it's very irritating - especially for the local constituents who voted in a Tory MP, not a Labourite. It's usually treachery and dishonesty in an absurd manner and utterly selfish. Most reasonable people see straight through it. It's like those grossly, and sometimes violently, homophobic migrants, who pretend to be gay to simply benefit themselves. If a cock came within a metre of them, it'd be yanked off rather than wanked off, but we're all expected to go along with it. And, as always, the small minority of genuinely gay migrants suffer. Can you clarify how your bizarre anti-immigrant rant is related to your point about defecting from one party to another as a sitting MP? It wasn't an anti-immigrant rant. It was an analogy about how deceptive some people can be. Pretending to be Labour when you're a Tory. I actually mentioned how hard the fakers make it for genuinely gay migrants who deserve refuge! Got you. Thanks. "You're welcome  | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. " 1 is just your opinion I think. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. " No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. " I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. " Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. " 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. " All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. " 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. " Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. " The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. | |||
| |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. " we've had net immigration of almost a million. The Tory have done very little to get that to the tens of thousands. And they've had a majority for many years. We are where we are today because of the Tories not because of a blob. Have your lower immigration beliefs by all means. But don't be fooled into thinking the Tories are aligned with them. And demand any party who does claim they can get tons low number to show their workings. As it will take investment in training. And it will take things like having care work undertaken by the unskilled unemployed at least until we make the profession attractive. I'd love that to get there. I'm low immigration at heart. But my head says it's needs a lot more work than anyone I'd admitting and as such whether you are really low immigration or paying lip service, it's the same result. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. " So after all those random assumptions, ranting and confusion about "left wing blob" you agreed with me that the country needs immigration. Fantastic work. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. So after all those random assumptions, ranting and confusion about "left wing blob" you agreed with me that the country needs immigration. Fantastic work. " Thank you. I never disagreed with you that we need immigration. Just not three quarters of a million immigrating every year. I'd like to see it at 50,000 or less each year, smartly executed with above average skilled people coming in where there are skilled jobs shortages. What about your ideas of workable numbers that are feasible for a small island? I'm not confused about the left wing blob. The 2019 Tory victory was a collective attempt by the British people to realign their country’s politics. It now feels as if the electorate pulled the lever of a general election only to find that the machine of democracy was already tilted against them. So little changed. Democracy feels skin-deep, because ministers have little control over which civil servants work for them or which Judges decide on appeal after appeal in immigration cases brought by lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse. Most reasonable people know full well that civil servants will delay the Rwanda plans until the election. There is a sort of metropolitan liberal elite that is running amok and must be brought down to reality. These people are here to serve, not lead the United Kingdom. What the UK needs is a populist moment, aimed not at the remote, grey-suited bureaucrats who once ruled us from Brussels, but at the homegrown, swamplike lefties who dictate ever more of our national life from Westminster. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. So after all those random assumptions, ranting and confusion about "left wing blob" you agreed with me that the country needs immigration. Fantastic work. Thank you. I never disagreed with you that we need immigration. Just not three quarters of a million immigrating every year. I'd like to see it at 50,000 or less each year, smartly executed with above average skilled people coming in where there are skilled jobs shortages. What about your ideas of workable numbers that are feasible for a small island? I'm not confused about the left wing blob. The 2019 Tory victory was a collective attempt by the British people to realign their country’s politics. It now feels as if the electorate pulled the lever of a general election only to find that the machine of democracy was already tilted against them. So little changed. Democracy feels skin-deep, because ministers have little control over which civil servants work for them or which Judges decide on appeal after appeal in immigration cases brought by lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse. Most reasonable people know full well that civil servants will delay the Rwanda plans until the election. There is a sort of metropolitan liberal elite that is running amok and must be brought down to reality. These people are here to serve, not lead the United Kingdom. What the UK needs is a populist moment, aimed not at the remote, grey-suited bureaucrats who once ruled us from Brussels, but at the homegrown, swamplike lefties who dictate ever more of our national life from Westminster. " 50,000? That doesn't cover what the NHS or social care needs  .
Those twats in power would rather import nurses and doctors than train our own and keep them | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. So after all those random assumptions, ranting and confusion about "left wing blob" you agreed with me that the country needs immigration. Fantastic work. Thank you. I never disagreed with you that we need immigration. Just not three quarters of a million immigrating every year. I'd like to see it at 50,000 or less each year, smartly executed with above average skilled people coming in where there are skilled jobs shortages. What about your ideas of workable numbers that are feasible for a small island? I'm not confused about the left wing blob. The 2019 Tory victory was a collective attempt by the British people to realign their country’s politics. It now feels as if the electorate pulled the lever of a general election only to find that the machine of democracy was already tilted against them. So little changed. Democracy feels skin-deep, because ministers have little control over which civil servants work for them or which Judges decide on appeal after appeal in immigration cases brought by lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse. Most reasonable people know full well that civil servants will delay the Rwanda plans until the election. There is a sort of metropolitan liberal elite that is running amok and must be brought down to reality. These people are here to serve, not lead the United Kingdom. What the UK needs is a populist moment, aimed not at the remote, grey-suited bureaucrats who once ruled us from Brussels, but at the homegrown, swamplike lefties who dictate ever more of our national life from Westminster. " the vast majority of immigration isn't asylum cases and the like. The vast majority's of immigration doesn't touch judges. If we got rid of all asylum cards tomorrow we'd still have three quarters of a million net migration. The right wing blob are pushing through higher and higher migration unabaited. It's a basic magic trick. You're looking at the wrong hand. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. So after all those random assumptions, ranting and confusion about "left wing blob" you agreed with me that the country needs immigration. Fantastic work. Thank you. I never disagreed with you that we need immigration. Just not three quarters of a million immigrating every year. I'd like to see it at 50,000 or less each year, smartly executed with above average skilled people coming in where there are skilled jobs shortages. What about your ideas of workable numbers that are feasible for a small island? I'm not confused about the left wing blob. The 2019 Tory victory was a collective attempt by the British people to realign their country’s politics. It now feels as if the electorate pulled the lever of a general election only to find that the machine of democracy was already tilted against them. So little changed. Democracy feels skin-deep, because ministers have little control over which civil servants work for them or which Judges decide on appeal after appeal in immigration cases brought by lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse. Most reasonable people know full well that civil servants will delay the Rwanda plans until the election. There is a sort of metropolitan liberal elite that is running amok and must be brought down to reality. These people are here to serve, not lead the United Kingdom. What the UK needs is a populist moment, aimed not at the remote, grey-suited bureaucrats who once ruled us from Brussels, but at the homegrown, swamplike lefties who dictate ever more of our national life from Westminster. the vast majority of immigration isn't asylum cases and the like. The vast majority's of immigration doesn't touch judges. If we got rid of all asylum cards tomorrow we'd still have three quarters of a million net migration. The right wing blob are pushing through higher and higher migration unabaited. It's a basic magic trick. You're looking at the wrong hand. " Legal immigration is another matter. The crossings are illegal, and operated by criminal gangs. How can we condone that? Apart from which, bogus asylum claims will disadvantage genuine asylum claimants by blocking-up the system and souring public opinion. | |||
| |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. So after all those random assumptions, ranting and confusion about "left wing blob" you agreed with me that the country needs immigration. Fantastic work. Thank you. I never disagreed with you that we need immigration. Just not three quarters of a million immigrating every year. I'd like to see it at 50,000 or less each year, smartly executed with above average skilled people coming in where there are skilled jobs shortages. What about your ideas of workable numbers that are feasible for a small island? I'm not confused about the left wing blob. The 2019 Tory victory was a collective attempt by the British people to realign their country’s politics. It now feels as if the electorate pulled the lever of a general election only to find that the machine of democracy was already tilted against them. So little changed. Democracy feels skin-deep, because ministers have little control over which civil servants work for them or which Judges decide on appeal after appeal in immigration cases brought by lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse. Most reasonable people know full well that civil servants will delay the Rwanda plans until the election. There is a sort of metropolitan liberal elite that is running amok and must be brought down to reality. These people are here to serve, not lead the United Kingdom. What the UK needs is a populist moment, aimed not at the remote, grey-suited bureaucrats who once ruled us from Brussels, but at the homegrown, swamplike lefties who dictate ever more of our national life from Westminster. the vast majority of immigration isn't asylum cases and the like. The vast majority's of immigration doesn't touch judges. If we got rid of all asylum cards tomorrow we'd still have three quarters of a million net migration. The right wing blob are pushing through higher and higher migration unabaited. It's a basic magic trick. You're looking at the wrong hand. Legal immigration is another matter. The crossings are illegal, and operated by criminal gangs. How can we condone that? Apart from which, bogus asylum claims will disadvantage genuine asylum claimants by blocking-up the system and souring public opinion." agreed. But if you want to get migration to 50k, you need to look at the legal bit. I was addressing his bigger concerns and pointing out the blob isn't involved in the majority of th 750k. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. So after all those random assumptions, ranting and confusion about "left wing blob" you agreed with me that the country needs immigration. Fantastic work. Thank you. I never disagreed with you that we need immigration. Just not three quarters of a million immigrating every year. I'd like to see it at 50,000 or less each year, smartly executed with above average skilled people coming in where there are skilled jobs shortages. What about your ideas of workable numbers that are feasible for a small island? I'm not confused about the left wing blob. The 2019 Tory victory was a collective attempt by the British people to realign their country’s politics. It now feels as if the electorate pulled the lever of a general election only to find that the machine of democracy was already tilted against them. So little changed. Democracy feels skin-deep, because ministers have little control over which civil servants work for them or which Judges decide on appeal after appeal in immigration cases brought by lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse. Most reasonable people know full well that civil servants will delay the Rwanda plans until the election. There is a sort of metropolitan liberal elite that is running amok and must be brought down to reality. These people are here to serve, not lead the United Kingdom. What the UK needs is a populist moment, aimed not at the remote, grey-suited bureaucrats who once ruled us from Brussels, but at the homegrown, swamplike lefties who dictate ever more of our national life from Westminster. "  | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. So after all those random assumptions, ranting and confusion about "left wing blob" you agreed with me that the country needs immigration. Fantastic work. Thank you. I never disagreed with you that we need immigration. Just not three quarters of a million immigrating every year. I'd like to see it at 50,000 or less each year, smartly executed with above average skilled people coming in where there are skilled jobs shortages. What about your ideas of workable numbers that are feasible for a small island? I'm not confused about the left wing blob. The 2019 Tory victory was a collective attempt by the British people to realign their country’s politics. It now feels as if the electorate pulled the lever of a general election only to find that the machine of democracy was already tilted against them. So little changed. Democracy feels skin-deep, because ministers have little control over which civil servants work for them or which Judges decide on appeal after appeal in immigration cases brought by lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse. Most reasonable people know full well that civil servants will delay the Rwanda plans until the election. There is a sort of metropolitan liberal elite that is running amok and must be brought down to reality. These people are here to serve, not lead the United Kingdom. What the UK needs is a populist moment, aimed not at the remote, grey-suited bureaucrats who once ruled us from Brussels, but at the homegrown, swamplike lefties who dictate ever more of our national life from Westminster. " Have you ever been to London? The conviction with which you seem to be spouting all these stories about swamp like lefties and Brussels bureaucrats suggests to me that maybe you have never got further than the politics section of the Daily Mail or a reform party flyer (or both!). You do know that life is so much more nuanced and complex than your sound bites imply don’t you? I do think that if we are ever to make the UK a better place then we really do need to avoid this empty posturing and try to communicate in a less pejorative and more respectful manner?  | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. So after all those random assumptions, ranting and confusion about "left wing blob" you agreed with me that the country needs immigration. Fantastic work. Thank you. I never disagreed with you that we need immigration. Just not three quarters of a million immigrating every year. I'd like to see it at 50,000 or less each year, smartly executed with above average skilled people coming in where there are skilled jobs shortages. What about your ideas of workable numbers that are feasible for a small island? I'm not confused about the left wing blob. The 2019 Tory victory was a collective attempt by the British people to realign their country’s politics. It now feels as if the electorate pulled the lever of a general election only to find that the machine of democracy was already tilted against them. So little changed. Democracy feels skin-deep, because ministers have little control over which civil servants work for them or which Judges decide on appeal after appeal in immigration cases brought by lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse. Most reasonable people know full well that civil servants will delay the Rwanda plans until the election. There is a sort of metropolitan liberal elite that is running amok and must be brought down to reality. These people are here to serve, not lead the United Kingdom. What the UK needs is a populist moment, aimed not at the remote, grey-suited bureaucrats who once ruled us from Brussels, but at the homegrown, swamplike lefties who dictate ever more of our national life from Westminster. " . Well said. However I would like to see nil immigration. We are simply importing a future problem. Cheap foreign labour removes the need to mechanise and be efficient. Immigrants eventually become old and we have to care for them in old age . Consequently immigration provides no long term benefit to the country. House prices have risen 15 % due to immigration. The country has made many short sighted decisions . The pressure on schools and the NHS is unsustainable. We have to face reality. | |||
