FabSwingers.com
 

FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Ok. So Reform are a thing. Now what?

Ok. So Reform are a thing. Now what?

Jump to: Newest in thread

 

By *resesse_Meliorem OP   Couple 4 weeks ago

Border of London

Sure, this isn't a general election. We know - people are more comfortable voting for a nonsense party when it comes to local elections.

But this has gone beyond that. The message is very clear: Reform are a party with the ability to gain votes in large quantities. A result like we see unfolding at the moment tells the country "look, we are real, we are viable and a vote for us can realistically get us into power". Crossing that threshold means that, come the next general election, Reform will be more than just a protest vote (which the Greens remain) - it will potentially be a vote for a majority party and prime minister.

Will that force people to consider the real impact of a Reform government and vote against them, or embolden people to make England great again? Will the Conservatives offer a coalition and strategic standing down in certain constituencies, or fight and potentially split the right? Are the Greens still even relevant, and will Labour galvanise the left, or will they be running around like headless chickens?

Is the face of UK politics changing forever, or is this just some local election shenanigans?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *apybarasCouple 4 weeks ago

High Lighthouse

Labour have lost the left, and not convinced the right. They are done for.

Reform has pretty much replaced the Torys in most people's minds.

The Greens have made gains, but the jury is out on whether that can be improved upon.

Up to now Reform have done a lot of talking. Now we'll see if they can back that up with action. On their track record in Kent and other places, maybe not.

There's quite a while to the next GE, and I don't think Reform will have quite the platform they'd like.

It's too far out to make real predictions, but I think it'll be close, possibly even a hung parliament.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oleraine-coupleCouple 4 weeks ago

Coleraine

Potted history of populism through the decades

Incompetence

Corruption

Cronyism

Failure

Those with the least always lose the most

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 4 weeks ago

North West


"Labour have lost the left, and not convinced the right. They are done for.

Reform has pretty much replaced the Torys in most people's minds.

The Greens have made gains, but the jury is out on whether that can be improved upon.

Up to now Reform have done a lot of talking. Now we'll see if they can back that up with action. On their track record in Kent and other places, maybe not.

There's quite a while to the next GE, and I don't think Reform will have quite the platform they'd like.

It's too far out to make real predictions, but I think it'll be close, possibly even a hung parliament."

I think a hung parliament is very likely. Maybe we will see if Nige makes good on his previous utterances on electoral reform in that instance eh?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *akat158Couple 4 weeks ago

Nottinghamshire

Now we try to mentally prepare for an increase in authoritarianism, fascism, and an erosion of progressive rights.

If Reform do end up winning a general election, we'll be governed by someone who idolises Trump and Putin.

We'll see the further push towards privatisation of the NHS and dismantling of public services.

They'll tell you all that the best way to make you better off will be to make the ultra rich, better off.

You'll probably be poorer and you might be paying for your healthcare.

And that's if you're lucky enough to be a white male. Any other demographic and it's likely to be rough.

But don't worry, they'll try and stop some dinghy's using a plan they don't really have.

And they'll have got there largely because of voter apathy and this weird saying that 'they're all the same', despite there being a large body of evidence to suggest that's not even remotely true.

Oh well, good luck everyone.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otMe66Man 4 weeks ago

Here and there

[Removed by poster at 08/05/26 12:49:13]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ingdomNightTimePleasuresMan 4 weeks ago

nearby

Race to the bottom

Reform are only here because tories and now Labour are both so shit

High small boat arrivals, tax payers attacked for cash to pay for increasing welfare and migrant hotels, and a wank brexit. No credible plans for the economy. Housing delivery at 12 year low. Increasing poverty, homelessness and unemployment.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otMe66Man 4 weeks ago

Here and there

We have seen this play out before, and I anticipated this outcome simply by listening to Farage, who has been very open in his plans

Farage never got the Brexit he wanted, hence the disruption and formation of Reform. In my view, Farage is not about taking the power or more importantly the responsibility of being PM, but more about shifting the political direction of both Labour and the Conservatives.

That is exactly what happened during the Brexit. His pressure changed the policies and landscape that gave him "Leave".

Both conservatives and labour parties now face the same dilemma adapt, listen and respond, or risk losing more ground to Reform. That fear will drive change, it could be messy at the GE but Farage will be the puppet master.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 4 weeks ago

London

Starmer has been stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Left wing voter base always had two sub-groups that didn't agree with each other on social issues - The working class who have conservative social views on immigration, LGBT etc and the upper middle class progressives who are socially liberal on these issues.

Farage knows how to exploit this difference and take the working class on his side and he has repeatedly been successful in it. Unfortunately, the upper middle class progressives will as usual call these voters flag-shaggers or whatever trends at that time and move on.

Starmer has been trying to reach out to these voters through his immigration policy changes, alienating his progressive voters who are now moving to the Greens. Most of these changes haven't been enforced yet. It would be interesting to see how effective these changes are, in the next few years.

If these changes really solves the legal/illegal immigration concerns that people have, Reform may lose its shine. If not, I believe Tories will be forced to adapt Reform's proposed policies and form a coalition with them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *CExeCouple 4 weeks ago

Hong-Kong/Exeter

The Greens had potential a while back, but unfortunately they're absolutely infested with vile antisemitism and will likely tread the same path as Corbynism and Momentum.

Reform are a mix of old working class Labour with some conservatism thrown in for good measure. While claims of 'fascism' and equally daft descriptors are thrown around, they're not much different to other mainstream parties. The last week or so I've seen loads of folks talking about the £5M donation, all while seemingly oblivious to the £4M that Labour received from Quadrature, a hedge fund with hundreds of millions invested in arms and oil. People pick and choose facts that suit their narrative and world view.

Ultimately politics is a mess, and not just in the UK. My unpopular opinion is that we needed disruptors like Farage, Trump and even Corbyn to shake things up and force a reset in the stale, rotten systems we have in place that hark from a time gone by.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago

Now we make sure we never have a meet with their supporters to start, disgusting.

But what's needed is different in England to the other nations. England has a chip on its shoulder and inability to be European. It's now sucked up to fascism. What's needed is control of budgets for party spending, the bc to be gone and journalism to become what is should be, skeptical of all parties, not in bd with some. The watchdog is toothless to the money spent on hate. I rejoined Facebook from scratch last year, first thing on a blank canvas in as join or support reform Ltd company. Makes you wonder.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *akat158Couple 4 weeks ago

Nottinghamshire


"Now we make sure we never have a meet with their supporters to start "

If you find any tips or tricks on how to avoid them, let us know 😁

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *abioMan 4 weeks ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

See that reform seem to be taken seats from both labour and conservatives in different parts of the country makes me think that other than on immigration, people don’t actually know where reform actually stand…

and now people are going to find out and this is where we see them being picked apart on policy

The other thing that may start happening is if it looks like reform may get close to power, a lot more people may start voting tactically to keep them out….

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *estivalMan 4 weeks ago

borehamwood


"Potted history of populism through the decades

Incompetence

Corruption

Cronyism

Failure

Those with the least always lose the most "

sounss like every government this century

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otMe66Man 4 weeks ago

Here and there


"Now we make sure we never have a meet with their supporters to start, disgusting.

But what's needed is different in England to the other nations. England has a chip on its shoulder and inability to be European. It's now sucked up to fascism. What's needed is control of budgets for party spending, the bc to be gone and journalism to become what is should be, skeptical of all parties, not in bd with some. The watchdog is toothless to the money spent on hate. I rejoined Facebook from scratch last year, first thing on a blank canvas in as join or support reform Ltd company. Makes you wonder. "

What makes a Reform voter disgusting? In the real world how would you identify a Reform voter, here in a political forum, rather easy when declared.

England and English people are European, I'm not following why you would say they have a chip on their shoulder and struggle to be a thing that geographically can't be changed. What is the chip on the shoulder?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otMe66Man 4 weeks ago

Here and there


"See that reform seem to be taken seats from both labour and conservatives in different parts of the country makes me think that other than on immigration, people don’t actually know where reform actually stand… "

How have you read this through Reform taking seats from the 2 main parties in different parts of the country?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 4 weeks ago

London


"

But what's needed is different in England to the other nations. England has a chip on its shoulder and inability to be European. It's now sucked up to fascism. "

What exactly does it mean to be European? Reform-like parties are growing towards majority in every major European country. Even in Sweden, the darling of the left, the ruling coalition has a majority party that's similar to Reform. They have been making numerous policy changes on immigration recently.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *reachersdaughterWoman 4 weeks ago

someplace

This is grim. Sad to see really

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ingdomNightTimePleasuresMan 4 weeks ago

nearby


"This is grim. Sad to see really"

Tory and Labour failure has brought us here.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *reachersdaughterWoman 4 weeks ago

someplace


"This is grim. Sad to see really

Tory and Labour failure has brought us here. "

Ok mister

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *akat158Couple 4 weeks ago

Nottinghamshire


"Tory and Labour failure has brought us here. "

That's no excuse to vote for Reform.

Are you going to explain to someone that you voted to scrap the NHS because Labour started a war twenty years ago?

Are you going to tell a woman in your life that the reason she no longer has bodily autonomy is because the Conservatives didn't fix potholes?

Blaming other parties for your terrible voting choice is on you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *resesse_Meliorem OP   Couple 4 weeks ago

Border of London


"

Blaming other parties for your terrible voting choice is on you."

So the problem is democracy itself?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *akat158Couple 4 weeks ago

Nottinghamshire


"

So the problem is democracy itself?"

Yes, that's definitely what you should take away from that comment 🤦‍♂️

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *resesse_Meliorem OP   Couple 4 weeks ago

Border of London


"

So the problem is democracy itself?

Yes, that's definitely what you should take away from that comment 🤦‍♂️"

You're blaming outcomes on people voting (choosing) terribly (wrongly).

It's a perfectly valid observation. Not everyone agrees, but there's an argument that giving stupid people a vote risks leading to bad outcomes. What is the correct take away?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *umpertrucksMan 4 weeks ago

London


"Tory and Labour failure has brought us here.

That's no excuse to vote for Reform.

Are you going to explain to someone that you voted to scrap the NHS because Labour started a war twenty years ago?

Are you going to tell a woman in your life that the reason she no longer has bodily autonomy is because the Conservatives didn't fix potholes?

Blaming other parties for your terrible voting choice is on you."