| |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. So after all those random assumptions, ranting and confusion about "left wing blob" you agreed with me that the country needs immigration. Fantastic work. Thank you. I never disagreed with you that we need immigration. Just not three quarters of a million immigrating every year. I'd like to see it at 50,000 or less each year, smartly executed with above average skilled people coming in where there are skilled jobs shortages. What about your ideas of workable numbers that are feasible for a small island? I'm not confused about the left wing blob. The 2019 Tory victory was a collective attempt by the British people to realign their country’s politics. It now feels as if the electorate pulled the lever of a general election only to find that the machine of democracy was already tilted against them. So little changed. Democracy feels skin-deep, because ministers have little control over which civil servants work for them or which Judges decide on appeal after appeal in immigration cases brought by lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse. Most reasonable people know full well that civil servants will delay the Rwanda plans until the election. There is a sort of metropolitan liberal elite that is running amok and must be brought down to reality. These people are here to serve, not lead the United Kingdom. What the UK needs is a populist moment, aimed not at the remote, grey-suited bureaucrats who once ruled us from Brussels, but at the homegrown, swamplike lefties who dictate ever more of our national life from Westminster. . Well said. However I would like to see nil immigration. We are simply importing a future problem. Cheap foreign labour removes the need to mechanise and be efficient. Immigrants eventually become old and we have to care for them in old age . Consequently immigration provides no long term benefit to the country. House prices have risen 15 % due to immigration. The country has made many short sighted decisions . The pressure on schools and the NHS is unsustainable. We have to face reality. " Savage. Will not Tory voters stand up to Pat's ridicule? | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. So after all those random assumptions, ranting and confusion about "left wing blob" you agreed with me that the country needs immigration. Fantastic work. Thank you. I never disagreed with you that we need immigration. Just not three quarters of a million immigrating every year. I'd like to see it at 50,000 or less each year, smartly executed with above average skilled people coming in where there are skilled jobs shortages. What about your ideas of workable numbers that are feasible for a small island? I'm not confused about the left wing blob. The 2019 Tory victory was a collective attempt by the British people to realign their country’s politics. It now feels as if the electorate pulled the lever of a general election only to find that the machine of democracy was already tilted against them. So little changed. Democracy feels skin-deep, because ministers have little control over which civil servants work for them or which Judges decide on appeal after appeal in immigration cases brought by lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse. Most reasonable people know full well that civil servants will delay the Rwanda plans until the election. There is a sort of metropolitan liberal elite that is running amok and must be brought down to reality. These people are here to serve, not lead the United Kingdom. What the UK needs is a populist moment, aimed not at the remote, grey-suited bureaucrats who once ruled us from Brussels, but at the homegrown, swamplike lefties who dictate ever more of our national life from Westminster. Have you ever been to London? The conviction with which you seem to be spouting all these stories about swamp like lefties and Brussels bureaucrats suggests to me that maybe you have never got further than the politics section of the Daily Mail or a reform party flyer (or both!). You do know that life is so much more nuanced and complex than your sound bites imply don’t you? I do think that if we are ever to make the UK a better place then we really do need to avoid this empty posturing and try to communicate in a less pejorative and more respectful manner? "The man who wants a less pejorative and more respectful approach is immediately hoist with his own petard by suggesting I get my views from Reform party leaflets and have never been to London! Classic! Up here in the North, we should know our place eh? And then you wonder why 17,410,742 people voted Brexit. In this thread, you have opened fire on me about 'empty posturing' and posting 'soundbites'. I've never messaged you, referred to you, been disrespectful to you, I just hold a different view to you on this subject, which I have expressed without bad language and which supports continued immigration. That is still allowed, right? Or do you own the Forum? Why dont you go the whole hog and print the 'R' word? | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. So after all those random assumptions, ranting and confusion about "left wing blob" you agreed with me that the country needs immigration. Fantastic work. Thank you. I never disagreed with you that we need immigration. Just not three quarters of a million immigrating every year. I'd like to see it at 50,000 or less each year, smartly executed with above average skilled people coming in where there are skilled jobs shortages. What about your ideas of workable numbers that are feasible for a small island? I'm not confused about the left wing blob. The 2019 Tory victory was a collective attempt by the British people to realign their country’s politics. It now feels as if the electorate pulled the lever of a general election only to find that the machine of democracy was already tilted against them. So little changed. Democracy feels skin-deep, because ministers have little control over which civil servants work for them or which Judges decide on appeal after appeal in immigration cases brought by lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse. Most reasonable people know full well that civil servants will delay the Rwanda plans until the election. There is a sort of metropolitan liberal elite that is running amok and must be brought down to reality. These people are here to serve, not lead the United Kingdom. What the UK needs is a populist moment, aimed not at the remote, grey-suited bureaucrats who once ruled us from Brussels, but at the homegrown, swamplike lefties who dictate ever more of our national life from Westminster. . Well said. However I would like to see nil immigration. We are simply importing a future problem. Cheap foreign labour removes the need to mechanise and be efficient. Immigrants eventually become old and we have to care for them in old age . Consequently immigration provides no long term benefit to the country. House prices have risen 15 % due to immigration. The country has made many short sighted decisions . The pressure on schools and the NHS is unsustainable. We have to face reality. " This is why I support a smart, low numbers policy on immigration. In the case of no or low skilled immigrants arriving illegally, they are a significant net fiscal drain (cost of rescue at sea, hotel costs, legal aid costs, benefits costs, cost to NHS, education and so on) because they can't work. They then might enter low paid jobs, tax receipts from which will take decades to neutralise the illegal entry costs they landed us with and eventually we have to pay them a full pension. And as you rightly say, they will spend a lifetime putting pressure on public services. You're right, we really have to face this head on, but it hasn't been tackled properly yet because of the left wing blob and Starmer will only enlarge said blob. It's all very unfair on genuine folk, fleeing for instance the Taliban or Putin's atrocities, who are generally net fiscal contributors but who are delayed or even usurped by basically queue jumpers, breaking the law. | |||
 | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. So after all those random assumptions, ranting and confusion about "left wing blob" you agreed with me that the country needs immigration. Fantastic work. Thank you. I never disagreed with you that we need immigration. Just not three quarters of a million immigrating every year. I'd like to see it at 50,000 or less each year, smartly executed with above average skilled people coming in where there are skilled jobs shortages. What about your ideas of workable numbers that are feasible for a small island? I'm not confused about the left wing blob. The 2019 Tory victory was a collective attempt by the British people to realign their country’s politics. It now feels as if the electorate pulled the lever of a general election only to find that the machine of democracy was already tilted against them. So little changed. Democracy feels skin-deep, because ministers have little control over which civil servants work for them or which Judges decide on appeal after appeal in immigration cases brought by lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse. Most reasonable people know full well that civil servants will delay the Rwanda plans until the election. There is a sort of metropolitan liberal elite that is running amok and must be brought down to reality. These people are here to serve, not lead the United Kingdom. What the UK needs is a populist moment, aimed not at the remote, grey-suited bureaucrats who once ruled us from Brussels, but at the homegrown, swamplike lefties who dictate ever more of our national life from Westminster. . Well said. However I would like to see nil immigration. We are simply importing a future problem. Cheap foreign labour removes the need to mechanise and be efficient. Immigrants eventually become old and we have to care for them in old age . Consequently immigration provides no long term benefit to the country. House prices have risen 15 % due to immigration. The country has made many short sighted decisions . The pressure on schools and the NHS is unsustainable. We have to face reality. This is why I support a smart, low numbers policy on immigration. In the case of no or low skilled immigrants arriving illegally, they are a significant net fiscal drain (cost of rescue at sea, hotel costs, legal aid costs, benefits costs, cost to NHS, education and so on) because they can't work. They then might enter low paid jobs, tax receipts from which will take decades to neutralise the illegal entry costs they landed us with and eventually we have to pay them a full pension. And as you rightly say, they will spend a lifetime putting pressure on public services. You're right, we really have to face this head on, but it hasn't been tackled properly yet because of the left wing blob and Starmer will only enlarge said blob. It's all very unfair on genuine folk, fleeing for instance the Taliban or Putin's atrocities, who are generally net fiscal contributors but who are delayed or even usurped by basically queue jumpers, breaking the law. " there's not a queue to be jumped because there's very few "official" routes and these tend to be for niche cases. And anyone who "becomes a drain" must have been granted asylum. So therefore are genuine folk. We could reduce the drain by creating safer ways of applying, processing quicker, and seeing if we can get them to being more productive once in. But let's not forget that these are genuine folk and this is humanitarian not commercial work. (Also, where do you get that genuine folk are generally net contributers yet others aren't ?) | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. So after all those random assumptions, ranting and confusion about "left wing blob" you agreed with me that the country needs immigration. Fantastic work. Thank you. I never disagreed with you that we need immigration. Just not three quarters of a million immigrating every year. I'd like to see it at 50,000 or less each year, smartly executed with above average skilled people coming in where there are skilled jobs shortages. What about your ideas of workable numbers that are feasible for a small island? I'm not confused about the left wing blob. The 2019 Tory victory was a collective attempt by the British people to realign their country’s politics. It now feels as if the electorate pulled the lever of a general election only to find that the machine of democracy was already tilted against them. So little changed. Democracy feels skin-deep, because ministers have little control over which civil servants work for them or which Judges decide on appeal after appeal in immigration cases brought by lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse. Most reasonable people know full well that civil servants will delay the Rwanda plans until the election. There is a sort of metropolitan liberal elite that is running amok and must be brought down to reality. These people are here to serve, not lead the United Kingdom. What the UK needs is a populist moment, aimed not at the remote, grey-suited bureaucrats who once ruled us from Brussels, but at the homegrown, swamplike lefties who dictate ever more of our national life from Westminster. . Well said. However I would like to see nil immigration. We are simply importing a future problem. Cheap foreign labour removes the need to mechanise and be efficient. Immigrants eventually become old and we have to care for them in old age . Consequently immigration provides no long term benefit to the country. House prices have risen 15 % due to immigration. The country has made many short sighted decisions . The pressure on schools and the NHS is unsustainable. We have to face reality. This is why I support a smart, low numbers policy on immigration. In the case of no or low skilled immigrants arriving illegally, they are a significant net fiscal drain (cost of rescue at sea, hotel costs, legal aid costs, benefits costs, cost to NHS, education and so on) because they can't work. They then might enter low paid jobs, tax receipts from which will take decades to neutralise the illegal entry costs they landed us with and eventually we have to pay them a full pension. And as you rightly say, they will spend a lifetime putting pressure on public services. You're right, we really have to face this head on, but it hasn't been tackled properly yet because of the left wing blob and Starmer will only enlarge said blob. It's all very unfair on genuine folk, fleeing for instance the Taliban or Putin's atrocities, who are generally net fiscal contributors but who are delayed or even usurped by basically queue jumpers, breaking the law. there's not a queue to be jumped because there's very few "official" routes and these tend to be for niche cases. And anyone who "becomes a drain" must have been granted asylum. So therefore are genuine folk. We could reduce the drain by creating safer ways of applying, processing quicker, and seeing if we can get them to being more productive once in. But let's not forget that these are genuine folk and this is humanitarian not commercial work. (Also, where do you get that genuine folk are generally net contributers yet others aren't ?) " You haven't disproved anything I said! We have generously operated schemes specifically for Syrian, Afghan, Ukrainian and Hong Kong nationals, as well as a family reunion route for close family members of people who have already been granted protection in the UK, which is open to all nationalities! From January to September 2023, 9000 Afghans decided not to bother doing things legally and crossed the Channel in boats.Today we learn many of these criminals (their initial entry route was illegal) are now on the run. On top of the above, we have the UK Resettlement Scheme. It also uses a Community Sponsorship Scheme and a Mandate Resettlement Scheme. With the visa schemes, that all added up to net migration of around 750,000 last year. What are your proposals, unlimited? Where is the money coming from? The houses? The pressure on the environment, infrastructure? The above safe and legal routes offered by the UK government are the only ones considered by UK authorities to be safe and legal. These journeys can still have risks, but they have much less risk than the alternatives. People dying in the Channel, violently fighting the French Police, is not safe and legal and I'm surprised you appear to lean towards supporting it and the evil people smugglers. Queue-jumping criminals should not be welcomed here. 12,658 Albanians came to the UK by this illegal route in 2022, accounting for 28% of migrants! Albania is not war torn! But I guess you'd declare them all 'genuine folk'. Some people are incredibly naive on this subject. Thankfully strong Govt action agreeing a returns pact struck between London and Tirana has seen new numbers fall and many returned. Albania is considered a safe country to which migrants can be returned, before you say otherwise. Are you personally willing to take migrants into your own own home instead of seemingly demanding the taxpayer provide a blank cheque to make them feel better? In reality, those not eligible for asylum must be discouraged from coming. Rwanda is another part of this. If they survive the depredations of the people trafficking gangs, the enormous risks of their queue-jumping journey and make it to the UK these criminals are correctly detained for a long period, often become an exploited underclass or fall into crime. They inevitably add to the burdens on the poorest in society, adding pressure to resource-starved local councils where housing is already in very short supply and public services overstretched. How can this possibly be right? Your answer to this though is to facilitate large-scale and uncontrolled migration and not to check anyone? The UK already has one of the highest population densities in Europe and the legacy of social problems created in Germany and Sweden by waves of mass migration in the last decade does not bode well. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. So after all those random assumptions, ranting and confusion about "left wing blob" you agreed with me that the country needs immigration. Fantastic work. Thank you. I never disagreed with you that we need immigration. Just not three quarters of a million immigrating every year. I'd like to see it at 50,000 or less each year, smartly executed with above average skilled people coming in where there are skilled jobs shortages. What about your ideas of workable numbers that are feasible for a small island? I'm not confused about the left wing blob. The 2019 Tory victory was a collective attempt by the British people to realign their country’s politics. It now feels as if the electorate pulled the lever of a general election only to find that the machine of democracy was already tilted against them. So little changed. Democracy feels skin-deep, because ministers have little control over which civil servants work for them or which Judges decide on appeal after appeal in immigration cases brought by lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse. Most reasonable people know full well that civil servants will delay the Rwanda plans until the election. There is a sort of metropolitan liberal elite that is running amok and must be brought down to reality. These people are here to serve, not lead the United Kingdom. What the UK needs is a populist moment, aimed not at the remote, grey-suited bureaucrats who once ruled us from Brussels, but at the homegrown, swamplike lefties who dictate ever more of our national life from Westminster. . Well said. However I would like to see nil immigration. We are simply importing a future problem. Cheap foreign labour removes the need to mechanise and be efficient. Immigrants eventually become old and we have to care for them in old age . Consequently immigration provides no long term benefit to the country. House prices have risen 15 % due to immigration. The country has made many short sighted decisions . The pressure on schools and the NHS is unsustainable. We have to face reality. This is why I support a smart, low numbers policy on immigration. In the case of no or low skilled immigrants arriving illegally, they are a significant net fiscal drain (cost of rescue at sea, hotel costs, legal aid costs, benefits costs, cost to NHS, education and so on) because they can't work. They then might enter low paid jobs, tax receipts from which will take decades to neutralise the illegal entry costs they landed us with and eventually we have to pay them a full pension. And as you rightly say, they will spend a lifetime putting pressure on public services. You're right, we really have to face this head on, but it hasn't been tackled properly yet because of the left wing blob and Starmer will only enlarge said blob. It's all very unfair on genuine folk, fleeing for instance the Taliban or Putin's atrocities, who are generally net fiscal contributors but who are delayed or even usurped by basically queue jumpers, breaking the law. there's not a queue to be jumped because there's very few "official" routes and these tend to be for niche cases. And anyone who "becomes a drain" must have been granted asylum. So therefore are genuine folk. We could reduce the drain by creating safer ways of applying, processing quicker, and seeing if we can get them to being more productive once in. But let's not forget that these are genuine folk and this is humanitarian not commercial work. (Also, where do you get that genuine folk are generally net contributers yet others aren't ?) You haven't disproved anything I said! We have generously operated schemes specifically for Syrian, Afghan, Ukrainian and Hong Kong nationals, as well as a family reunion route for close family members of people who have already been granted protection in the UK, which is open to all nationalities! From January to September 2023, 9000 Afghans decided not to bother doing things legally and crossed the Channel in boats.Today we learn many of these criminals (their initial entry route was illegal) are now on the run. On top of the above, we have the UK Resettlement Scheme. It also uses a Community Sponsorship Scheme and a Mandate Resettlement Scheme. With the visa schemes, that all added up to net migration of around 750,000 last year. What are your proposals, unlimited? Where is the money coming from? The houses? The pressure on the environment, infrastructure? The above safe and legal routes offered by the UK government are the only ones considered by UK authorities to be safe and legal. These journeys can still have risks, but they have much less risk than the alternatives. People dying in the Channel, violently fighting the French Police, is not safe and legal and I'm surprised you appear to lean towards supporting it and the evil people smugglers. Queue-jumping criminals should not be welcomed here. 12,658 Albanians came to the UK by this illegal route in 2022, accounting for 28% of migrants! Albania is not war torn! But I guess you'd declare them all 'genuine folk'. Some people are incredibly naive on this subject. Thankfully strong Govt action agreeing a returns pact struck between London and Tirana has seen new numbers fall and many returned. Albania is considered a safe country to which migrants can be returned, before you say otherwise. Are you personally willing to take migrants into your own own home instead of seemingly demanding the taxpayer provide a blank cheque to make them feel better? In reality, those not eligible for asylum must be discouraged from coming. Rwanda is another part of this. If they survive the depredations of the people trafficking gangs, the enormous risks of their queue-jumping journey and make it to the UK these criminals are correctly detained for a long period, often become an exploited underclass or fall into crime. They inevitably add to the burdens on the poorest in society, adding pressure to resource-starved local councils where housing is already in very short supply and public services overstretched. How can this possibly be right? Your answer to this though is to facilitate large-scale and uncontrolled migration and not to check anyone? The UK already has one of the highest population densities in Europe and the legacy of social problems created in Germany and Sweden by waves of mass migration in the last decade does not bode well. " Ukraine isn't for asylum seekers strictly speaking. Not sure HK is either. But are both country specific. And so a different queue. Not sure the Syrian scheme is open. And Afghan is clearly for one country. Again, feels like a different queue. Resettlement scheme is only for those that the UN identify as vulnerable. For most people there isn't a "safe" route. I have to be afgan, vulnerable and selected by UN, or have someone here already. (Note the family reunion approach may be a reason for more men) Let's be clear, I'm not leaning towards unsafe crossings. I disagree that schemes like Rwanda will solve. I'd rather we look at other ways. I'd ask you not strawman me about my thoughts of uncontrolled or unchecked migration. I've looked to address points you've made rather than make up your views. (Correct me if I ever do miss intérpret your views. It's not intentional). I'd like you to extend that curtosey. To be clear We should check. I'd argue we need to focus more effort into checking. The fact we find out after the event of criminal records shows we can find stuff out. We just don't at the time. I believe that many Albanians arent legitimate refugees. And id hypothesise many that are become legitimate because they are now in servitude due to crossing! (I'd note here that war isn't need to become an asylum seeker and haven't said Albania isn't safe as a rule, albeit it may be unsafe for individuals. I'd also note "unsafe" for Rwanda is a specific term about refoulement rather than if one can walk down the street) This is why I'd support faster processing so we know the success rates to give some evidence. We should reduce immigration. I'd focus on the balance of the three quarters of a million so that we can offer humanitarian aid. As I said before that bit has nothing to do with the blob. That's all on the Tories. Can we support a million year on year. Probably not. Can we support 50k pa for humanitarian reasons. Probably if we can absorb 650k today. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. So after all those random assumptions, ranting and confusion about "left wing blob" you agreed with me that the country needs immigration. Fantastic work. Thank you. I never disagreed with you that we need immigration. Just not three quarters of a million immigrating every year. I'd like to see it at 50,000 or less each year, smartly executed with above average skilled people coming in where there are skilled jobs shortages. What about your ideas of workable numbers that are feasible for a small island? I'm not confused about the left wing blob. The 2019 Tory victory was a collective attempt by the British people to realign their country’s politics. It now feels as if the electorate pulled the lever of a general election only to find that the machine of democracy was already tilted against them. So little changed. Democracy feels skin-deep, because ministers have little control over which civil servants work for them or which Judges decide on appeal after appeal in immigration cases brought by lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse. Most reasonable people know full well that civil servants will delay the Rwanda plans until the election. There is a sort of metropolitan liberal elite that is running amok and must be brought down to reality. These people are here to serve, not lead the United Kingdom. What the UK needs is a populist moment, aimed not at the remote, grey-suited bureaucrats who once ruled us from Brussels, but at the homegrown, swamplike lefties who dictate ever more of our national life from Westminster. . Well said. However I would like to see nil immigration. We are simply importing a future problem. Cheap foreign labour removes the need to mechanise and be efficient. Immigrants eventually become old and we have to care for them in old age . Consequently immigration provides no long term benefit to the country. House prices have risen 15 % due to immigration. The country has made many short sighted decisions . The pressure on schools and the NHS is unsustainable. We have to face reality. This is why I support a smart, low numbers policy on immigration. In the case of no or low skilled immigrants arriving illegally, they are a significant net fiscal drain (cost of rescue at sea, hotel costs, legal aid costs, benefits costs, cost to NHS, education and so on) because they can't work. They then might enter low paid jobs, tax receipts from which will take decades to neutralise the illegal entry costs they landed us with and eventually we have to pay them a full pension. And as you rightly say, they will spend a lifetime putting pressure on public services. You're right, we really have to face this head on, but it hasn't been tackled properly yet because of the left wing blob and Starmer will only enlarge said blob. It's all very unfair on genuine folk, fleeing for instance the Taliban or Putin's atrocities, who are generally net fiscal contributors but who are delayed or even usurped by basically queue jumpers, breaking the law. there's not a queue to be jumped because there's very few "official" routes and these tend to be for niche cases. And anyone who "becomes a drain" must have been granted asylum. So therefore are genuine folk. We could reduce the drain by creating safer ways of applying, processing quicker, and seeing if we can get them to being more productive once in. But let's not forget that these are genuine folk and this is humanitarian not commercial work. (Also, where do you get that genuine folk are generally net contributers yet others aren't ?) You haven't disproved anything I said! We have generously operated schemes specifically for Syrian, Afghan, Ukrainian and Hong Kong nationals, as well as a family reunion route for close family members of people who have already been granted protection in the UK, which is open to all nationalities! From January to September 2023, 9000 Afghans decided not to bother doing things legally and crossed the Channel in boats.Today we learn many of these criminals (their initial entry route was illegal) are now on the run. On top of the above, we have the UK Resettlement Scheme. It also uses a Community Sponsorship Scheme and a Mandate Resettlement Scheme. With the visa schemes, that all added up to net migration of around 750,000 last year. What are your proposals, unlimited? Where is the money coming from? The houses? The pressure on the environment, infrastructure? The above safe and legal routes offered by the UK government are the only ones considered by UK authorities to be safe and legal. These journeys can still have risks, but they have much less risk than the alternatives. People dying in the Channel, violently fighting the French Police, is not safe and legal and I'm surprised you appear to lean towards supporting it and the evil people smugglers. Queue-jumping criminals should not be welcomed here. 12,658 Albanians came to the UK by this illegal route in 2022, accounting for 28% of migrants! Albania is not war torn! But I guess you'd declare them all 'genuine folk'. Some people are incredibly naive on this subject. Thankfully strong Govt action agreeing a returns pact struck between London and Tirana has seen new numbers fall and many returned. Albania is considered a safe country to which migrants can be returned, before you say otherwise. Are you personally willing to take migrants into your own own home instead of seemingly demanding the taxpayer provide a blank cheque to make them feel better? In reality, those not eligible for asylum must be discouraged from coming. Rwanda is another part of this. If they survive the depredations of the people trafficking gangs, the enormous risks of their queue-jumping journey and make it to the UK these criminals are correctly detained for a long period, often become an exploited underclass or fall into crime. They inevitably add to the burdens on the poorest in society, adding pressure to resource-starved local councils where housing is already in very short supply and public services overstretched. How can this possibly be right? Your answer to this though is to facilitate large-scale and uncontrolled migration and not to check anyone? The UK already has one of the highest population densities in Europe and the legacy of social problems created in Germany and Sweden by waves of mass migration in the last decade does not bode well. Ukraine isn't for asylum seekers strictly speaking. Not sure HK is either. But are both country specific. And so a different queue. Not sure the Syrian scheme is open. And Afghan is clearly for one country. Again, feels like a different queue. Resettlement scheme is only for those that the UN identify as vulnerable. For most people there isn't a "safe" route. I have to be afgan, vulnerable and selected by UN, or have someone here already. (Note the family reunion approach may be a reason for more men) Let's be clear, I'm not leaning towards unsafe crossings. I disagree that schemes like Rwanda will solve. I'd rather we look at other ways. I'd ask you not strawman me about my thoughts of uncontrolled or unchecked migration. I've looked to address points you've made rather than make up your views. (Correct me if I ever do miss intérpret your views. It's not intentional). I'd like you to extend that curtosey. To be clear We should check. I'd argue we need to focus more effort into checking. The fact we find out after the event of criminal records shows we can find stuff out. We just don't at the time. I believe that many Albanians arent legitimate refugees. And id hypothesise many that are become legitimate because they are now in servitude due to crossing! (I'd note here that war isn't need to become an asylum seeker and haven't said Albania isn't safe as a rule, albeit it may be unsafe for individuals. I'd also note "unsafe" for Rwanda is a specific term about refoulement rather than if one can walk down the street) This is why I'd support faster processing so we know the success rates to give some evidence. We should reduce immigration. I'd focus on the balance of the three quarters of a million so that we can offer humanitarian aid. As I said before that bit has nothing to do with the blob. That's all on the Tories. Can we support a million year on year. Probably not. Can we support 50k pa for humanitarian reasons. Probably if we can absorb 650k today. " You're wrong re Ukraine. There've been many asylum applications additional to the bespoke scheme. Hong Kongers have come in their droves. There has to be some control. Even with controls, which you appear to want to loosen, we had 745,000 more people come here in 2022 than left. Glad to hear that you agree with more checks. It's not going to bring back gay friends James Furlong, 36, David Wails, 49, and Joseph Ritchie-Bennett, 39, who were enjoying a warm Saturday evening in Reading's Forbury Gardens park when they were stabbed by a jihadist extremist who thought they were 'wrong uns' and that he will go to paradise upon his own death. Nor it will it bring back hundreds of other UK nationals slaughtered or injured by people we know nothing about. This Libyan asylum seeker who arrived illegally in 2012, stabbed the victims while shouting “Allahu akbar” - the Arabic phrase for “God is great.” The judge said the defendant, Khairi Saad Allah, was seeking to advance a political, religious or ideological cause” and had done substantial planning. He rejected the argument that Saadallah was suffering a mental illness at the time of the attack. 3 lives lost, 3 others severely affected by injury, Khairi Saad Allah was of course a criminal, with prior theft and assault convictions. This is no time to be weak as water. We need even firmer action (I concede the Tories are often asleep at the wheel with immigration control). But Labour voted against tougher measures to tackle illegal immigration 139 times and voted to block, delay or weaken the plan to stop the boats 126 times. The failure to effectively control immigration yet is having a harmful impact on public safety and on fundamental British values such as freedom of expression and religion, as well as equality of opportunity for women and for those in the LGBTQ+ community who are naturally anxious when they read about criminals like Khairi Saad Allah. As for "can we support a million year on year. Probably not". Are you kidding? Apart from anything else, England is the most densely populated nation in Europe. It is 3.5 times as crowded as France and twice as crowded as Germany. We should also clampdown on the lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse, many of whom couldn't even lie straight in bed. Thankfully, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has shut down three crooked law firms gaming the system. It also launched a major investigation into the immigration law sector and renewed its call for unlimited fining powers. The closed firms included Rashid & Rashid in south-west London. Outrageously, such firms duped the Home Office when seeking to determine claims for asylum. Let's be clear-headed on this, just like the criminal queue jumpers in dinghies, immigration lawyers who cheat and lie are taking the British public for a ride. It has to stop. How can anyone seriously argue otherwise? | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. So after all those random assumptions, ranting and confusion about "left wing blob" you agreed with me that the country needs immigration. Fantastic work. Thank you. I never disagreed with you that we need immigration. Just not three quarters of a million immigrating every year. I'd like to see it at 50,000 or less each year, smartly executed with above average skilled people coming in where there are skilled jobs shortages. What about your ideas of workable numbers that are feasible for a small island? I'm not confused about the left wing blob. The 2019 Tory victory was a collective attempt by the British people to realign their country’s politics. It now feels as if the electorate pulled the lever of a general election only to find that the machine of democracy was already tilted against them. So little changed. Democracy feels skin-deep, because ministers have little control over which civil servants work for them or which Judges decide on appeal after appeal in immigration cases brought by lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse. Most reasonable people know full well that civil servants will delay the Rwanda plans until the election. There is a sort of metropolitan liberal elite that is running amok and must be brought down to reality. These people are here to serve, not lead the United Kingdom. What the UK needs is a populist moment, aimed not at the remote, grey-suited bureaucrats who once ruled us from Brussels, but at the homegrown, swamplike lefties who dictate ever more of our national life from Westminster. . Well said. However I would like to see nil immigration. We are simply importing a future problem. Cheap foreign labour removes the need to mechanise and be efficient. Immigrants eventually become old and we have to care for them in old age . Consequently immigration provides no long term benefit to the country. House prices have risen 15 % due to immigration. The country has made many short sighted decisions . The pressure on schools and the NHS is unsustainable. We have to face reality. This is why I support a smart, low numbers policy on immigration. In the case of no or low skilled immigrants arriving illegally, they are a significant net fiscal drain (cost of rescue at sea, hotel costs, legal aid costs, benefits costs, cost to NHS, education and so on) because they can't work. They then might enter low paid jobs, tax receipts from which will take decades to neutralise the illegal entry costs they landed us with and eventually we have to pay them a full pension. And as you rightly say, they will spend a lifetime putting pressure on public services. You're right, we really have to face this head on, but it hasn't been tackled properly yet because of the left wing blob and Starmer will only enlarge said blob. It's all very unfair on genuine folk, fleeing for instance the Taliban or Putin's atrocities, who are generally net fiscal contributors but who are delayed or even usurped by basically queue jumpers, breaking the law. there's not a queue to be jumped because there's very few "official" routes and these tend to be for niche cases. And anyone who "becomes a drain" must have been granted asylum. So therefore are genuine folk. We could reduce the drain by creating safer ways of applying, processing quicker, and seeing if we can get them to being more productive once in. But let's not forget that these are genuine folk and this is humanitarian not commercial work. (Also, where do you get that genuine folk are generally net contributers yet others aren't ?) You haven't disproved anything I said! We have generously operated schemes specifically for Syrian, Afghan, Ukrainian and Hong Kong nationals, as well as a family reunion route for close family members of people who have already been granted protection in the UK, which is open to all nationalities! From January to September 2023, 9000 Afghans decided not to bother doing things legally and crossed the Channel in boats.Today we learn many of these criminals (their initial entry route was illegal) are now on the run. On top of the above, we have the UK Resettlement Scheme. It also uses a Community Sponsorship Scheme and a Mandate Resettlement Scheme. With the visa schemes, that all added up to net migration of around 750,000 last year. What are your proposals, unlimited? Where is the money coming from? The houses? The pressure on the environment, infrastructure? The above safe and legal routes offered by the UK government are the only ones considered by UK authorities to be safe and legal. These journeys can still have risks, but they have much less risk than the alternatives. People dying in the Channel, violently fighting the French Police, is not safe and legal and I'm surprised you appear to lean towards supporting it and the evil people smugglers. Queue-jumping criminals should not be welcomed here. 12,658 Albanians came to the UK by this illegal route in 2022, accounting for 28% of migrants! Albania is not war torn! But I guess you'd declare them all 'genuine folk'. Some people are incredibly naive on this subject. Thankfully strong Govt action agreeing a returns pact struck between London and Tirana has seen new numbers fall and many returned. Albania is considered a safe country to which migrants can be returned, before you say otherwise. Are you personally willing to take migrants into your own own home instead of seemingly demanding the taxpayer provide a blank cheque to make them feel better? In reality, those not eligible for asylum must be discouraged from coming. Rwanda is another part of this. If they survive the depredations of the people trafficking gangs, the enormous risks of their queue-jumping journey and make it to the UK these criminals are correctly detained for a long period, often become an exploited underclass or fall into crime. They inevitably add to the burdens on the poorest in society, adding pressure to resource-starved local councils where housing is already in very short supply and public services overstretched. How can this possibly be right? Your answer to this though is to facilitate large-scale and uncontrolled migration and not to check anyone? The UK already has one of the highest population densities in Europe and the legacy of social problems created in Germany and Sweden by waves of mass migration in the last decade does not bode well. Ukraine isn't for asylum seekers strictly speaking. Not sure HK is either. But are both country specific. And so a different queue. Not sure the Syrian scheme is open. And Afghan is clearly for one country. Again, feels like a different queue. Resettlement scheme is only for those that the UN identify as vulnerable. For most people there isn't a "safe" route. I have to be afgan, vulnerable and selected by UN, or have someone here already. (Note the family reunion approach may be a reason for more men) Let's be clear, I'm not leaning towards unsafe crossings. I disagree that schemes like Rwanda will solve. I'd rather we look at other ways. I'd ask you not strawman me about my thoughts of uncontrolled or unchecked migration. I've looked to address points you've made rather than make up your views. (Correct me if I ever do miss intérpret your views. It's not intentional). I'd like you to extend that curtosey. To be clear We should check. I'd argue we need to focus more effort into checking. The fact we find out after the event of criminal records shows we can find stuff out. We just don't at the time. I believe that many Albanians arent legitimate refugees. And id hypothesise many that are become legitimate because they are now in servitude due to crossing! (I'd note here that war isn't need to become an asylum seeker and haven't said Albania isn't safe as a rule, albeit it may be unsafe for individuals. I'd also note "unsafe" for Rwanda is a specific term about refoulement rather than if one can walk down the street) This is why I'd support faster processing so we know the success rates to give some evidence. We should reduce immigration. I'd focus on the balance of the three quarters of a million so that we can offer humanitarian aid. As I said before that bit has nothing to do with the blob. That's all on the Tories. Can we support a million year on year. Probably not. Can we support 50k pa for humanitarian reasons. Probably if we can absorb 650k today. You're wrong re Ukraine. There've been many asylum applications additional to the bespoke scheme. Hong Kongers have come in their droves. There has to be some control. Even with controls, which you appear to want to loosen, we had 745,000 more people come here in 2022 than left. Glad to hear that you agree with more checks. It's not going to bring back gay friends James Furlong, 36, David Wails, 49, and Joseph Ritchie-Bennett, 39, who were enjoying a warm Saturday evening in Reading's Forbury Gardens park when they were stabbed by a jihadist extremist who thought they were 'wrong uns' and that he will go to paradise upon his own death. Nor it will it bring back hundreds of other UK nationals slaughtered or injured by people we know nothing about. This Libyan asylum seeker who arrived illegally in 2012, stabbed the victims while shouting “Allahu akbar” - the Arabic phrase for “God is great.” The judge said the defendant, Khairi Saad Allah, was seeking to advance a political, religious or ideological cause” and had done substantial planning. He rejected the argument that Saadallah was suffering a mental illness at the time of the attack. 3 lives lost, 3 others severely affected by injury, Khairi Saad Allah was of course a criminal, with prior theft and assault convictions. This is no time to be weak as water. We need even firmer action (I concede the Tories are often asleep at the wheel with immigration control). But Labour voted against tougher measures to tackle illegal immigration 139 times and voted to block, delay or weaken the plan to stop the boats 126 times. The failure to effectively control immigration yet is having a harmful impact on public safety and on fundamental British values such as freedom of expression and religion, as well as equality of opportunity for women and for those in the LGBTQ+ community who are naturally anxious when they read about criminals like Khairi Saad Allah. As for "can we support a million year on year. Probably not". Are you kidding? Apart from anything else, England is the most densely populated nation in Europe. It is 3.5 times as crowded as France and twice as crowded as Germany. We should also clampdown on the lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse, many of whom couldn't even lie straight in bed. Thankfully, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has shut down three crooked law firms gaming the system. It also launched a major investigation into the immigration law sector and renewed its call for unlimited fining powers. The closed firms included Rashid & Rashid in south-west London. Outrageously, such firms duped the Home Office when seeking to determine claims for asylum. Let's be clear-headed on this, just like the criminal queue jumpers in dinghies, immigration lawyers who cheat and lie are taking the British public for a ride. It has to stop. How can anyone seriously argue otherwise? " the reading killer was a failed asylum seeker. That speaks to me about issues about removing failed cases. And thank you for speaking on my behalf. Again, you jump from asylum claims, to 750k net migration (so all cases) and back to asylum claims. It confuses your position imo. If this is about capacity and strain on services I don't understand why your vitriol isn't at the majority of cases rather than minority. There's a stabbing in Bradford by a man here on a student / graduate visa if you want to go on a safety angle. Oh, and Rashid and Rashid are dodgy. Not lefty lawyers. But you need "lefty lawyers" to make justice work. Everyone deserves the opportunity to make their case. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. So after all those random assumptions, ranting and confusion about "left wing blob" you agreed with me that the country needs immigration. Fantastic work. Thank you. I never disagreed with you that we need immigration. Just not three quarters of a million immigrating every year. I'd like to see it at 50,000 or less each year, smartly executed with above average skilled people coming in where there are skilled jobs shortages. What about your ideas of workable numbers that are feasible for a small island? I'm not confused about the left wing blob. The 2019 Tory victory was a collective attempt by the British people to realign their country’s politics. It now feels as if the electorate pulled the lever of a general election only to find that the machine of democracy was already tilted against them. So little changed. Democracy feels skin-deep, because ministers have little control over which civil servants work for them or which Judges decide on appeal after appeal in immigration cases brought by lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse. Most reasonable people know full well that civil servants will delay the Rwanda plans until the election. There is a sort of metropolitan liberal elite that is running amok and must be brought down to reality. These people are here to serve, not lead the United Kingdom. What the UK needs is a populist moment, aimed not at the remote, grey-suited bureaucrats who once ruled us from Brussels, but at the homegrown, swamplike lefties who dictate ever more of our national life from Westminster. Have you ever been to London? The conviction with which you seem to be spouting all these stories about swamp like lefties and Brussels bureaucrats suggests to me that maybe you have never got further than the politics section of the Daily Mail or a reform party flyer (or both!). You do know that life is so much more nuanced and complex than your sound bites imply don’t you? I do think that if we are ever to make the UK a better place then we really do need to avoid this empty posturing and try to communicate in a less pejorative and more respectful manner?