. A bizarre comment. No one has voted to scap the NHS. It just needs to be overhauled, part privatised and made more accountable .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *akat158Couple 4 weeks ago

Nottinghamshire


" What is the correct take away?"

The take away is that it's your choice to vote for Reform, no one is forcing you to do it.

If you vote for them, you're voting for a leader that praises authoritarians, for a party that wants to demolish the NHS, strup away human rights, strip away workers rights, strip away women's rights, strip away LGBTQ rights, strip away environmental protections and climate change targets, and make rich people richer, then that's on you.

I hope whatever nebulous bullshittery they promise in return that's so much better than all the other parties in Britain, is worth it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *resesse_Meliorem OP   Couple 4 weeks ago

Border of London


" What is the correct take away?

The take away is that it's your choice to vote for Reform, no one is forcing you to do it.

If you vote for them, you're voting for a leader that praises authoritarians, for a party that wants to demolish the NHS, strup away human rights, strip away workers rights, strip away women's rights, strip away LGBTQ rights, strip away environmental protections and climate change targets, and make rich people richer, then that's on you.

I hope whatever nebulous bullshittery they promise in return that's so much better than all the other parties in Britain, is worth it.

"

...that's in response to "Tory and Labour failure has brought us here"?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *akat158Couple 4 weeks ago

Nottinghamshire


" bizarre comment. No one has voted to scap the NHS. It just needs to be overhauled, part privatised and made more accountable . "

Farage has literally said he wants to move away from a taxpayer funded system to an insurance based model.

You can Google him saying this.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 4 weeks ago

London


"Tory and Labour failure has brought us here.

That's no excuse to vote for Reform.

"

If you look at people's voting over the last decade, you can understand why Reform ended up in a strong position.

People have been voting for Tories who were supposed to be financially prudent and also control net immigration(something which they promised). But Boris Johnson made some serious with the immigration policy and resulted in record breaking net immigration. They couldn't take control of illegal immigration either. And the party that was supposed to be financially prudent splurged all the money during Covid.

Then they voted for Labour who also promised to deal with the immigration problems. So far, they haven't. To make matters worse, the economic situation hasn't improved much.

I personally believe that if Starmer/Shabana can push through the immigration reforms they have proposed, it would solve many problems and Reform will lose its shine. But the Labour backbenchers are strongly against it and I don't think they will let it pass.

But either way, the voters have given opportunity to centre parties to solve their problems. If they don't do it, who should we blame if they decided to vote for Reform?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *akat158Couple 4 weeks ago

Nottinghamshire


"

...that's in response to "Tory and Labour failure has brought us here"?"

That would be the comment I wrote it in reply to, so.....yes.

I was against Labours war in Iraq and I've suffered personally under many years of Tory mismanagement.

But I haven't suddenly decided that rolling back a few decades of social progression sounded like a good idea.

Who you vote for is your responsibility. Stop blaming your bad choices on others

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 4 weeks ago

North West


"

But either way, the voters have given opportunity to centre parties to solve their problems. If they don't do it, who should we blame if they decided to vote for Reform?"

‘The immigrants’ ?

Seems to be the prime motivator for a lot (arguably the majority) of Reform voters let’s face it.

Because stopping the immigrants will solve all this countries problems won’t it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ingdomNightTimePleasuresMan 4 weeks ago

nearby


"

Seems to be the prime motivator for a lot (arguably the majority) of Reform voters let’s face it "

Those that have turned on Labour in only 22 months

Labour have raided Pensioners, farmers, disabled, workers, and savers. Free clothes, holidays and spectacles for the front bench. Rising unemployment, poverty and homelessness. House building at 12 year low. Chancellors fake CV, Rayner, Mandelson.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *resesse_Meliorem OP   Couple 4 weeks ago

Border of London


"

...that's in response to "Tory and Labour failure has brought us here"?

That would be the comment I wrote it in reply to, so.....yes.

I was against Labours war in Iraq and I've suffered personally under many years of Tory mismanagement.

But I haven't suddenly decided that rolling back a few decades of social progression sounded like a good idea.

Who you vote for is your responsibility. Stop blaming your bad choices on others "

It's possible that the originator of the comment to which you responded did not actually vote for Reform. We assumed you were referring to a "generic you". Perhaps you're actually directing that "you" to him (or us)?

The originator of the content seemed to be generalising, that the failure of the two main parties has led the nation to a state where many are voting Reform. You seem to be to seeing this more personally.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *akat158Couple 4 weeks ago

Nottinghamshire


"It's possible that the originator of the comment to which you responded did not actually vote for Reform. We assumed you were referring to a "generic you". Perhaps you're actually directing that "you" to him (or us)?

The originator of the content seemed to be generalising, that the failure of the two main parties has led the nation to a state where many are voting Reform. You seem to be to seeing this more personally."

It's immaterial what the voting choice was of the poster is was responding to.

I was merely responding to the content of the comment.

I'm not taking anything personally.

I'm just trying to explain that if you looked at a table of food and thought 'well, I don't like the sandwiches very much and the pizza looks a bit stale. So I'm going to eat this steaming pile of dog shit instead' then that decisions on you, not the caterer.

Thanks for your input though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *umpertrucksMan 4 weeks ago

London


"

But either way, the voters have given opportunity to centre parties to solve their problems. If they don't do it, who should we blame if they decided to vote for Reform?

‘The immigrants’ ?

Seems to be the prime motivator for a lot (arguably the majority) of Reform voters let’s face it.

Because stopping the immigrants will solve all this countries problems won’t it?"

. It looks like you might need to read the Reform manifesto in more detail. The party is committed to reducing taxation ,part privatising the health service, abolishing capital gains tax and uplifting the tax free allowances for workers.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 4 weeks ago

London


"

But either way, the voters have given opportunity to centre parties to solve their problems. If they don't do it, who should we blame if they decided to vote for Reform?

‘The immigrants’ ?

Seems to be the prime motivator for a lot (arguably the majority) of Reform voters let’s face it.

Because stopping the immigrants will solve all this countries problems won’t it?"

Whether you like it or not, immigration itself is a problem for many. No one said that solving immigration would solve all the countries problems. The economic problems are different and should be seen in isolation from social problems.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *heeseandCrackersCouple 4 weeks ago

Newcastle

We’ve politely asked their voters to move past our profile

Which we have resisted doing but it’s a hard boundary for us

Cheese figured the colour of his skin would put most off but I didn’t want to take a chance

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ydaz70Man 4 weeks ago

Rotherham /newquay

Love seeing people losing there shite because some voted reform hilarious

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *tar6926Man 4 weeks ago

Manchester

Congratulations to Reform. Hopefully it’s just the start. Labour and the horrible Tories are the worst.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *resesse_Meliorem OP   Couple 4 weeks ago

Border of London


"Congratulations to Reform. Hopefully it’s just the start. Labour and the horrible Tories are the worst."

You support Reform, yet when referring to both Labour and Conservatives, you reserve the descriptor "horrible" for Tories? Interesting. With which party did you previously identify?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *izandpaulCouple 4 weeks ago

merseyside


"Tory and Labour failure has brought us here.

That's no excuse to vote for Reform.

Are you going to explain to someone that you voted to scrap the NHS because Labour started a war twenty years ago?

Are you going to tell a woman in your life that the reason she no longer has bodily autonomy is because the Conservatives didn't fix potholes?

Blaming other parties for your terrible voting choice is on you."

Think that's a very disingenuous way to describe people who feel after long bouts of Tory and Labour governments we are still in the same sad place.

People are fed up listening to the same clap trap and wet promises of a bright new world ahead as long as you give us another chance.

Some are being driven into the arms of Reform.

Politics needs to use, not just say, the word No a lot more.

With some dread I can see Trump number 2 being voted in, their oil industry in West Texas is going through a growth boom, it needs the time for new infrastructure to be laid, mainly to get the price for gas to be above the minus 9 dollar mark and a price above late 60's early 70's dollars a barrel to make it worth extracting but with tankers hanging around south of the Arabian Gulf turning towards US to load with light crude, the cash being poured into US will be massive and when Trump starts to show his voters how he has taken the petrodollars from the Gulf States to US oil companies he'll be a Messiah.

As long as the shit in the Gulf is continuing the US well heads will be working overtime.

Time will tell.

The world is in flux at present.

I've worked in the oil and gas industry around the world since a young man and have never seen a time like this, very exciting.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *resesse_Meliorem OP   Couple 4 weeks ago

Border of London


"We’ve politely asked their voters to move past our profile "

Tories will be ecstatic. Profiles used to say "no TERFs, no Tories". It looks like people are avoiding Reform nowadays and Tories are back on the menu

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ingdomNightTimePleasuresMan 4 weeks ago

nearby

Reform UK on 27% national equivalent vote in locals, says Sky News, with Tories 20%, Labour 15% and Greens and Lib Dems both 14%.

What a shift in 22 months. Labour made a lot of enemies.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *resesse_Meliorem OP   Couple 4 weeks ago

Border of London


"

Think that's a very disingenuous way to describe people who feel after long bouts of Tory and Labour governments we are still in the same sad place.

"

Exactly. Taking the time to understand people who feel differently is infinitely better and more productive than writing them off as bigots who vote terribly. When anger brings out these voters, the worst thing one can do is make them angry, if one disagrees with them.

This *exact* attitude got Trump elected.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *akat158Couple 4 weeks ago

Nottinghamshire


"This *exact* attitude got Trump elected."

Yes, let's blame everyone else but ourselves for our terrible decisions 🤣

"It's your fault for calling us completely accurate names"

- people who call you a snowflake

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *r BloMan 4 weeks ago

Stourbridge

Reform are a private for profit company, why they are called a political party is puzzling and why so many are convinced that so many establishment Tories who are now part of it and put this country in the mess it's in will be a different outcome is baffling to say the least. Just shows how easily a few billionaires control the masses as per usual.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *resesse_Meliorem OP   Couple 4 weeks ago

Border of London


"This *exact* attitude got Trump elected.

Yes, let's blame everyone else but ourselves for our terrible decisions 🤣

"It's your fault for calling us completely accurate names"

- people who call you a snowflake"

You're looking at a decision realised at the ballot box. You should be looking at what drives them to that decision and that ballot box.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *akat158Couple 4 weeks ago

Nottinghamshire


"

You're looking at a decision realised at the ballot box. You should be looking at what drives them to that decision and that ballot box."

Is it:

Lack of critical thinking skills?

Inability to analyse information correctly?

Disinformation on social media platforms and troll farms?