The man who wants a less pejorative and more respectful approach is immediately hoist with his own petard by suggesting I get my views from Reform party leaflets and have never been to London! Classic!
Up here in the North, we should know our place eh?
And then you wonder why 17,410,742 people voted Brexit.
In this thread, you have opened fire on me about 'empty posturing' and posting 'soundbites'.
I've never messaged you, referred to you, been disrespectful to you, I just hold a different view to you on this subject, which I have expressed without bad language and which supports continued immigration. That is still allowed, right? Or do you own the Forum?
Why dont you go the whole hog and print the 'R' word?
"Exactly my point….you expect me to use the “R” word when the point of my post was that using the terms you do of lefty lawyers instead of crooked ones is not helpful as it stokes division and thereby demeans your point of view. Too much aggression and not enough concession won’t get us anywhere, so for what it’s worth as an English man who has lived all over this land (including up North) I apologise for upsetting you but I still think you’re arguments are wrong | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. So after all those random assumptions, ranting and confusion about "left wing blob" you agreed with me that the country needs immigration. Fantastic work. Thank you. I never disagreed with you that we need immigration. Just not three quarters of a million immigrating every year. I'd like to see it at 50,000 or less each year, smartly executed with above average skilled people coming in where there are skilled jobs shortages. What about your ideas of workable numbers that are feasible for a small island? I'm not confused about the left wing blob. The 2019 Tory victory was a collective attempt by the British people to realign their country’s politics. It now feels as if the electorate pulled the lever of a general election only to find that the machine of democracy was already tilted against them. So little changed. Democracy feels skin-deep, because ministers have little control over which civil servants work for them or which Judges decide on appeal after appeal in immigration cases brought by lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse. Most reasonable people know full well that civil servants will delay the Rwanda plans until the election. There is a sort of metropolitan liberal elite that is running amok and must be brought down to reality. These people are here to serve, not lead the United Kingdom. What the UK needs is a populist moment, aimed not at the remote, grey-suited bureaucrats who once ruled us from Brussels, but at the homegrown, swamplike lefties who dictate ever more of our national life from Westminster. . Well said. However I would like to see nil immigration. We are simply importing a future problem. Cheap foreign labour removes the need to mechanise and be efficient. Immigrants eventually become old and we have to care for them in old age . Consequently immigration provides no long term benefit to the country. House prices have risen 15 % due to immigration. The country has made many short sighted decisions . The pressure on schools and the NHS is unsustainable. We have to face reality. This is why I support a smart, low numbers policy on immigration. In the case of no or low skilled immigrants arriving illegally, they are a significant net fiscal drain (cost of rescue at sea, hotel costs, legal aid costs, benefits costs, cost to NHS, education and so on) because they can't work. They then might enter low paid jobs, tax receipts from which will take decades to neutralise the illegal entry costs they landed us with and eventually we have to pay them a full pension. And as you rightly say, they will spend a lifetime putting pressure on public services. You're right, we really have to face this head on, but it hasn't been tackled properly yet because of the left wing blob and Starmer will only enlarge said blob. It's all very unfair on genuine folk, fleeing for instance the Taliban or Putin's atrocities, who are generally net fiscal contributors but who are delayed or even usurped by basically queue jumpers, breaking the law. there's not a queue to be jumped because there's very few "official" routes and these tend to be for niche cases. And anyone who "becomes a drain" must have been granted asylum. So therefore are genuine folk. We could reduce the drain by creating safer ways of applying, processing quicker, and seeing if we can get them to being more productive once in. But let's not forget that these are genuine folk and this is humanitarian not commercial work. (Also, where do you get that genuine folk are generally net contributers yet others aren't ?) You haven't disproved anything I said! We have generously operated schemes specifically for Syrian, Afghan, Ukrainian and Hong Kong nationals, as well as a family reunion route for close family members of people who have already been granted protection in the UK, which is open to all nationalities! From January to September 2023, 9000 Afghans decided not to bother doing things legally and crossed the Channel in boats.Today we learn many of these criminals (their initial entry route was illegal) are now on the run. On top of the above, we have the UK Resettlement Scheme. It also uses a Community Sponsorship Scheme and a Mandate Resettlement Scheme. With the visa schemes, that all added up to net migration of around 750,000 last year. What are your proposals, unlimited? Where is the money coming from? The houses? The pressure on the environment, infrastructure? The above safe and legal routes offered by the UK government are the only ones considered by UK authorities to be safe and legal. These journeys can still have risks, but they have much less risk than the alternatives. People dying in the Channel, violently fighting the French Police, is not safe and legal and I'm surprised you appear to lean towards supporting it and the evil people smugglers. Queue-jumping criminals should not be welcomed here. 12,658 Albanians came to the UK by this illegal route in 2022, accounting for 28% of migrants! Albania is not war torn! But I guess you'd declare them all 'genuine folk'. Some people are incredibly naive on this subject. Thankfully strong Govt action agreeing a returns pact struck between London and Tirana has seen new numbers fall and many returned. Albania is considered a safe country to which migrants can be returned, before you say otherwise. Are you personally willing to take migrants into your own own home instead of seemingly demanding the taxpayer provide a blank cheque to make them feel better? In reality, those not eligible for asylum must be discouraged from coming. Rwanda is another part of this. If they survive the depredations of the people trafficking gangs, the enormous risks of their queue-jumping journey and make it to the UK these criminals are correctly detained for a long period, often become an exploited underclass or fall into crime. They inevitably add to the burdens on the poorest in society, adding pressure to resource-starved local councils where housing is already in very short supply and public services overstretched. How can this possibly be right? Your answer to this though is to facilitate large-scale and uncontrolled migration and not to check anyone? The UK already has one of the highest population densities in Europe and the legacy of social problems created in Germany and Sweden by waves of mass migration in the last decade does not bode well. Ukraine isn't for asylum seekers strictly speaking. Not sure HK is either. But are both country specific. And so a different queue. Not sure the Syrian scheme is open. And Afghan is clearly for one country. Again, feels like a different queue. Resettlement scheme is only for those that the UN identify as vulnerable. For most people there isn't a "safe" route. I have to be afgan, vulnerable and selected by UN, or have someone here already. (Note the family reunion approach may be a reason for more men) Let's be clear, I'm not leaning towards unsafe crossings. I disagree that schemes like Rwanda will solve. I'd rather we look at other ways. I'd ask you not strawman me about my thoughts of uncontrolled or unchecked migration. I've looked to address points you've made rather than make up your views. (Correct me if I ever do miss intérpret your views. It's not intentional). I'd like you to extend that curtosey. To be clear We should check. I'd argue we need to focus more effort into checking. The fact we find out after the event of criminal records shows we can find stuff out. We just don't at the time. I believe that many Albanians arent legitimate refugees. And id hypothesise many that are become legitimate because they are now in servitude due to crossing! (I'd note here that war isn't need to become an asylum seeker and haven't said Albania isn't safe as a rule, albeit it may be unsafe for individuals. I'd also note "unsafe" for Rwanda is a specific term about refoulement rather than if one can walk down the street) This is why I'd support faster processing so we know the success rates to give some evidence. We should reduce immigration. I'd focus on the balance of the three quarters of a million so that we can offer humanitarian aid. As I said before that bit has nothing to do with the blob. That's all on the Tories. Can we support a million year on year. Probably not. Can we support 50k pa for humanitarian reasons. Probably if we can absorb 650k today. You're wrong re Ukraine. There've been many asylum applications additional to the bespoke scheme. Hong Kongers have come in their droves. There has to be some control. Even with controls, which you appear to want to loosen, we had 745,000 more people come here in 2022 than left. Glad to hear that you agree with more checks. It's not going to bring back gay friends James Furlong, 36, David Wails, 49, and Joseph Ritchie-Bennett, 39, who were enjoying a warm Saturday evening in Reading's Forbury Gardens park when they were stabbed by a jihadist extremist who thought they were 'wrong uns' and that he will go to paradise upon his own death. Nor it will it bring back hundreds of other UK nationals slaughtered or injured by people we know nothing about. This Libyan asylum seeker who arrived illegally in 2012, stabbed the victims while shouting “Allahu akbar” - the Arabic phrase for “God is great.” The judge said the defendant, Khairi Saad Allah, was seeking to advance a political, religious or ideological cause” and had done substantial planning. He rejected the argument that Saadallah was suffering a mental illness at the time of the attack. 3 lives lost, 3 others severely affected by injury, Khairi Saad Allah was of course a criminal, with prior theft and assault convictions. This is no time to be weak as water. We need even firmer action (I concede the Tories are often asleep at the wheel with immigration control). But Labour voted against tougher measures to tackle illegal immigration 139 times and voted to block, delay or weaken the plan to stop the boats 126 times. The failure to effectively control immigration yet is having a harmful impact on public safety and on fundamental British values such as freedom of expression and religion, as well as equality of opportunity for women and for those in the LGBTQ+ community who are naturally anxious when they read about criminals like Khairi Saad Allah. As for "can we support a million year on year. Probably not". Are you kidding? Apart from anything else, England is the most densely populated nation in Europe. It is 3.5 times as crowded as France and twice as crowded as Germany. We should also clampdown on the lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse, many of whom couldn't even lie straight in bed. Thankfully, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has shut down three crooked law firms gaming the system. It also launched a major investigation into the immigration law sector and renewed its call for unlimited fining powers. The closed firms included Rashid & Rashid in south-west London. Outrageously, such firms duped the Home Office when seeking to determine claims for asylum. Let's be clear-headed on this, just like the criminal queue jumpers in dinghies, immigration lawyers who cheat and lie are taking the British public for a ride. It has to stop. How can anyone seriously argue otherwise? the reading killer was a failed asylum seeker. That speaks to me about issues about removing failed cases. And thank you for speaking on my behalf. Again, you jump from asylum claims, to 750k net migration (so all cases) and back to asylum claims. It confuses your position imo. If this is about capacity and strain on services I don't understand why your vitriol isn't at the majority of cases rather than minority. There's a stabbing in Bradford by a man here on a student / graduate visa if you want to go on a safety angle. Oh, and Rashid and Rashid are dodgy. Not lefty lawyers. But you need "lefty lawyers" to make justice work. Everyone deserves the opportunity to make their case. " I said they were crooked. They may be left-leaning, I don't know. I suspect that they are. I'm talking about all immigration, legal or illegal. It's inevitable I'll mention both, sorry if it confuses you. We must cut legal aid - particularly in immigration cases. Their clients are not citizens of this country and have not paid our taxes, so they should not be able to claim taxpayer's money. Much of the legal profession depends on legal aid/human rights cases, the likes of which Mrs Blair and Mr Starmer have taken up with relish. From the Left. Do you see how this works? | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. So after all those random assumptions, ranting and confusion about "left wing blob" you agreed with me that the country needs immigration. Fantastic work. Thank you. I never disagreed with you that we need immigration. Just not three quarters of a million immigrating every year. I'd like to see it at 50,000 or less each year, smartly executed with above average skilled people coming in where there are skilled jobs shortages. What about your ideas of workable numbers that are feasible for a small island? I'm not confused about the left wing blob. The 2019 Tory victory was a collective attempt by the British people to realign their country’s politics. It now feels as if the electorate pulled the lever of a general election only to find that the machine of democracy was already tilted against them. So little changed. Democracy feels skin-deep, because ministers have little control over which civil servants work for them or which Judges decide on appeal after appeal in immigration cases brought by lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse. Most reasonable people know full well that civil servants will delay the Rwanda plans until the election. There is a sort of metropolitan liberal elite that is running amok and must be brought down to reality. These people are here to serve, not lead the United Kingdom. What the UK needs is a populist moment, aimed not at the remote, grey-suited bureaucrats who once ruled us from Brussels, but at the homegrown, swamplike lefties who dictate ever more of our national life from Westminster. Have you ever been to London? The conviction with which you seem to be spouting all these stories about swamp like lefties and Brussels bureaucrats suggests to me that maybe you have never got further than the politics section of the Daily Mail or a reform party flyer (or both!). You do know that life is so much more nuanced and complex than your sound bites imply don’t you? I do think that if we are ever to make the UK a better place then we really do need to avoid this empty posturing and try to communicate in a less pejorative and more respectful manner?
The man who wants a less pejorative and more respectful approach is immediately hoist with his own petard by suggesting I get my views from Reform party leaflets and have never been to London! Classic!
Up here in the North, we should know our place eh?
And then you wonder why 17,410,742 people voted Brexit.
In this thread, you have opened fire on me about 'empty posturing' and posting 'soundbites'.
I've never messaged you, referred to you, been disrespectful to you, I just hold a different view to you on this subject, which I have expressed without bad language and which supports continued immigration. That is still allowed, right? Or do you own the Forum?
Why dont you go the whole hog and print the 'R' word?
Exactly my point….you expect me to use the “R” word when the point of my post was that using the terms you do of lefty lawyers instead of crooked ones is not helpful as it stokes division and thereby demeans your point of view. Too much aggression and not enough concession won’t get us anywhere, so for what it’s worth as an English man who has lived all over this land (including up North) I apologise for upsetting you but I still think you’re arguments are wrong"See my previous post. Good of you to apologise, it's accepted. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. So after all those random assumptions, ranting and confusion about "left wing blob" you agreed with me that the country needs immigration. Fantastic work. Thank you. I never disagreed with you that we need immigration. Just not three quarters of a million immigrating every year. I'd like to see it at 50,000 or less each year, smartly executed with above average skilled people coming in where there are skilled jobs shortages. What about your ideas of workable numbers that are feasible for a small island? I'm not confused about the left wing blob. The 2019 Tory victory was a collective attempt by the British people to realign their country’s politics. It now feels as if the electorate pulled the lever of a general election only to find that the machine of democracy was already tilted against them. So little changed. Democracy feels skin-deep, because ministers have little control over which civil servants work for them or which Judges decide on appeal after appeal in immigration cases brought by lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse. Most reasonable people know full well that civil servants will delay the Rwanda plans until the election. There is a sort of metropolitan liberal elite that is running amok and must be brought down to reality. These people are here to serve, not lead the United Kingdom. What the UK needs is a populist moment, aimed not at the remote, grey-suited bureaucrats who once ruled us from Brussels, but at the homegrown, swamplike lefties who dictate ever more of our national life from Westminster. . Well said. However I would like to see nil immigration. We are simply importing a future problem. Cheap foreign labour removes the need to mechanise and be efficient. Immigrants eventually become old and we have to care for them in old age . Consequently immigration provides no long term benefit to the country. House prices have risen 15 % due to immigration. The country has made many short sighted decisions . The pressure on schools and the NHS is unsustainable. We have to face reality. This is why I support a smart, low numbers policy on immigration. In the case of no or low skilled immigrants arriving illegally, they are a significant net fiscal drain (cost of rescue at sea, hotel costs, legal aid costs, benefits costs, cost to NHS, education and so on) because they can't work. They then might enter low paid jobs, tax receipts from which will take decades to neutralise the illegal entry costs they landed us with and eventually we have to pay them a full pension. And as you rightly say, they will spend a lifetime putting pressure on public services. You're right, we really have to face this head on, but it hasn't been tackled properly yet because of the left wing blob and Starmer will only enlarge said blob. It's all very unfair on genuine folk, fleeing for instance the Taliban or Putin's atrocities, who are generally net fiscal contributors but who are delayed or even usurped by basically queue jumpers, breaking the law. there's not a queue to be jumped because there's very few "official" routes and these tend to be for niche cases. And anyone who "becomes a drain" must have been granted asylum. So therefore are genuine folk. We could reduce the drain by creating safer ways of applying, processing quicker, and seeing if we can get them to being more productive once in. But let's not forget that these are genuine folk and this is humanitarian not commercial work. (Also, where do you get that genuine folk are generally net contributers yet others aren't ?) You haven't disproved anything I said! We have generously operated schemes specifically for Syrian, Afghan, Ukrainian and Hong Kong nationals, as well as a family reunion route for close family members of people who have already been granted protection in the UK, which is open to all nationalities! From January to September 2023, 9000 Afghans decided not to bother doing things legally and crossed the Channel in boats.Today we learn many of these criminals (their initial entry route was illegal) are now on the run. On top of the above, we have the UK Resettlement Scheme. It also uses a Community Sponsorship Scheme and a Mandate Resettlement Scheme. With the visa schemes, that all added up to net migration of around 750,000 last year. What are your proposals, unlimited? Where is the money coming from? The houses? The pressure on the environment, infrastructure? The above safe and legal routes offered by the UK government are the only ones considered by UK authorities to be safe and legal. These journeys can still have risks, but they have much less risk than the alternatives. People dying in the Channel, violently fighting the French Police, is not safe and legal and I'm surprised you appear to lean towards supporting it and the evil people smugglers. Queue-jumping criminals should not be welcomed here. 12,658 Albanians came to the UK by this illegal route in 2022, accounting for 28% of migrants! Albania is not war torn! But I guess you'd declare them all 'genuine folk'. Some people are incredibly naive on this subject. Thankfully strong Govt action agreeing a returns pact struck between London and Tirana has seen new numbers fall and many returned. Albania is considered a safe country to which migrants can be returned, before you say otherwise. Are you personally willing to take migrants into your own own home instead of seemingly demanding the taxpayer provide a blank cheque to make them feel better? In reality, those not eligible for asylum must be discouraged from coming. Rwanda is another part of this. If they survive the depredations of the people trafficking gangs, the enormous risks of their queue-jumping journey and make it to the UK these criminals are correctly detained for a long period, often become an exploited underclass or fall into crime. They inevitably add to the burdens on the poorest in society, adding pressure to resource-starved local councils where housing is already in very short supply and public services overstretched. How can this possibly be right? Your answer to this though is to facilitate large-scale and uncontrolled migration and not to check anyone? The UK already has one of the highest population densities in Europe and the legacy of social problems created in Germany and Sweden by waves of mass migration in the last decade does not bode well. Ukraine isn't for asylum seekers strictly speaking. Not sure HK is either. But are both country specific. And so a different queue. Not sure the Syrian scheme is open. And Afghan is clearly for one country. Again, feels like a different queue. Resettlement scheme is only for those that the UN identify as vulnerable. For most people there isn't a "safe" route. I have to be afgan, vulnerable and selected by UN, or have someone here already. (Note the family reunion approach may be a reason for more men) Let's be clear, I'm not leaning towards unsafe crossings. I disagree that schemes like Rwanda will solve. I'd rather we look at other ways. I'd ask you not strawman me about my thoughts of uncontrolled or unchecked migration. I've looked to address points you've made rather than make up your views. (Correct me if I ever do miss intérpret your views. It's not intentional). I'd like you to extend that curtosey. To be clear We should check. I'd argue we need to focus more effort into checking. The fact we find out after the event of criminal records shows we can find stuff out. We just don't at the time. I believe that many Albanians arent legitimate refugees. And id hypothesise many that are become legitimate because they are now in servitude due to crossing! (I'd note here that war isn't need to become an asylum seeker and haven't said Albania isn't safe as a rule, albeit it may be unsafe for individuals. I'd also note "unsafe" for Rwanda is a specific term about refoulement rather than if one can walk down the street) This is why I'd support faster processing so we know the success rates to give some evidence. We should reduce immigration. I'd focus on the balance of the three quarters of a million so that we can offer humanitarian aid. As I said before that bit has nothing to do with the blob. That's all on the Tories. Can we support a million year on year. Probably not. Can we support 50k pa for humanitarian reasons. Probably if we can absorb 650k today. You're wrong re Ukraine. There've been many asylum applications additional to the bespoke scheme. Hong Kongers have come in their droves. There has to be some control. Even with controls, which you appear to want to loosen, we had 745,000 more people come here in 2022 than left. Glad to hear that you agree with more checks. It's not going to bring back gay friends James Furlong, 36, David Wails, 49, and Joseph Ritchie-Bennett, 39, who were enjoying a warm Saturday evening in Reading's Forbury Gardens park when they were stabbed by a jihadist extremist who thought they were 'wrong uns' and that he will go to paradise upon his own death. Nor it will it bring back hundreds of other UK nationals slaughtered or injured by people we know nothing about. This Libyan asylum seeker who arrived illegally in 2012, stabbed the victims while shouting “Allahu akbar” - the Arabic phrase for “God is great.” The judge said the defendant, Khairi Saad Allah, was seeking to advance a political, religious or ideological cause” and had done substantial planning. He rejected the argument that Saadallah was suffering a mental illness at the time of the attack. 3 lives lost, 3 others severely affected by injury, Khairi Saad Allah was of course a criminal, with prior theft and assault convictions. This is no time to be weak as water. We need even firmer action (I concede the Tories are often asleep at the wheel with immigration control). But Labour voted against tougher measures to tackle illegal immigration 139 times and voted to block, delay or weaken the plan to stop the boats 126 times. The failure to effectively control immigration yet is having a harmful impact on public safety and on fundamental British values such as freedom of expression and religion, as well as equality of opportunity for women and for those in the LGBTQ+ community who are naturally anxious when they read about criminals like Khairi Saad Allah. As for "can we support a million year on year. Probably not". Are you kidding? Apart from anything else, England is the most densely populated nation in Europe. It is 3.5 times as crowded as France and twice as crowded as Germany. We should also clampdown on the lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse, many of whom couldn't even lie straight in bed. Thankfully, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has shut down three crooked law firms gaming the system. It also launched a major investigation into the immigration law sector and renewed its call for unlimited fining powers. The closed firms included Rashid & Rashid in south-west London. Outrageously, such firms duped the Home Office when seeking to determine claims for asylum. Let's be clear-headed on this, just like the criminal queue jumpers in dinghies, immigration lawyers who cheat and lie are taking the British public for a ride. It has to stop. How can anyone seriously argue otherwise? the reading killer was a failed asylum seeker. That speaks to me about issues about removing failed cases. And thank you for speaking on my behalf. Again, you jump from asylum claims, to 750k net migration (so all cases) and back to asylum claims. It confuses your position imo. If this is about capacity and strain on services I don't understand why your vitriol isn't at the majority of cases rather than minority. There's a stabbing in Bradford by a man here on a student / graduate visa if you want to go on a safety angle. Oh, and Rashid and Rashid are dodgy. Not lefty lawyers. But you need "lefty lawyers" to make justice work. Everyone deserves the opportunity to make their case. I said they were crooked. They may be left-leaning, I don't know. I suspect that they are. I'm talking about all immigration, legal or illegal. It's inevitable I'll mention both, sorry if it confuses you. We must cut legal aid - particularly in immigration cases. Their clients are not citizens of this country and have not paid our taxes, so they should not be able to claim taxpayer's money. Much of the legal profession depends on legal aid/human rights cases, the likes of which Mrs Blair and Mr Starmer have taken up with relish. From the Left. Do you see how this works? " legal aid is a terribly in profitable source of income. I know your passionate about all immigration. It doesn't confusee, but in my opinion it confuses some of your points. Irrc you are supportive of 50k immigration. That didn't cause capacity issues in your view. Before I proceed is that a fair statement of your view? | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. So after all those random assumptions, ranting and confusion about "left wing blob" you agreed with me that the country needs immigration. Fantastic work. Thank you. I never disagreed with you that we need immigration. Just not three quarters of a million immigrating every year. I'd like to see it at 50,000 or less each year, smartly executed with