Interference by hostile foreign nations harnessing the power of social media and people's innate bias' to destabilise their enemies political system?

That kind of thing?

Oh no, it's the supposedly mean words they get called for voting to make things worse for everyone 😂🤣

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 4 weeks ago

London


"

You're looking at a decision realised at the ballot box. You should be looking at what drives them to that decision and that ballot box.

Is it:

Lack of critical thinking skills?

Inability to analyse information correctly?

Disinformation on social media platforms and troll farms?

Interference by hostile foreign nations harnessing the power of social media and people's innate bias' to destabilise their enemies political system?

That kind of thing?

Oh no, it's the supposedly mean words they get called for voting to make things worse for everyone 😂🤣

"

Curious, what do you think of the Greens?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *resesse_Meliorem OP   Couple 4 weeks ago

Border of London


"

You're looking at a decision realised at the ballot box. You should be looking at what drives them to that decision and that ballot box.

Is it:

Lack of critical thinking skills?

Inability to analyse information correctly?

Disinformation on social media platforms and troll farms?

Interference by hostile foreign nations harnessing the power of social media and people's innate bias' to destabilise their enemies political system?

That kind of thing?

Oh no, it's the supposedly mean words they get called for voting to make things worse for everyone 😂🤣

"

It's absolutely all of those things. You're getting it now - it's a whole ecosystem of misinformation, propaganda and hate. You'll see it being harnessed by the Greens (Palestine/Jews) and Reform (immigrants/Europe). But all the propaganda in the world is useless if people are content and happy with their lives (and the government), and it requires some underlying substance to trigger anger (deplorables).

How do you propose to deal with the first two issues, though?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *abioMan 4 weeks ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"See that reform seem to be taken seats from both labour and conservatives in different parts of the country makes me think that other than on immigration, people don’t actually know where reform actually stand…

How have you read this through Reform taking seats from the 2 main parties in different parts of the country?"

Because in the south, reform have taken a lot of the councils from the conservatives, and in the north they have taken a lot of the councils from Labour…

I’m surprised at a local level here for example in south Tyneside, Sunderland and Gateshead, people have looked at the way that reform have run County Durham and thought “hmmm… I really fancy some of that!”

That is what makes me wonder once you stop demonisation of immigrants, do people actually know what policies reform have?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *arry and MegsCouple 4 weeks ago

Ipswich

Now people get a chance to see how useless and unprepared reform are before a general election

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago


"Now people get a chance to see how useless and unprepared reform are before a general election

"

As opposed to seeing how competent Labour is.

Good to see Suffolk has got a Reform Council! Suck it up!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ellhungvweMan 4 weeks ago

Cheltenham

I think that no matter what you think of Reform you cannot deny that the world has changed.

This should be a huge wake up call to everyone who thinks that all the events of the last decade were some kind of aberration.

It should have been clear to everyone for a long time that there are huge disconnects in society and very large proportion of the electorate have been taken for granted and routinely dismissed.

The old shibboleths of left and right no longer hold any real meaning for the majority of people. They want change and they know the old parties are unable to provide it.

I dont see how any one can maintain the

delusion that things will go back to what they were.

I don’t know whether Reform will be able to make any meaningful impact on people’s lives if they get into power but it is abundantly clear that many people don’t think the previous order worked. The world will change and I think those parties that are able to have a _meaningful_ impact on the day to day lives of the great “unwashed” silent majority will be the benefactors. Will that be Reform? I have no idea but it won’t be the old parties.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ools and the brainCouple 4 weeks ago

couple, us we him her.

Trumpism at work in the UK.

Y'all ready to become the 51st state ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *eroy1000Man 4 weeks ago

milton keynes


"Sure, this isn't a general election. We know - people are more comfortable voting for a nonsense party when it comes to local elections.

But this has gone beyond that. The message is very clear: Reform are a party with the ability to gain votes in large quantities. A result like we see unfolding at the moment tells the country "look, we are real, we are viable and a vote for us can realistically get us into power". Crossing that threshold means that, come the next general election, Reform will be more than just a protest vote (which the Greens remain) - it will potentially be a vote for a majority party and prime minister.

Will that force people to consider the real impact of a Reform government and vote against them, or embolden people to make England great again? Will the Conservatives offer a coalition and strategic standing down in certain constituencies, or fight and potentially split the right? Are the Greens still even relevant, and will Labour galvanise the left, or will they be running around like headless chickens?

Is the face of UK politics changing forever, or is this just some local election shenanigans?"

What now? Well standard procedure is to call everyone racist and throw insults, especially mentioning their intelligence level. Never fails. Longer term it's an opportunity for other party's to attack Reform by pointing out failings of running councils.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otMe66Man 4 weeks ago

Here and there


"See that reform seem to be taken seats from both labour and conservatives in different parts of the country makes me think that other than on immigration, people don’t actually know where reform actually stand…

How have you read this through Reform taking seats from the 2 main parties in different parts of the country?

Because in the south, reform have taken a lot of the councils from the conservatives, and in the north they have taken a lot of the councils from Labour…

I’m surprised at a local level here for example in south Tyneside, Sunderland and Gateshead, people have looked at the way that reform have run County Durham and thought “hmmm… I really fancy some of that!”

That is what makes me wonder once you stop demonisation of immigrants, do people actually know what policies reform have? "

Wouldn't the question would be; are more areas of the country feeling influenced by local impacts of unplanned immigration in their local communities and that is causing an spike in Reform support?

It could be argued that is the case, however it could be far more nuanced than that with both labour and conservative parties not offering anything voters can get behind.

Or more likely it is a mix of both, but readily measurable.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *willz39mMan 4 weeks ago

seaham

really well said guys - just got to hope that it doesn't play out that way and people realise what they would be let themselves in for!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *uietbloke67Man 4 weeks ago

outside your bedroom window ;-)

Im going to sit back and watch all of those English reform councils do the square root of feck all other than line their pockets.

Get me my popcorn.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otMe66Man 4 weeks ago

Here and there


"Im going to sit back and watch all of those English reform councils do the square root of feck all other than line their pockets.

Get me my popcorn."

Does your local council or any council provide a good service today?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *r BloMan 4 weeks ago

Stourbridge


"Im going to sit back and watch all of those English reform councils do the square root of feck all other than line their pockets.

Get me my popcorn.

Does your local council or any council provide a good service today?"

Yes mine did, despite being full of people i did not want to elect a few years ago most of them have done a good job and continued with and even improved local services plus even worked with the opposition when it was needed. Unfortunately the tjose who have been elected will do nothing but stop anything from getting done for anyone. I wouldn't mind if they did stop the boats but those fucking thick cunts don't realise local government have nothing to do with Parliament and the decisions made in the house of commons.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ark742024Man 4 weeks ago

Stoke/Cheshire

The idea that Labour has done nothing in government is for the birds. The media in various guises has sought to undermine them from day one. It’s beyond pathetic

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago


"The idea that Labour has done nothing in government is for the birds. The media in various guises has sought to undermine them from day one. It’s beyond pathetic "

Anyone who thinks Labour has done a good job in local government should try visiting Birmingham.

Here we had pretty much a Labour one party state for over a decade. Thousands of pounds a year in Council tax and no recycling collected for a year and I’ve driven on better roads in the third world.

Thank goodness the thieving scum have been kicked out.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan 4 weeks ago

Gilfach


"The idea that Labour has done nothing in government is for the birds."

Nobody is saying that they've done nothing. We all agree that Labour have done things, it's just that most people don't like those things.


"The media in various guises has sought to undermine them from day one. It’s beyond pathetic"

That's what the media does. They did it to the Tories, and they'll do it to Reform when they get in.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *abioMan 4 weeks ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"Now people get a chance to see how useless and unprepared reform are before a general election

As opposed to seeing how competent Labour is.

Good to see Suffolk has got a Reform Council! Suck it up!"

Ahem… reform won Suffolk from the conservatives…

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *abioMan 4 weeks ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"The idea that Labour has done nothing in government is for the birds. The media in various guises has sought to undermine them from day one. It’s beyond pathetic "

The perception is that they have not really had a plan and have made U-turn at everything almost remotely unpopular

The truth of these elections is that the conservatives got punished for leaving labour with shit… and labour got punished for not doing enough to improve it!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *onin25Man 4 weeks ago

Durham


"

The truth of these elections is that the conservatives got punished for leaving labour with shit… and labour got punished for not doing enough to improve it! "

This exactly. People seem to think things can get meaningfully better overnight, and ignore that a lot of our economic problems can be made worse really quickly by things outside of the governments control happening overseas like the Iran war which Labour opposed but Farage was ready to go all on one.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *uietbloke67Man 4 weeks ago

outside your bedroom window ;-)


"Im going to sit back and watch all of those English reform councils do the square root of feck all other than line their pockets.

Get me my popcorn.

Does your local council or any council provide a good service today?"

Yip, my council provides me with a decent service.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago


"Now we try to mentally prepare for an increase in authoritarianism, fascism, and an erosion of progressive rights.

If Reform do end up winning a general election, we'll be governed by someone who idolises Trump and Putin.

We'll see the further push towards privatisation of the NHS and dismantling of public services.

They'll tell you all that the best way to make you better off will be to make the ultra rich, better off.

You'll probably be poorer and you might be paying for your healthcare.

And that's if you're lucky enough to be a white male. Any other demographic and it's likely to be rough.

But don't worry, they'll try and stop some dinghy's using a plan they don't really have.

And they'll have got there largely because of voter apathy and this weird saying that 'they're all the same', despite there being a large body of evidence to suggest that's not even remotely true.

Oh well, good luck everyone.

"

Spot on and the little boats they caused in the first place.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *rytomakelifefunMan 4 weeks ago

Leeds / Sheffield

Most of reform won't survive first contact with reality. I'll be surprised if they can even manage to get anything done at local level.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan 4 weeks ago

Gilfach


"Most of reform won't survive first contact with reality. I'll be surprised if they can even manage to get anything done at local level."

Then you should be pleased that Reform have done so well. These local elections will allow people to see what Reform are like, before the important elections come along in 3 years time.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hromakeyDreamcoatMan 4 weeks ago

Carlisle

The problem is that Reform offer simple solutions to complex problems, and people fall for it because thinking is hard. Even in this thread people are saying that we are being taxed more to pay for asylum seekers. The cost of asylum seekers to this country is minuscule in comparison to what the government spends as a whole, about a third of one percent, in fact.