above average skilled people coming in where there are skilled jobs shortages. What about your ideas of workable numbers that are feasible for a small island? I'm not confused about the left wing blob. The 2019 Tory victory was a collective attempt by the British people to realign their country’s politics. It now feels as if the electorate pulled the lever of a general election only to find that the machine of democracy was already tilted against them. So little changed. Democracy feels skin-deep, because ministers have little control over which civil servants work for them or which Judges decide on appeal after appeal in immigration cases brought by lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse. Most reasonable people know full well that civil servants will delay the Rwanda plans until the election. There is a sort of metropolitan liberal elite that is running amok and must be brought down to reality. These people are here to serve, not lead the United Kingdom. What the UK needs is a populist moment, aimed not at the remote, grey-suited bureaucrats who once ruled us from Brussels, but at the homegrown, swamplike lefties who dictate ever more of our national life from Westminster. . Well said. However I would like to see nil immigration. We are simply importing a future problem. Cheap foreign labour removes the need to mechanise and be efficient. Immigrants eventually become old and we have to care for them in old age . Consequently immigration provides no long term benefit to the country. House prices have risen 15 % due to immigration. The country has made many short sighted decisions . The pressure on schools and the NHS is unsustainable. We have to face reality. This is why I support a smart, low numbers policy on immigration. In the case of no or low skilled immigrants arriving illegally, they are a significant net fiscal drain (cost of rescue at sea, hotel costs, legal aid costs, benefits costs, cost to NHS, education and so on) because they can't work. They then might enter low paid jobs, tax receipts from which will take decades to neutralise the illegal entry costs they landed us with and eventually we have to pay them a full pension. And as you rightly say, they will spend a lifetime putting pressure on public services. You're right, we really have to face this head on, but it hasn't been tackled properly yet because of the left wing blob and Starmer will only enlarge said blob. It's all very unfair on genuine folk, fleeing for instance the Taliban or Putin's atrocities, who are generally net fiscal contributors but who are delayed or even usurped by basically queue jumpers, breaking the law. there's not a queue to be jumped because there's very few "official" routes and these tend to be for niche cases. And anyone who "becomes a drain" must have been granted asylum. So therefore are genuine folk. We could reduce the drain by creating safer ways of applying, processing quicker, and seeing if we can get them to being more productive once in. But let's not forget that these are genuine folk and this is humanitarian not commercial work. (Also, where do you get that genuine folk are generally net contributers yet others aren't ?) You haven't disproved anything I said! We have generously operated schemes specifically for Syrian, Afghan, Ukrainian and Hong Kong nationals, as well as a family reunion route for close family members of people who have already been granted protection in the UK, which is open to all nationalities! From January to September 2023, 9000 Afghans decided not to bother doing things legally and crossed the Channel in boats.Today we learn many of these criminals (their initial entry route was illegal) are now on the run. On top of the above, we have the UK Resettlement Scheme. It also uses a Community Sponsorship Scheme and a Mandate Resettlement Scheme. With the visa schemes, that all added up to net migration of around 750,000 last year. What are your proposals, unlimited? Where is the money coming from? The houses? The pressure on the environment, infrastructure? The above safe and legal routes offered by the UK government are the only ones considered by UK authorities to be safe and legal. These journeys can still have risks, but they have much less risk than the alternatives. People dying in the Channel, violently fighting the French Police, is not safe and legal and I'm surprised you appear to lean towards supporting it and the evil people smugglers. Queue-jumping criminals should not be welcomed here. 12,658 Albanians came to the UK by this illegal route in 2022, accounting for 28% of migrants! Albania is not war torn! But I guess you'd declare them all 'genuine folk'. Some people are incredibly naive on this subject. Thankfully strong Govt action agreeing a returns pact struck between London and Tirana has seen new numbers fall and many returned. Albania is considered a safe country to which migrants can be returned, before you say otherwise. Are you personally willing to take migrants into your own own home instead of seemingly demanding the taxpayer provide a blank cheque to make them feel better? In reality, those not eligible for asylum must be discouraged from coming. Rwanda is another part of this. If they survive the depredations of the people trafficking gangs, the enormous risks of their queue-jumping journey and make it to the UK these criminals are correctly detained for a long period, often become an exploited underclass or fall into crime. They inevitably add to the burdens on the poorest in society, adding pressure to resource-starved local councils where housing is already in very short supply and public services overstretched. How can this possibly be right? Your answer to this though is to facilitate large-scale and uncontrolled migration and not to check anyone? The UK already has one of the highest population densities in Europe and the legacy of social problems created in Germany and Sweden by waves of mass migration in the last decade does not bode well. Ukraine isn't for asylum seekers strictly speaking. Not sure HK is either. But are both country specific. And so a different queue. Not sure the Syrian scheme is open. And Afghan is clearly for one country. Again, feels like a different queue. Resettlement scheme is only for those that the UN identify as vulnerable. For most people there isn't a "safe" route. I have to be afgan, vulnerable and selected by UN, or have someone here already. (Note the family reunion approach may be a reason for more men) Let's be clear, I'm not leaning towards unsafe crossings. I disagree that schemes like Rwanda will solve. I'd rather we look at other ways. I'd ask you not strawman me about my thoughts of uncontrolled or unchecked migration. I've looked to address points you've made rather than make up your views. (Correct me if I ever do miss intérpret your views. It's not intentional). I'd like you to extend that curtosey. To be clear We should check. I'd argue we need to focus more effort into checking. The fact we find out after the event of criminal records shows we can find stuff out. We just don't at the time. I believe that many Albanians arent legitimate refugees. And id hypothesise many that are become legitimate because they are now in servitude due to crossing! (I'd note here that war isn't need to become an asylum seeker and haven't said Albania isn't safe as a rule, albeit it may be unsafe for individuals. I'd also note "unsafe" for Rwanda is a specific term about refoulement rather than if one can walk down the street) This is why I'd support faster processing so we know the success rates to give some evidence. We should reduce immigration. I'd focus on the balance of the three quarters of a million so that we can offer humanitarian aid. As I said before that bit has nothing to do with the blob. That's all on the Tories. Can we support a million year on year. Probably not. Can we support 50k pa for humanitarian reasons. Probably if we can absorb 650k today. You're wrong re Ukraine. There've been many asylum applications additional to the bespoke scheme. Hong Kongers have come in their droves. There has to be some control. Even with controls, which you appear to want to loosen, we had 745,000 more people come here in 2022 than left. Glad to hear that you agree with more checks. It's not going to bring back gay friends James Furlong, 36, David Wails, 49, and Joseph Ritchie-Bennett, 39, who were enjoying a warm Saturday evening in Reading's Forbury Gardens park when they were stabbed by a jihadist extremist who thought they were 'wrong uns' and that he will go to paradise upon his own death. Nor it will it bring back hundreds of other UK nationals slaughtered or injured by people we know nothing about. This Libyan asylum seeker who arrived illegally in 2012, stabbed the victims while shouting “Allahu akbar” - the Arabic phrase for “God is great.” The judge said the defendant, Khairi Saad Allah, was seeking to advance a political, religious or ideological cause” and had done substantial planning. He rejected the argument that Saadallah was suffering a mental illness at the time of the attack. 3 lives lost, 3 others severely affected by injury, Khairi Saad Allah was of course a criminal, with prior theft and assault convictions. This is no time to be weak as water. We need even firmer action (I concede the Tories are often asleep at the wheel with immigration control). But Labour voted against tougher measures to tackle illegal immigration 139 times and voted to block, delay or weaken the plan to stop the boats 126 times. The failure to effectively control immigration yet is having a harmful impact on public safety and on fundamental British values such as freedom of expression and religion, as well as equality of opportunity for women and for those in the LGBTQ+ community who are naturally anxious when they read about criminals like Khairi Saad Allah. As for "can we support a million year on year. Probably not". Are you kidding? Apart from anything else, England is the most densely populated nation in Europe. It is 3.5 times as crowded as France and twice as crowded as Germany. We should also clampdown on the lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse, many of whom couldn't even lie straight in bed. Thankfully, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has shut down three crooked law firms gaming the system. It also launched a major investigation into the immigration law sector and renewed its call for unlimited fining powers. The closed firms included Rashid & Rashid in south-west London. Outrageously, such firms duped the Home Office when seeking to determine claims for asylum. Let's be clear-headed on this, just like the criminal queue jumpers in dinghies, immigration lawyers who cheat and lie are taking the British public for a ride. It has to stop. How can anyone seriously argue otherwise? the reading killer was a failed asylum seeker. That speaks to me about issues about removing failed cases. And thank you for speaking on my behalf. Again, you jump from asylum claims, to 750k net migration (so all cases) and back to asylum claims. It confuses your position imo. If this is about capacity and strain on services I don't understand why your vitriol isn't at the majority of cases rather than minority. There's a stabbing in Bradford by a man here on a student / graduate visa if you want to go on a safety angle. Oh, and Rashid and Rashid are dodgy. Not lefty lawyers. But you need "lefty lawyers" to make justice work. Everyone deserves the opportunity to make their case. I said they were crooked. They may be left-leaning, I don't know. I suspect that they are. I'm talking about all immigration, legal or illegal. It's inevitable I'll mention both, sorry if it confuses you. We must cut legal aid - particularly in immigration cases. Their clients are not citizens of this country and have not paid our taxes, so they should not be able to claim taxpayer's money. Much of the legal profession depends on legal aid/human rights cases, the likes of which Mrs Blair and Mr Starmer have taken up with relish. From the Left. Do you see how this works? legal aid is a terribly in profitable source of income. I know your passionate about all immigration. It doesn't confusee, but in my opinion it confuses some of your points. Irrc you are supportive of 50k immigration. That didn't cause capacity issues in your view. Before I proceed is that a fair statement of your view? " I've said what I've said. I'm not going to say much more whilst I hear the machinery of a trap operating in the background. All issues have to be worked through. Those issues will be tumultuous if we keep letting in 800,000 a year. | |||