Until people start thinking, and stop eating the shit that is spooned into their mouths, then we are going to get grifters like Farage running political parties on behalf of their Thai national friends who give them £5 million.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hromakeyDreamcoatMan 4 weeks ago

Carlisle


"Most of reform won't survive first contact with reality. I'll be surprised if they can even manage to get anything done at local level.

Then you should be pleased that Reform have done so well. These local elections will allow people to see what Reform are like, before the important elections come along in 3 years time."

Reform have been fucking things up in a few places already, but it’s not made a difference to their supporters.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 4 weeks ago

London


"The problem is that Reform offer simple solutions to complex problems, and people fall for it because thinking is hard. Even in this thread people are saying that we are being taxed more to pay for asylum seekers. The cost of asylum seekers to this country is minuscule in comparison to what the government spends as a whole, about a third of one percent, in fact.

Until people start thinking, and stop eating the shit that is spooned into their mouths, then we are going to get grifters like Farage running political parties on behalf of their Thai national friends who give them £5 million."

The problem with asylum isn't just limited to the cost and economics. While cost and economics is an issue because the current model is unsustainable, there are bigger societal issues which come with it. As long as the others ignore people's concerns on these issues, people will vote for them because from the voter's perspective, they are the only ones listening.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hromakeyDreamcoatMan 4 weeks ago

Carlisle


"The problem is that Reform offer simple solutions to complex problems, and people fall for it because thinking is hard. Even in this thread people are saying that we are being taxed more to pay for asylum seekers. The cost of asylum seekers to this country is minuscule in comparison to what the government spends as a whole, about a third of one percent, in fact.

Until people start thinking, and stop eating the shit that is spooned into their mouths, then we are going to get grifters like Farage running political parties on behalf of their Thai national friends who give them £5 million.

The problem with asylum isn't just limited to the cost and economics. While cost and economics is an issue because the current model is unsustainable, there are bigger societal issues which come with it. As long as the others ignore people's concerns on these issues, people will vote for them because from the voter's perspective, they are the only ones listening."

What are the wider societal issues?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 4 weeks ago

London


"The problem is that Reform offer simple solutions to complex problems, and people fall for it because thinking is hard. Even in this thread people are saying that we are being taxed more to pay for asylum seekers. The cost of asylum seekers to this country is minuscule in comparison to what the government spends as a whole, about a third of one percent, in fact.

Until people start thinking, and stop eating the shit that is spooned into their mouths, then we are going to get grifters like Farage running political parties on behalf of their Thai national friends who give them £5 million.

The problem with asylum isn't just limited to the cost and economics. While cost and economics is an issue because the current model is unsustainable, there are bigger societal issues which come with it. As long as the others ignore people's concerns on these issues, people will vote for them because from the voter's perspective, they are the only ones listening.

What are the wider societal issues?"

The government is letting in young men from countries which have vastly different values, without any background checks and dumping them in hotels in working class areas.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hromakeyDreamcoatMan 4 weeks ago

Carlisle


"The problem is that Reform offer simple solutions to complex problems, and people fall for it because thinking is hard. Even in this thread people are saying that we are being taxed more to pay for asylum seekers. The cost of asylum seekers to this country is minuscule in comparison to what the government spends as a whole, about a third of one percent, in fact.

Until people start thinking, and stop eating the shit that is spooned into their mouths, then we are going to get grifters like Farage running political parties on behalf of their Thai national friends who give them £5 million.

The problem with asylum isn't just limited to the cost and economics. While cost and economics is an issue because the current model is unsustainable, there are bigger societal issues which come with it. As long as the others ignore people's concerns on these issues, people will vote for them because from the voter's perspective, they are the only ones listening.

What are the wider societal issues?

The government is letting in young men from countries which have vastly different values, without any background checks and dumping them in hotels in working class areas."

But what are the wider societal issues?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 4 weeks ago

London


"The problem is that Reform offer simple solutions to complex problems, and people fall for it because thinking is hard. Even in this thread people are saying that we are being taxed more to pay for asylum seekers. The cost of asylum seekers to this country is minuscule in comparison to what the government spends as a whole, about a third of one percent, in fact.

Until people start thinking, and stop eating the shit that is spooned into their mouths, then we are going to get grifters like Farage running political parties on behalf of their Thai national friends who give them £5 million.

The problem with asylum isn't just limited to the cost and economics. While cost and economics is an issue because the current model is unsustainable, there are bigger societal issues which come with it. As long as the others ignore people's concerns on these issues, people will vote for them because from the voter's perspective, they are the only ones listening.

What are the wider societal issues?

The government is letting in young men from countries which have vastly different values, without any background checks and dumping them in hotels in working class areas.

But what are the wider societal issues?"

These are the bigger societal issues I mentioned. These hotels are spread around the country in many places and people don't like it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oorlandtwoCouple 4 weeks ago

Stoke on Trent


"Now we try to mentally prepare for an increase in authoritarianism, fascism, and an erosion of progressive rights.

If Reform do end up winning a general election, we'll be governed by someone who idolises Trump and Putin.

We'll see the further push towards privatisation of the NHS and dismantling of public services.

They'll tell you all that the best way to make you better off will be to make the ultra rich, better off.

You'll probably be poorer and you might be paying for your healthcare.

And that's if you're lucky enough to be a white male. Any other demographic and it's likely to be rough.

But don't worry, they'll try and stop some dinghy's using a plan they don't really have.

And they'll have got there largely because of voter apathy and this weird saying that 'they're all the same', despite there being a large body of evidence to suggest that's not even remotely true.

Oh well, good luck everyone.

"

The current Fascists and control freaks who are constantly eroding our civil liberties proudly wore red rosettes during the May elections

Whilst those in wearing turquoise want to free us from central control, will stop 2 Tier Kier style policing and make us proud to British once again

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hromakeyDreamcoatMan 4 weeks ago

Carlisle


"The problem is that Reform offer simple solutions to complex problems, and people fall for it because thinking is hard. Even in this thread people are saying that we are being taxed more to pay for asylum seekers. The cost of asylum seekers to this country is minuscule in comparison to what the government spends as a whole, about a third of one percent, in fact.

Until people start thinking, and stop eating the shit that is spooned into their mouths, then we are going to get grifters like Farage running political parties on behalf of their Thai national friends who give them £5 million.

The problem with asylum isn't just limited to the cost and economics. While cost and economics is an issue because the current model is unsustainable, there are bigger societal issues which come with it. As long as the others ignore people's concerns on these issues, people will vote for them because from the voter's perspective, they are the only ones listening.

What are the wider societal issues?

The government is letting in young men from countries which have vastly different values, without any background checks and dumping them in hotels in working class areas.

But what are the wider societal issues?

These are the bigger societal issues I mentioned. These hotels are spread around the country in many places and people don't like it."

That’s not a societal issue, it’s a logistical issue. People, men, women, and children, are accommodated in hotels while their applications are processed. The number of hotels used has reduced by 54% over the last couple of years, and applications are being processed more quickly.

People don’t like a lot of things but I had two hotels housing asylum seekers in my area, never had an issue.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 4 weeks ago

London


"

That’s not a societal issue, it’s a logistical issue. People, men, women, and children, are accommodated in hotels while their applications are processed. The number of hotels used has reduced by 54% over the last couple of years, and applications are being processed more quickly.

People don’t like a lot of things but I had two hotels housing asylum seekers in my area, never had an issue."

It's a societal issue. People do not want to take tens of thousands of unvetted strangers into the country. It makes them feel unsafe. Moving them from hotels to other housing doesn't make it any better.

You as a single guy can live anywhere. Not the same for people with families.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *AJMLKTV/TS 4 weeks ago

Burley


"

That’s not a societal issue, it’s a logistical issue. People, men, women, and children, are accommodated in hotels while their applications are processed. The number of hotels used has reduced by 54% over the last couple of years, and applications are being processed more quickly.

People don’t like a lot of things but I had two hotels housing asylum seekers in my area, never had an issue.

It's a societal issue. People do not want to take tens of thousands of unvetted strangers into the country. It makes them feel unsafe. Moving them from hotels to other housing doesn't make it any better.

You as a single guy can live anywhere. Not the same for people with families."

A typical left wing "I'm alright Jack" attitude. It only gives a shit about immigrants because it's hip and cool at the moment. It doesn't give a shit about families, obviously. It's no wonder Reform have gained so much ground.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oufouCouple 4 weeks ago

Somerset


"

So the problem is democracy itself?

It's a perfectly valid observation. Not everyone agrees, but there's an argument that giving stupid people a vote risks leading to bad outcomes. What is the correct take away?"

Democracy is a process. And the process works just fine. The problem is education: as a society we simply don’t prioritise the concepts of citizenship, egalitarianism and social responsibility. Instead we take a shallow view of the problems we have and blame a group who have least political agency: immigrants.

It’s also worth remembering that a century ago, a good portion of the world was pink… it’s ironic that ambition has now come home to roost.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hromakeyDreamcoatMan 4 weeks ago

Carlisle


"

That’s not a societal issue, it’s a logistical issue. People, men, women, and children, are accommodated in hotels while their applications are processed. The number of hotels used has reduced by 54% over the last couple of years, and applications are being processed more quickly.

People don’t like a lot of things but I had two hotels housing asylum seekers in my area, never had an issue.

It's a societal issue. People do not want to take tens of thousands of unvetted strangers into the country. It makes them feel unsafe. Moving them from hotels to other housing doesn't make it any better.

You as a single guy can live anywhere. Not the same for people with families."

Why would you feel unsafe? I certainly don’t. And just because I’m single doesn’t mean I don’t have a family and can live anywhere. Also, as I said I never had any problems with the asylum seekers around here, and I don’t recall reading about any issues in the local press.

With mobs of pissed up idiots trying to set fire to the hotels I’d say the asylum seekers have far more reason to be afraid.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *sian_Persuasian1984Man 4 weeks ago

Bradford


"This is grim. Sad to see really

Tory and Labour failure has brought us here. "

exactly

let people get it out of their system, the reform voters have been brainwashed in to thinking they’ll be any different, they won’t

Immigrants will still arrive, working class, disabled and vulnerable in society will still suffer, the rich will get even richer as will Farage.

In the end we will go from one extreme to a hard left

Labour is dead though not going to be revived

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ark742024Man 4 weeks ago

Stoke/Cheshire


"The idea that Labour has done nothing in government is for the birds.

Nobody is saying that they've done nothing. We all agree that Labour have done things, it's just that most people don't like those things.

The media in various guises has sought to undermine them from day one. It’s beyond pathetic

That's what the media does. They did it to the Tories, and they'll do it to Reform when they get in."

What things have they done that people don’t like?

You think it’s ok to destroy a government for no apparent reason?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ark742024Man 4 weeks ago

Stoke/Cheshire


"The idea that Labour has done nothing in government is for the birds. The media in various guises has sought to undermine them from day one. It’s beyond pathetic

Anyone who thinks Labour has done a good job in local government should try visiting Birmingham.

Here we had pretty much a Labour one party state for over a decade. Thousands of pounds a year in Council tax and no recycling collected for a year and I’ve driven on better roads in the third world.

Thank goodness the thieving scum have been kicked out."

You studied any of the Reform controlled councils?

Your lack of understanding is astounding

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otMe66Man 4 weeks ago

Here and there


"

That’s not a societal issue, it’s a logistical issue. People, men, women, and children, are accommodated in hotels while their applications are processed. The number of hotels used has reduced by 54% over the last couple of years, and applications are being processed more quickly.

People don’t like a lot of things but I had two hotels housing asylum seekers in my area, never had an issue.

It's a societal issue. People do not want to take tens of thousands of unvetted strangers into the country. It makes them feel unsafe. Moving them from hotels to other housing doesn't make it any better.

You as a single guy can live anywhere. Not the same for people with families.

Why would you feel unsafe? I certainly don’t. And just because I’m single doesn’t mean I don’t have a family and can live anywhere. Also, as I said I never had any problems with the asylum seekers around here, and I don’t recall reading about any issues in the local press.

With mobs of pissed up idiots trying to set fire to the hotels I’d say the asylum seekers have far more reason to be afraid."

If you base your opinion on yourself, you will always be lagging the consensus

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 4 weeks ago

London


"

Why would you feel unsafe? I certainly don’t. And just because I’m single doesn’t mean I don’t have a family and can live anywhere. Also, as I said I never had any problems with the asylum seekers around here, and I don’t recall reading about any issues in the local press.

"

I am single too. But I have many family and friends who have kids. The way I see things and they see things are drastically different. I have been surprised myself so many times. That guy selling down the street? Not a problem for you or me. But it's a serious problem for parents whose kids come that way from school. Same with asylum accommodation. Considering the number of cases about what has happened these areas, it's natural for parents to get protective about their kids.


"

With mobs of pissed up idiots trying to set fire to the hotels I’d say the asylum seekers have far more reason to be afraid."

You don't see the irony here? I could argue against this by saying that there is an asylum accommodation next to me and no one set fire on that. So they must be safe.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ark742024Man 4 weeks ago

Stoke/Cheshire


"

That’s not a societal issue, it’s a logistical issue. People, men, women, and children, are accommodated in hotels while their applications are processed. The number of hotels used has reduced by 54% over the last couple of years, and applications are being processed more quickly.

People don’t like a lot of things but I had two hotels housing asylum seekers in my area, never had an issue.

It's a societal issue. People do not want to take tens of thousands of unvetted strangers into the country. It makes them feel unsafe. Moving them from hotels to other housing doesn't make it any better.

You as a single guy can live anywhere. Not the same for people with families.

Why would you feel unsafe? I certainly don’t. And just because I’m single doesn’t mean I don’t have a family and can live anywhere. Also, as I said I never had any problems with the asylum seekers around here, and I don’t recall reading about any issues in the local press.

With mobs of pissed up idiots trying to set fire to the hotels I’d say the asylum seekers have far more reason to be afraid.

If you base your opinion on yourself, you will always be lagging the consensus"

What?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otMe66Man 4 weeks ago

Here and there


"

That’s not a societal issue, it’s a logistical issue. People, men, women, and children, are accommodated in hotels while their applications are processed. The number of hotels used has reduced by 54% over the last couple of years, and applications are being processed more quickly.

People don’t like a lot of things but I had two hotels housing asylum seekers in my area, never had an issue.

It's a societal issue. People do not want to take tens of thousands of unvetted strangers into the country. It makes them feel unsafe. Moving them from hotels to other housing doesn't make it any better.

You as a single guy can live anywhere. Not the same for people with families.

Why would you feel unsafe? I certainly don’t. And just because I’m single doesn’t mean I don’t have a family and can live anywhere. Also, as I said I never had any problems with the asylum seekers around here, and I don’t recall reading about any issues in the local press.

With mobs of pissed up idiots trying to set fire to the hotels I’d say the asylum seekers have far more reason to be afraid.

If you base your opinion on yourself, you will always be lagging the consensus

What? "

Exactly

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ermbiMan 3 weeks ago

Ballyshannon


"The problem is that Reform offer simple solutions to complex problems, and people fall for it because thinking is hard. Even in this thread people are saying that we are being taxed more to pay for asylum seekers. The cost of asylum seekers to this country is minuscule in comparison to what the government spends as a whole, about a third of one percent, in fact.

Until people start thinking, and stop eating the shit that is spooned into their mouths, then we are going to get grifters like Farage running political parties on behalf of their Thai national friends who give them £5 million."

And perhaps further friends giving cash too. Spokesperson wouldnt give an answer when asked. For a political party with a significant electoral backing this is not good enough. Stop hiding from the tough questions Nigel. Voters take heed

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 3 weeks ago

North West

The demonisation of immigrants & clarion call of nationalism seems like a last throw of the dice from the right wing. The status quo has been on its arse since the financial crisis of 2008.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens after the immigrants are ‘stopped’ (though I’m dubious of Farage’s proposed methods & his likely results)

Who will the poor turn to next after being hoodwinked into voting for Reform when they realise their lives do not improve in any notable measure whilst the rich get even richer after he turns the UK into Singapore on Thames?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) 3 weeks ago


"The demonisation of immigrants & clarion call of nationalism seems like a last throw of the dice from the right wing. The status quo has been on its arse since the financial crisis of 2008.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens after the immigrants are ‘stopped’ (though I’m dubious of Farage’s proposed methods & his likely results)

Who will the poor turn to next after being hoodwinked into voting for Reform when they realise their lives do not improve in any notable measure whilst the rich get even richer after he turns the UK into Singapore on Thames?

"

“The poor” vote Labour for decades and are still poor - sensible decision intelligently made in their own interests.

“The poor” decide to vote for someone else having voted Labour for decades and found that things have got worse for them - they’ve been “hoodwinked”.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otMe66Man 3 weeks ago

Here and there


"The demonisation of immigrants & clarion call of nationalism seems like a last throw of the dice from the right wing. The status quo has been on its arse since the financial crisis of 2008.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens after the immigrants are ‘stopped’ (though I’m dubious of Farage’s proposed methods & his likely results)

Who will the poor turn to next after being hoodwinked into voting for Reform when they realise their lives do not improve in any notable measure whilst the rich get even richer after he turns the UK into Singapore on Thames?

"

Why is it that a minority of people who can't read the room are the ones who consistently call out the majority as being fooled?

If both labour and the conservatives had tried to understand the real issues people are facing they might not be in the mess they are in now, they are so out of step it is embarrassing, but they continue to play to the minority.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 3 weeks ago

North West


"The demonisation of immigrants & clarion call of nationalism seems like a last throw of the dice from the right wing. The status quo has been on its arse since the financial crisis of 2008.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens after the immigrants are ‘stopped’ (though I’m dubious of Farage’s proposed methods & his likely results)

Who will the poor turn to next after being hoodwinked into voting for Reform when they realise their lives do not improve in any notable measure whilst the rich get even richer after he turns the UK into Singapore on Thames?

“The poor” vote Labour for decades and are still poor - sensible decision intelligently made in their own interests.

“The poor” decide to vote for someone else having voted Labour for decades and found that things have got worse for them - they’ve been “hoodwinked”."

Hmm. New Labour weren’t exactly Labour in the traditional sense were they, more a continuation of Thatcherite neoliberal economics with a few tweaks.

The gap between rich & poor was less in 1979 than it is now.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 3 weeks ago

North West


"The demonisation of immigrants & clarion call of nationalism seems like a last throw of the dice from the right wing. The status quo has been on its arse since the financial crisis of 2008.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens after the immigrants are ‘stopped’ (though I’m dubious of Farage’s proposed methods & his likely results)

Who will the poor turn to next after being hoodwinked into voting for Reform when they realise their lives do not improve in any notable measure whilst the rich get even richer after he turns the UK into Singapore on Thames?

Why is it that a minority of people who can't read the room are the ones who consistently call out the majority as being fooled?

If both labour and the conservatives had tried to understand the real issues people are facing they might not be in the mess they are in now, they are so out of step it is embarrassing, but they continue to play to the minority. "

What are those ‘real issues’ & is any of what Farage is proposing the answer?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London

[Removed by poster at 10/05/26 10:05:04]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"The demonisation of immigrants & clarion call of nationalism seems like a last throw of the dice from the right wing. The status quo has been on its arse since the financial crisis of 2008.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens after the immigrants are ‘stopped’ (though I’m dubious of Farage’s proposed methods & his likely results)

Who will the poor turn to next after being hoodwinked into voting for Reform when they realise their lives do not improve in any notable measure whilst the rich get even richer after he turns the UK into Singapore on Thames?

“The poor” vote Labour for decades and are still poor - sensible decision intelligently made in their own interests.

“The poor” decide to vote for someone else having voted Labour for decades and found that things have got worse for them - they’ve been “hoodwinked”.

Hmm. New Labour weren’t exactly Labour in the traditional sense were they, more a continuation of Thatcherite neoliberal economics with a few tweaks.

The gap between rich & poor was less in 1979 than it is now."

The "gap" between rich and poor is such a terrible measure of economic progress. Would you rather have a society where everyone is dirt poor and struggling or one where there is huge inequality but even the poorest get their basic needs?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 3 weeks ago

North West


"The demonisation of immigrants & clarion call of nationalism seems like a last throw of the dice from the right wing. The status quo has been on its arse since the financial crisis of 2008.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens after the immigrants are ‘stopped’ (though I’m dubious of Farage’s proposed methods & his likely results)

Who will the poor turn to next after being hoodwinked into voting for Reform when they realise their lives do not improve in any notable measure whilst the rich get even richer after he turns the UK into Singapore on Thames?