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68913287 MP says he can’t look his NHS colleagues and patients in the eye and conservatives are no longer focussed on public services . Going with those stepping down next election could there be more defections after the local government election results ? Labour have shifted so far to the right that they are now palatable for some Tories. 'so far to the right' Do you have any examples of this? Their policies. Details of which they rarely give, because the country just 'wants change'. Can you give any examples of these 'brutal' policies that are 'so far to the right' which Labour are itching to implement? Labour are going to continue Tory policies that prioritise oil company profits over British people and over tackling climate change. Labour have joined in the anti immigrant rhetoric. As some examples. Labour are offering minimal change. Just a less corrupt, less self serving version of the Tories. 1 is just your opinion I think. No, these are things that Starmer has said and done. I doubt that will appear word for word in their Manifesto. Indeed. But I wasn't intending to predict the wording of their next manifesto. 2 is exactly that, just rhetoric. Labour is inherently pro immigration. All political parties are. We need immigration for the country to function. 3 is waffle and not borne out by history. The 97 to 10 Labour government was drenched in sleaze. In the 2009 expenses scandal, no Tory MPs went to jail, several Labour MPs did. Not sure there's any comparison. I'm not here to defend Labour, I certainly won't be voting for them. The last 14 years of self serving nepotism based politics has been utterly brutal for British people (aside from the ultra wealthy). And there has been nothing but corruption and scandal. The truth now is not that the UK needs immigrants, but that immigrants want the UK. We certainly do not need 750,000 net migration year after year. People (like you?) who want large-scale immigration and population growth have to tell us where you would like it to stop. Last year we swept past 70m people. Would you like us to stop at 70m or 100m or 200m? We are already one of the world's most densely populated countries, a mature nation that is not in the business of nation building as Canada and Australia still are. A rapidly growing population means more pressure to cover the green belt with houses, more environmental degradation, more congestion, more overwhelmed public services. This insatiable greed for unskilled migrant workers also keeps wages down, a basic economic fact. Any influx of unskilled migrants is going to lower unskilled wages and raise the level of unskilled unemployment. Do you think this is a good economic model for the UK going forwards? A smart, properly executed skilled-immigrants only policy is the way forward. In the tens of thousands. Labour is not offering this and whilst the Tories once did, they were thwarted at every turn by the Left wing blob. So after all those random assumptions, ranting and confusion about "left wing blob" you agreed with me that the country needs immigration. Fantastic work. Thank you. I never disagreed with you that we need immigration. Just not three quarters of a million immigrating every year. I'd like to see it at 50,000 or less each year, smartly executed with above average skilled people coming in where there are skilled jobs shortages. What about your ideas of workable numbers that are feasible for a small island? I'm not confused about the left wing blob. The 2019 Tory victory was a collective attempt by the British people to realign their country’s politics. It now feels as if the electorate pulled the lever of a general election only to find that the machine of democracy was already tilted against them. So little changed. Democracy feels skin-deep, because ministers have little control over which civil servants work for them or which Judges decide on appeal after appeal in immigration cases brought by lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse. Most reasonable people know full well that civil servants will delay the Rwanda plans until the election. There is a sort of metropolitan liberal elite that is running amok and must be brought down to reality. These people are here to serve, not lead the United Kingdom. What the UK needs is a populist moment, aimed not at the remote, grey-suited bureaucrats who once ruled us from Brussels, but at the homegrown, swamplike lefties who dictate ever more of our national life from Westminster. . Well said. However I would like to see nil immigration. We are simply importing a future problem. Cheap foreign labour removes the need to mechanise and be efficient. Immigrants eventually become old and we have to care for them in old age . Consequently immigration provides no long term benefit to the country. House prices have risen 15 % due to immigration. The country has made many short sighted decisions . The pressure on schools and the NHS is unsustainable. We have to face reality. This is why I support a smart, low numbers policy on immigration. In the case of no or low skilled immigrants arriving illegally, they are a significant net fiscal drain (cost of rescue at sea, hotel costs, legal aid costs, benefits costs, cost to NHS, education and so on) because they can't work. They then might enter low paid jobs, tax receipts from which will take decades to neutralise the illegal entry costs they landed us with and eventually we have to pay them a full pension. And as you rightly say, they will spend a lifetime putting pressure on public services. You're right, we really have to face this head on, but it hasn't been tackled properly yet because of the left wing blob and Starmer will only enlarge said blob. It's all very unfair on genuine folk, fleeing for instance the Taliban or Putin's atrocities, who are generally net fiscal contributors but who are delayed or even usurped by basically queue jumpers, breaking the law. there's not a queue to be jumped because there's very few "official" routes and these tend to be for niche cases. And anyone who "becomes a drain" must have been granted asylum. So therefore are genuine folk. We could reduce the drain by creating safer ways of applying, processing quicker, and seeing if we can get them to being more productive once in. But let's not forget that these are genuine folk and this is humanitarian not commercial work. (Also, where do you get that genuine folk are generally net contributers yet others aren't ?) You haven't disproved anything I said! We have generously operated schemes specifically for Syrian, Afghan, Ukrainian and Hong Kong nationals, as well as a family reunion route for close family members of people who have already been granted protection in the UK, which is open to all nationalities! From January to September 2023, 9000 Afghans decided not to bother doing things legally and crossed the Channel in boats.Today we learn many of these criminals (their initial entry route was illegal) are now on the run. On top of the above, we have the UK Resettlement Scheme. It also uses a Community Sponsorship Scheme and a Mandate Resettlement Scheme. With the visa schemes, that all added up to net migration of around 750,000 last year. What are your proposals, unlimited? Where is the money coming from? The houses? The pressure on the environment, infrastructure? The above safe and legal routes offered by the UK government are the only ones considered by UK authorities to be safe and legal. These journeys can still have risks, but they have much less risk than the alternatives. People dying in the Channel, violently fighting the French Police, is not safe and legal and I'm surprised you appear to lean towards supporting it and the evil people smugglers. Queue-jumping criminals should not be welcomed here. 12,658 Albanians came to the UK by this illegal route in 2022, accounting for 28% of migrants! Albania is not war torn! But I guess you'd declare them all 'genuine folk'. Some people are incredibly naive on this subject. Thankfully strong Govt action agreeing a returns pact struck between London and Tirana has seen new numbers fall and many returned. Albania is considered a safe country to which migrants can be returned, before you say otherwise. Are you personally willing to take migrants into your own own home instead of seemingly demanding the taxpayer provide a blank cheque to make them feel better? In reality, those not eligible for asylum must be discouraged from coming. Rwanda is another part of this. If they survive the depredations of the people trafficking gangs, the enormous risks of their queue-jumping journey and make it to the UK these criminals are correctly detained for a long period, often become an exploited underclass or fall into crime. They inevitably add to the burdens on the poorest in society, adding pressure to resource-starved local councils where housing is already in very short supply and public services overstretched. How can this possibly be right? Your answer to this though is to facilitate large-scale and uncontrolled migration and not to check anyone? The UK already has one of the highest population densities in Europe and the legacy of social problems created in Germany and Sweden by waves of mass migration in the last decade does not bode well. Ukraine isn't for asylum seekers strictly speaking. Not sure HK is either. But are both country specific. And so a different queue. Not sure the Syrian scheme is open. And Afghan is clearly for one country. Again, feels like a different queue. Resettlement scheme is only for those that the UN identify as vulnerable. For most people there isn't a "safe" route. I have to be afgan, vulnerable and selected by UN, or have someone here already. (Note the family reunion approach may be a reason for more men) Let's be clear, I'm not leaning towards unsafe crossings. I disagree that schemes like Rwanda will solve. I'd rather we look at other ways. I'd ask you not strawman me about my thoughts of uncontrolled or unchecked migration. I've looked to address points you've made rather than make up your views. (Correct me if I ever do miss intérpret your views. It's not intentional). I'd like you to extend that curtosey. To be clear We should check. I'd argue we need to focus more effort into checking. The fact we find out after the event of criminal records shows we can find stuff out. We just don't at the time. I believe that many Albanians arent legitimate refugees. And id hypothesise many that are become legitimate because they are now in servitude due to crossing! (I'd note here that war isn't need to become an asylum seeker and haven't said Albania isn't safe as a rule, albeit it may be unsafe for individuals. I'd also note "unsafe" for Rwanda is a specific term about refoulement rather than if one can walk down the street) This is why I'd support faster processing so we know the success rates to give some evidence. We should reduce immigration. I'd focus on the balance of the three quarters of a million so that we can offer humanitarian aid. As I said before that bit has nothing to do with the blob. That's all on the Tories. Can we support a million year on year. Probably not. Can we support 50k pa for humanitarian reasons. Probably if we can absorb 650k today. You're wrong re Ukraine. There've been many asylum applications additional to the bespoke scheme. Hong Kongers have come in their droves. There has to be some control. Even with controls, which you appear to want to loosen, we had 745,000 more people come here in 2022 than left. Glad to hear that you agree with more checks. It's not going to bring back gay friends James Furlong, 36, David Wails, 49, and Joseph Ritchie-Bennett, 39, who were enjoying a warm Saturday evening in Reading's Forbury Gardens park when they were stabbed by a jihadist extremist who thought they were 'wrong uns' and that he will go to paradise upon his own death. Nor it will it bring back hundreds of other UK nationals slaughtered or injured by people we know nothing about. This Libyan asylum seeker who arrived illegally in 2012, stabbed the victims while shouting “Allahu akbar” - the Arabic phrase for “God is great.” The judge said the defendant, Khairi Saad Allah, was seeking to advance a political, religious or ideological cause” and had done substantial planning. He rejected the argument that Saadallah was suffering a mental illness at the time of the attack. 3 lives lost, 3 others severely affected by injury, Khairi Saad Allah was of course a criminal, with prior theft and assault convictions. This is no time to be weak as water. We need even firmer action (I concede the Tories are often asleep at the wheel with immigration control). But Labour voted against tougher measures to tackle illegal immigration 139 times and voted to block, delay or weaken the plan to stop the boats 126 times. The failure to effectively control immigration yet is having a harmful impact on public safety and on fundamental British values such as freedom of expression and religion, as well as equality of opportunity for women and for those in the LGBTQ+ community who are naturally anxious when they read about criminals like Khairi Saad Allah. As for "can we support a million year on year. Probably not". Are you kidding? Apart from anything else, England is the most densely populated nation in Europe. It is 3.5 times as crowded as France and twice as crowded as Germany. We should also clampdown on the lefty lawyers on legal aid largesse, many of whom couldn't even lie straight in bed. Thankfully, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has shut down three crooked law firms gaming the system. It also launched a major investigation into the immigration law sector and renewed its call for unlimited fining powers. The closed firms included Rashid & Rashid in south-west London. Outrageously, such firms duped the Home Office when seeking to determine claims for asylum. Let's be clear-headed on this, just like the criminal queue jumpers in dinghies, immigration lawyers who cheat and lie are taking the British public for a ride. It has to stop. How can anyone seriously argue otherwise? the reading killer was a failed asylum seeker. That speaks to me about issues about removing failed cases. And thank you for speaking on my behalf. Again, you jump from asylum claims, to 750k net migration (so all cases) and back to asylum claims. It confuses your position imo. If this is about capacity and strain on services I don't understand why your vitriol isn't at the majority of cases rather than minority. There's a stabbing in Bradford by a man here on a student / graduate visa if you want to go on a safety angle. Oh, and Rashid and Rashid are dodgy. Not lefty lawyers. But you need "lefty lawyers" to make justice work. Everyone deserves the opportunity to make their case. I said they were crooked. They may be left-leaning, I don't know. I suspect that they are. I'm talking about all immigration, legal or illegal. It's inevitable I'll mention both, sorry if it confuses you. We must cut legal aid - particularly in immigration cases. Their clients are not citizens of this country and have not paid our taxes, so they should not be able to claim taxpayer's money. Much of the legal profession depends on legal aid/human rights cases, the likes of which Mrs Blair and Mr Starmer have taken up with relish. From the Left. Do you see how this works? legal aid is a terribly in profitable source of income. I know your passionate about all immigration. It doesn't confusee, but in my opinion it confuses some of your points. Irrc you are supportive of 50k immigration. That didn't cause capacity issues in your view. Before I proceed is that a fair statement of your view? I've said what I've said. I'm not going to say much more whilst I hear the machinery of a trap operating in the background. All issues have to be worked through. Those issues will be tumultuous if we keep letting in 800,000 a year. " not a trap, but would illustrate why mixing refugee numbers and 800k can cause mixed messaging. Refugees aren't breaking infrastructure. Concerns here are linked to other things. Visas are causing infrastructure creaks. Valid concerns about absolute numbers. But solving that isbt solved from looking at refugees. | |||
| |||