“The poor” vote Labour for decades and are still poor - sensible decision intelligently made in their own interests.

“The poor” decide to vote for someone else having voted Labour for decades and found that things have got worse for them - they’ve been “hoodwinked”.

Hmm. New Labour weren’t exactly Labour in the traditional sense were they, more a continuation of Thatcherite neoliberal economics with a few tweaks.

The gap between rich & poor was less in 1979 than it is now.

The "gap" between rich and poor is such a terrible measure of economic progress. Would you rather have a society where everyone is dirt poor and struggling or one where there is huge inequality but even the poorest get their basic needs?"

The problem is are the poor getting those basic needs? Are public services adequately funded? Or have they been largely underfunded since the financial crisis?

Farage is one of many whining about potholes for instance, well guess what? The rich & their garages full of Bentleys still need roads don’t they whilst the rest of the country seems to be skint…

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"The demonisation of immigrants & clarion call of nationalism seems like a last throw of the dice from the right wing. The status quo has been on its arse since the financial crisis of 2008.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens after the immigrants are ‘stopped’ (though I’m dubious of Farage’s proposed methods & his likely results)

Who will the poor turn to next after being hoodwinked into voting for Reform when they realise their lives do not improve in any notable measure whilst the rich get even richer after he turns the UK into Singapore on Thames?

“The poor” vote Labour for decades and are still poor - sensible decision intelligently made in their own interests.

“The poor” decide to vote for someone else having voted Labour for decades and found that things have got worse for them - they’ve been “hoodwinked”.

Hmm. New Labour weren’t exactly Labour in the traditional sense were they, more a continuation of Thatcherite neoliberal economics with a few tweaks.

The gap between rich & poor was less in 1979 than it is now.

The "gap" between rich and poor is such a terrible measure of economic progress. Would you rather have a society where everyone is dirt poor and struggling or one where there is huge inequality but even the poorest get their basic needs?

The problem is are the poor getting those basic needs? Are public services adequately funded? Or have they been largely underfunded since the financial crisis?

Farage is one of many whining about potholes for instance, well guess what? The rich & their garages full of Bentleys still need roads don’t they whilst the rest of the country seems to be skint…"

Definitely the public services today are at a better state than the winter of discontent?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 3 weeks ago

North West


"The demonisation of immigrants & clarion call of nationalism seems like a last throw of the dice from the right wing. The status quo has been on its arse since the financial crisis of 2008.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens after the immigrants are ‘stopped’ (though I’m dubious of Farage’s proposed methods & his likely results)

Who will the poor turn to next after being hoodwinked into voting for Reform when they realise their lives do not improve in any notable measure whilst the rich get even richer after he turns the UK into Singapore on Thames?

“The poor” vote Labour for decades and are still poor - sensible decision intelligently made in their own interests.

“The poor” decide to vote for someone else having voted Labour for decades and found that things have got worse for them - they’ve been “hoodwinked”.

Hmm. New Labour weren’t exactly Labour in the traditional sense were they, more a continuation of Thatcherite neoliberal economics with a few tweaks.

The gap between rich & poor was less in 1979 than it is now.

The "gap" between rich and poor is such a terrible measure of economic progress. Would you rather have a society where everyone is dirt poor and struggling or one where there is huge inequality but even the poorest get their basic needs?

The problem is are the poor getting those basic needs? Are public services adequately funded? Or have they been largely underfunded since the financial crisis?

Farage is one of many whining about potholes for instance, well guess what? The rich & their garages full of Bentleys still need roads don’t they whilst the rest of the country seems to be skint…

Definitely the public services today are at a better state than the winter of discontent? "

That was a short term wage demand situation due to inflationary pressures due to the oil shocks of the 70s.

However, if you tell me the trade unions were too powerful back then I would agree with you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"The demonisation of immigrants & clarion call of nationalism seems like a last throw of the dice from the right wing. The status quo has been on its arse since the financial crisis of 2008.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens after the immigrants are ‘stopped’ (though I’m dubious of Farage’s proposed methods & his likely results)

Who will the poor turn to next after being hoodwinked into voting for Reform when they realise their lives do not improve in any notable measure whilst the rich get even richer after he turns the UK into Singapore on Thames?

“The poor” vote Labour for decades and are still poor - sensible decision intelligently made in their own interests.

“The poor” decide to vote for someone else having voted Labour for decades and found that things have got worse for them - they’ve been “hoodwinked”.

Hmm. New Labour weren’t exactly Labour in the traditional sense were they, more a continuation of Thatcherite neoliberal economics with a few tweaks.

The gap between rich & poor was less in 1979 than it is now.

The "gap" between rich and poor is such a terrible measure of economic progress. Would you rather have a society where everyone is dirt poor and struggling or one where there is huge inequality but even the poorest get their basic needs?

The problem is are the poor getting those basic needs? Are public services adequately funded? Or have they been largely underfunded since the financial crisis?

Farage is one of many whining about potholes for instance, well guess what? The rich & their garages full of Bentleys still need roads don’t they whilst the rest of the country seems to be skint…

Definitely the public services today are at a better state than the winter of discontent?

That was a short term wage demand situation due to inflationary pressures due to the oil shocks of the 70s.

However, if you tell me the trade unions were too powerful back then I would agree with you."

Of course it was a short term thing and nothing to do with the long term impact of left wing policies.

Either way, my point was that inequality being lower in 1979 doesn't mean it was a better time. The living conditions were lot worse then.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otMe66Man 3 weeks ago

Here and there


"The demonisation of immigrants & clarion call of nationalism seems like a last throw of the dice from the right wing. The status quo has been on its arse since the financial crisis of 2008.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens after the immigrants are ‘stopped’ (though I’m dubious of Farage’s proposed methods & his likely results)

Who will the poor turn to next after being hoodwinked into voting for Reform when they realise their lives do not improve in any notable measure whilst the rich get even richer after he turns the UK into Singapore on Thames?

Why is it that a minority of people who can't read the room are the ones who consistently call out the majority as being fooled?

If both labour and the conservatives had tried to understand the real issues people are facing they might not be in the mess they are in now, they are so out of step it is embarrassing, but they continue to play to the minority.

What are those ‘real issues’ & is any of what Farage is proposing the answer?"

This question plays directly into what I said above..

If you step back from Farage and consider the reason why voters are moving away from both labour and conservatives, you will begin to workout why Farage is pulling in their vote.

This is not about racists, fascists and thugs, believe it or not.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 3 weeks ago

North West


"The demonisation of immigrants & clarion call of nationalism seems like a last throw of the dice from the right wing. The status quo has been on its arse since the financial crisis of 2008.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens after the immigrants are ‘stopped’ (though I’m dubious of Farage’s proposed methods & his likely results)

Who will the poor turn to next after being hoodwinked into voting for Reform when they realise their lives do not improve in any notable measure whilst the rich get even richer after he turns the UK into Singapore on Thames?

“The poor” vote Labour for decades and are still poor - sensible decision intelligently made in their own interests.

“The poor” decide to vote for someone else having voted Labour for decades and found that things have got worse for them - they’ve been “hoodwinked”.

Hmm. New Labour weren’t exactly Labour in the traditional sense were they, more a continuation of Thatcherite neoliberal economics with a few tweaks.

The gap between rich & poor was less in 1979 than it is now.

The "gap" between rich and poor is such a terrible measure of economic progress. Would you rather have a society where everyone is dirt poor and struggling or one where there is huge inequality but even the poorest get their basic needs?

The problem is are the poor getting those basic needs? Are public services adequately funded? Or have they been largely underfunded since the financial crisis?

Farage is one of many whining about potholes for instance, well guess what? The rich & their garages full of Bentleys still need roads don’t they whilst the rest of the country seems to be skint…

Definitely the public services today are at a better state than the winter of discontent?

That was a short term wage demand situation due to inflationary pressures due to the oil shocks of the 70s.

However, if you tell me the trade unions were too powerful back then I would agree with you.

Of course it was a short term thing and nothing to do with the long term impact of left wing policies.

Either way, my point was that inequality being lower in 1979 doesn't mean it was a better time. The living conditions were lot worse then."

Were they? If so, how much of that is down to technological advancement rather than any political philosophy?

1970s there was better job security, cheaper housing relative to salary. A comparative abundance of social housing. It certainly wasn’t all bad. Debt was ‘only’ 46% of GDP in 1979. We’d kill for some of that now.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 3 weeks ago

North West


"The demonisation of immigrants & clarion call of nationalism seems like a last throw of the dice from the right wing. The status quo has been on its arse since the financial crisis of 2008.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens after the immigrants are ‘stopped’ (though I’m dubious of Farage’s proposed methods & his likely results)

Who will the poor turn to next after being hoodwinked into voting for Reform when they realise their lives do not improve in any notable measure whilst the rich get even richer after he turns the UK into Singapore on Thames?

Why is it that a minority of people who can't read the room are the ones who consistently call out the majority as being fooled?

If both labour and the conservatives had tried to understand the real issues people are facing they might not be in the mess they are in now, they are so out of step it is embarrassing, but they continue to play to the minority.

What are those ‘real issues’ & is any of what Farage is proposing the answer?

This question plays directly into what I said above..

If you step back from Farage and consider the reason why voters are moving away from both labour and conservatives, you will begin to workout why Farage is pulling in their vote.

This is not about racists, fascists and thugs, believe it or not. "

You are still being a little vague. Are you denying there is an element of racism (or at best xenophobia) in Farage’s vote?

If it wasn’t about immigration and only about ‘sovereignee & Brexit’, James Goldsmith would have been polling Farage’s numbers well before Farage wouldn’t he?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London

[Removed by poster at 10/05/26 11:04:00]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *izandpaulCouple 3 weeks ago

merseyside

If Reform make a decent job in local councils they will more than likely do well in a general election and would have every right to be in power.

But, if they fuck up, the people who voted them into local power will maybe think twice about national power.

Towns that didn't vote for Reform probably won't in a GE. Unless Reform are outstanding in up to a GE.

Only time will tell.

For me, don't take any notice of any parties political posturing, rather sort my own life out than wasting time thinking any political party will help as with experience I've found you will wait till hell to freeze over fir any meaningful change.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"

Either way, my point was that inequality being lower in 1979 doesn't mean it was a better time. The living conditions were lot worse then.

Were they? If so, how much of that is down to technological advancement rather than any political philosophy?

"

Technological advancement isn't just about inventions. It's also about taking the technology to the masses, something which capitalism has been successful at. Air travel, phones were all seen as luxury goods in the initial days. Pretty much everyone has access to them now. Socialist countries like Venezuela and Cuba have been shitty even with technology around.


"

1970s there was better job security, cheaper housing relative to salary. A comparative abundance of social housing. It certainly wasn’t all bad. Debt was ‘only’ 46% of GDP in 1979. We’d kill for some of that now.

"

You are again looking at secondary metrics instead of the primary metrics. The primary economic question is "Did people live a materially comfortable life, with home, food, clothing and heating?"

Inequality being lower or higher means nothing if people aren't living a comfortable life. Social housing being higher means nothing if overall supply of homes is lower.

I don't think people lived a materially comfortable life then compared to now. I would rather be a poorer person today in the UK than be a poorer person here in 1979.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otMe66Man 3 weeks ago

Here and there


"The demonisation of immigrants & clarion call of nationalism seems like a last throw of the dice from the right wing. The status quo has been on its arse since the financial crisis of 2008.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens after the immigrants are ‘stopped’ (though I’m dubious of Farage’s proposed methods & his likely results)

Who will the poor turn to next after being hoodwinked into voting for Reform when they realise their lives do not improve in any notable measure whilst the rich get even richer after he turns the UK into Singapore on Thames?

Why is it that a minority of people who can't read the room are the ones who consistently call out the majority as being fooled?

If both labour and the conservatives had tried to understand the real issues people are facing they might not be in the mess they are in now, they are so out of step it is embarrassing, but they continue to play to the minority.

What are those ‘real issues’ & is any of what Farage is proposing the answer?

This question plays directly into what I said above..

If you step back from Farage and consider the reason why voters are moving away from both labour and conservatives, you will begin to workout why Farage is pulling in their vote.

This is not about racists, fascists and thugs, believe it or not.

You are still being a little vague. Are you denying there is an element of racism (or at best xenophobia) in Farage’s vote?

If it wasn’t about immigration and only about ‘sovereignee & Brexit’, James Goldsmith would have been polling Farage’s numbers well before Farage wouldn’t he?"

It isn't me that is being vague, I'm simply pointing you to something beyond why you believe people are voting for Reform.

The all Reform voters are racist, fascist etc is nonsense, there will be some people who vote Reform who may be that way inclined, as there will be Labour and Conservative voters.

They will pick up the populist vote in the same way the Greens are, on immigration control / border control and that will play a part in their rise, however that is not the one policy hook that has drawn voters away from "the big 2".

If people cannot see public discontent in economic policy, welfare costs, unplanned immigration or the feeling that working does not pay, I'm afraid they are living in a bubble. Labour has compounded the above from day 1, the conservatives helped build the framework, why would the voting public keep voting for more of the same?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 3 weeks ago

North West


"

Either way, my point was that inequality being lower in 1979 doesn't mean it was a better time. The living conditions were lot worse then.

Were they? If so, how much of that is down to technological advancement rather than any political philosophy?

Technological advancement isn't just about inventions. It's also about taking the technology to the masses, something which capitalism has been successful at. Air travel, phones were all seen as luxury goods in the initial days. Pretty much everyone has access to them now. Socialist countries like Venezuela and Cuba have been shitty even with technology around.

1970s there was better job security, cheaper housing relative to salary. A comparative abundance of social housing. It certainly wasn’t all bad. Debt was ‘only’ 46% of GDP in 1979. We’d kill for some of that now.

You are again looking at secondary metrics instead of the primary metrics. The primary economic question is "Did people live a materially comfortable life, with home, food, clothing and heating?"

Inequality being lower or higher means nothing if people aren't living a comfortable life. Social housing being higher means nothing if overall supply of homes is lower.

I don't think people lived a materially comfortable life then compared to now. I would rather be a poorer person today in the UK than be a poorer person here in 1979."

Cuba & Venezuela…I suppose we can ignore the decades of US sanctions then?

Privatised utilities, either failing (water) or ridiculously expensive (energy)

People using food banks in 2026.

Traditional industries hollowed out to take advantage of cheap overseas labour. So yeah, we have cheap hairdryers & other tat from China but less industry here, in favour of overreliance on the City of London & service industries.

Little growth since 2008.

This is a situation still in flux by the way, who says the UK has even reached the bottom yet?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *estivalMan 3 weeks ago

borehamwood

If reform are a racist party does that meen all those areas that have flipped from labour to reform were full of racist people? If that's the case that must meen those labour voters must of been head banging racist so by association labour must of been a racist party aswell or am I missing something?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *eroy1000Man 3 weeks ago

milton keynes

But of a side note. I watched an old (from pre reform days) QI clip yesterday. The question was, what can you buy in a news agents that studies have shown changes your voting habits from labour to conservative. Several answers of a copy of the daily mail or sun were made but it turns out the correct answer was a lottery ticket. Apparently after winning big on the lottery those that preached against anyone rich suddenly changed their stance as they now were suddenly in the firing line.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 3 weeks ago

North West

“Labour's Bridget Phillipson rightly calls out one of Reform UK's newest councillors, Glen Gibbins who posted that we should melt down Nigerians and fill in pot holes”

This is the type of people we’ll be getting. How low a bar is this? Dear oh dear.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otMe66Man 3 weeks ago

Here and there


"“Labour's Bridget Phillipson rightly calls out one of Reform UK's newest councillors, Glen Gibbins who posted that we should melt down Nigerians and fill in pot holes”

This is the type of people we’ll be getting. How low a bar is this? Dear oh dear. "

That person will be gone in a matter of hours and will be an artefact of Reform scaling up so quickly. However, what will be the next excuse Labour ministers will use to cover up their lack of stimulus

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 3 weeks ago

North West


"“Labour's Bridget Phillipson rightly calls out one of Reform UK's newest councillors, Glen Gibbins who posted that we should melt down Nigerians and fill in pot holes”

This is the type of people we’ll be getting. How low a bar is this? Dear oh dear.

That person will be gone in a matter of hours and will be an artefact of Reform scaling up so quickly. However, what will be the next excuse Labour ministers will use to cover up their lack of stimulus "

How many other skeletons are there going to be in the Reform cupboard?

The thought of these people running the country is horrific. Trumpianism UK style.

I’m sure we will emerge as a wonderful harmonious society. If you think it’s bad now, we only need to look at the US to see it could well be worse.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ere4funwithyouMan 3 weeks ago

Ipswich & London

Was happy with the Norfolk County Council elections. Great Yarmouth First (a local party linked to MP Rupert Lowe and Restore Britain) achieved a clean sweep, winning all nine divisions covering the Great Yarmouth area.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ingdomNightTimePleasuresMan 3 weeks ago

nearby


"“Labour's Bridget Phillipson rightly calls out one of Reform UK's newest councillors, Glen Gibbins who posted that we should melt down Nigerians and fill in pot holes”

"

"I am proudly Nigerian and proudly British" - Anthony Joshua 🇳🇬🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧” OBE

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otMe66Man 3 weeks ago

Here and there


"“Labour's Bridget Phillipson rightly calls out one of Reform UK's newest councillors, Glen Gibbins who posted that we should melt down Nigerians and fill in pot holes”

This is the type of people we’ll be getting. How low a bar is this? Dear oh dear.

That person will be gone in a matter of hours and will be an artefact of Reform scaling up so quickly. However, what will be the next excuse Labour ministers will use to cover up their lack of stimulus

How many other skeletons are there going to be in the Reform cupboard?

The thought of these people running the country is horrific. Trumpianism UK style.

I’m sure we will emerge as a wonderful harmonious society. If you think it’s bad now, we only need to look at the US to see it could well be worse."

More than likely a lot more to be outed, the vetting process is a well known issue, I don't need to state the obvious.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"

Cuba & Venezuela…I suppose we can ignore the decades of US sanctions then?

"

Why does that matter? Do socialist countries really need to trade with capitalist countries, for their utopia to become reality?


"

Privatised utilities, either failing (water) or ridiculously expensive (energy)

"

Sure there is an argument for and against privatisation of certain utilities. Capitalism needs competition to flourish. It's hard to get competition going for some utilities. As for how expensive it is, if you consider how much of tax money the government throws at public ownership of utilities, it all boils down to the same. Spending tax money is still spending money. None of it is free.


"

People using food banks in 2026.

"

What % of people in 1979 were self sufficient with food? Remember that the country's population has increased by millions after that and still we managed to feed people.


"

Traditional industries hollowed out to take advantage of cheap overseas labour. So yeah, we have cheap hairdryers & other tat from China but less industry here, in favour of overreliance on the City of London & service industries.

"

Why is that a problem? End if the day, people get things for cheaper. Again, you are worrying about metrics that shouldn't really matter.


"

Little growth since 2008.

This is a situation still in flux by the way, who says the UK has even reached the bottom yet?

"

US seemed to recover and grow much faster since 2008. It's Europe that lagged behind a lot. Why do you think that is?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 3 weeks ago

North West


"

Cuba & Venezuela…I suppose we can ignore the decades of US sanctions then?

Why does that matter? Do socialist countries really need to trade with capitalist countries, for their utopia to become reality?

Privatised utilities, either failing (water) or ridiculously expensive (energy)

Sure there is an argument for and against privatisation of certain utilities. Capitalism needs competition to flourish. It's hard to get competition going for some utilities. As for how expensive it is, if you consider how much of tax money the government throws at public ownership of utilities, it all boils down to the same. Spending tax money is still spending money. None of it is free.

People using food banks in 2026.

What % of people in 1979 were self sufficient with food? Remember that the country's population has increased by millions after that and still we managed to feed people.

Traditional industries hollowed out to take advantage of cheap overseas labour. So yeah, we have cheap hairdryers & other tat from China but less industry here, in favour of overreliance on the City of London & service industries.

Why is that a problem? End if the day, people get things for cheaper. Again, you are worrying about metrics that shouldn't really matter.

Little growth since 2008.

This is a situation still in flux by the way, who says the UK has even reached the bottom yet?

US seemed to recover and grow much faster since 2008. It's Europe that lagged behind a lot. Why do you think that is?"

Do Socialist countries need to trade with capitalist countries?

You could say exactly the same thing about capitalist countries who take advantage of cheaper labour & resources no matter what the local political set up is? There are no principles where capitalism is concerned either. Why would the USA open up to China in the 70s if it was making any kind of moral stance on this?

Why did the US recover more quickly? Money printing. They have the privilege of being the worlds reserve currency, so…

Look at US debt at the moment & you are holding them up as some kind of sustainable model to aspire to?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *izandpaulCouple 3 weeks ago

merseyside


"The demonisation of immigrants & clarion call of nationalism seems like a last throw of the dice from the right wing. The status quo has been on its arse since the financial crisis of 2008.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens after the immigrants are ‘stopped’ (though I’m dubious of Farage’s proposed methods & his likely results)

Who will the poor turn to next after being hoodwinked into voting for Reform when they realise their lives do not improve in any notable measure whilst the rich get even richer after he turns the UK into Singapore on Thames?

"

Singapore on the Thames.

I'd be happy if the whole of the UK became Singapore.

I lived and worked there for a few years and its what we should all aspire to be.

Have you lived and worked there as I'd be interested to know why you wouldn't want the UK to be similar to Singapore.

Maybe I'm missing something.

Thanks.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 3 weeks ago

North West


"The demonisation of immigrants & clarion call of nationalism seems like a last throw of the dice from the right wing. The status quo has been on its arse since the financial crisis of 2008.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens after the immigrants are ‘stopped’ (though I’m dubious of Farage’s proposed methods & his likely results)

Who will the poor turn to next after being hoodwinked into voting for Reform when they realise their lives do not improve in any notable measure whilst the rich get even richer after he turns the UK into Singapore on Thames?

Singapore on the Thames.

I'd be happy if the whole of the UK became Singapore.

I lived and worked there for a few years and its what we should all aspire to be.

Have you lived and worked there as I'd be interested to know why you wouldn't want the UK to be similar to Singapore.

Maybe I'm missing something.

Thanks."

Ask Philip Hammond, he’s the one who coined the phrase, probably whilst realising comparing Singapore & the UK isn’t exactly comparing apples with apples anyway is it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *izandpaulCouple 3 weeks ago

merseyside


"The demonisation of immigrants & clarion call of nationalism seems like a last throw of the dice from the right wing. The status quo has been on its arse since the financial crisis of 2008.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens after the immigrants are ‘stopped’ (though I’m dubious of Farage’s proposed methods & his likely results)

Who will the poor turn to next after being hoodwinked into voting for Reform when they realise their lives do not improve in any notable measure whilst the rich get even richer after he turns the UK into Singapore on Thames?

Singapore on the Thames.

I'd be happy if the whole of the UK became Singapore.

I lived and worked there for a few years and its what we should all aspire to be.

Have you lived and worked there as I'd be interested to know why you wouldn't want the UK to be similar to Singapore.

Maybe I'm missing something.

Thanks.

Ask Philip Hammond, he’s the one who coined the phrase, probably whilst realising comparing Singapore & the UK isn’t exactly comparing apples with apples anyway is it?"

Its a nonsense statement.

Give yourself a treat and have a break in Singapore.

You'll come home thinking, why the fuck can't the UK be like this.

After a month or so at home, you'll realise why.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"

Do Socialist countries need to trade with capitalist countries?

You could say exactly the same thing about capitalist countries who take advantage of cheaper labour & resources no matter what the local political set up is? There are no principles where capitalism is concerned either. Why would the USA open up to China in the 70s if it was making any kind of moral stance on this?

"

Where does moral stance of geopolitics come from? We are talking about economics. A trade embargo goes both ways. If US has a trade embargo with Cuba, both countries will lose trade. You can't blame a trade embargo to defend socialist countries becoming shit holes. These are just smaller examples. Then there are bigger ones like USSR and Mao's China.


"

Why did the US recover more quickly? Money printing. They have the privilege of being the worlds reserve currency, so…

"

If money gets printed, the productivity magically goes up? That's some magic you are talking about. The truth is that the European bureaucrats regulated the shit out of everything that has made such recovery close to impossible. The same nonsensical regulations that the lefties support.


"

Look at US debt at the moment & you are holding them up as some kind of sustainable model to aspire to?"

Yes, US debt is a bad thing. But European countries also have their debts spiralling out, but with nothing to show for.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"

Ask Philip Hammond, he’s the one who coined the phrase, probably whilst realising comparing Singapore & the UK isn’t exactly comparing apples with apples anyway is it?

Its a nonsense statement.

Give yourself a treat and have a break in Singapore.

You'll come home thinking, why the fuck can't the UK be like this.

After a month or so at home, you'll realise why.

"

I haven't lived there. But travelled there a couple of times and have a few friends living there. Amazing quality of living, great infrastructure and safer than any other country I have been to.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hromakeyDreamcoatMan 3 weeks ago

Carlisle


"

Why would you feel unsafe? I certainly don’t. And just because I’m single doesn’t mean I don’t have a family and can live anywhere. Also, as I said I never had any problems with the asylum seekers around here, and I don’t recall reading about any issues in the local press.

I am single too. But I have many family and friends who have kids. The way I see things and they see things are drastically different. I have been surprised myself so many times. That guy selling down the street? Not a problem for you or me. But it's a serious problem for parents whose kids come that way from school. Same with asylum accommodation. Considering the number of cases about what has happened these areas, it's natural for parents to get protective about their kids.

With mobs of pissed up idiots trying to set fire to the hotels I’d say the asylum seekers have far more reason to be afraid.

You don't see the irony here? I could argue against this by saying that there is an asylum accommodation next to me and no one set fire on that. So they must be safe."

I think you are suffering from availability bias, the media, for some reason, reports on incidents that involve asylum seekers far more than they do on British nationals, the amount of coverage is massively disproportionate, and that’s dangerous. If a family is scared their child is at danger because of a hotel hosting asylum seekers, then they are ignoring the real threat. According to the NSPCC, the vast majority of CSA victims are abused by relatives or people otherwise known to the family. That doesn’t make for good headlines though. Far easier to ignore the real problem and blame it on foreigners.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"

I think you are suffering from availability bias, the media, for some reason, reports on incidents that involve asylum seekers far more than they do on British nationals, the amount of coverage is massively disproportionate, and that’s dangerous.

"

No one is suffering from availability bias. Parents always put the welfare and safety of their kids over helping some strangers from other countries.

In this case, we ideally need information on proportionality between number number of crimes committed by asylum seekers against number of asylum seekers and compare it with the national average. Unfortunately we don't have the number. So parents will err towards safety of their kids. End of the day, the men in these accomodations are unvetted and come from cultures with different values.

You, as a single man will err in the opposite direction.


"

If a family is scared their child is at danger because of a hotel hosting asylum seekers, then they are ignoring the real threat. According to the NSPCC, the vast majority of CSA victims are abused by relatives or people otherwise known to the family. That doesn’t make for good headlines though. Far easier to ignore the real problem and blame it on foreigners."

That's such a lame argument. Protecting children from one threat doesn't mean you have to give up on the other threat.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ark742024Man 3 weeks ago

Stoke/Cheshire


"

I think you are suffering from availability bias, the media, for some reason, reports on incidents that involve asylum seekers far more than they do on British nationals, the amount of coverage is massively disproportionate, and that’s dangerous.

No one is suffering from availability bias. Parents always put the welfare and safety of their kids over helping some strangers from other countries.

In this case, we ideally need information on proportionality between number number of crimes committed by asylum seekers against number of asylum seekers and compare it with the national average. Unfortunately we don't have the number. So parents will err towards safety of their kids. End of the day, the men in these accomodations are unvetted and come from cultures with different values.

You, as a single man will err in the opposite direction.

If a family is scared their child is at danger because of a hotel hosting asylum seekers, then they are ignoring the real threat. According to the NSPCC, the vast majority of CSA victims are abused by relatives or people otherwise known to the family. That doesn’t make for good headlines though. Far easier to ignore the real problem and blame it on foreigners.

That's such a lame argument. Protecting children from one threat doesn't mean you have to give up on the other threat."

You’re arguing your way into an abyss mate - no one is giving up on anything. But the supposed threat from asylum seekers is reported all out of proportion. Ditto arrivals in small boats. It’s parlour games for the intellectually challenged

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"

You’re arguing your way into an abyss mate - no one is giving up on anything. But the supposed threat from asylum seekers is reported all out of proportion. Ditto arrivals in small boats. It’s parlour games for the intellectually challenged "

Ah, the usual "Anyone who doesn't have same values and priorities as me must be intellectually challenged" argument. This self-aggrandizing attitude has worked really well for the left all these years and there is no doubt that it will work for them in the future too

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 3 weeks ago

North West


"

I think you are suffering from availability bias, the media, for some reason, reports on incidents that involve asylum seekers far more than they do on British nationals, the amount of coverage is massively disproportionate, and that’s dangerous.

No one is suffering from availability bias. Parents always put the welfare and safety of their kids over helping some strangers from other countries.

In this case, we ideally need information on proportionality between number number of crimes committed by asylum seekers against number of asylum seekers and compare it with the national average. Unfortunately we don't have the number. So parents will err towards safety of their kids. End of the day, the men in these accomodations are unvetted and come from cultures with different values.

You, as a single man will err in the opposite direction.

If a family is scared their child is at danger because of a hotel hosting asylum seekers, then they are ignoring the real threat. According to the NSPCC, the vast majority of CSA victims are abused by relatives or people otherwise known to the family. That doesn’t make for good headlines though. Far easier to ignore the real problem and blame it on foreigners.

That's such a lame argument. Protecting children from one threat doesn't mean you have to give up on the other threat.

You’re arguing your way into an abyss mate - no one is giving up on anything. But the supposed threat from asylum seekers is reported all out of proportion. Ditto arrivals in small boats. It’s parlour games for the intellectually challenged "

Totally agree, 200k boat arrivals reported since 2018. Whilst not completely insignificant, it is when you compare it to the Boris Wave over a shorter period topping out at 900k a year…

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"

I think you are suffering from availability bias, the media, for some reason, reports on incidents that involve asylum seekers far more than they do on British nationals, the amount of coverage is massively disproportionate, and that’s dangerous.

No one is suffering from availability bias. Parents always put the welfare and safety of their kids over helping some strangers from other countries.

In this case, we ideally need information on proportionality between number number of crimes committed by asylum seekers against number of asylum seekers and compare it with the national average. Unfortunately we don't have the number. So parents will err towards safety of their kids. End of the day, the men in these accomodations are unvetted and come from cultures with different values.

You, as a single man will err in the opposite direction.

If a family is scared their child is at danger because of a hotel hosting asylum seekers, then they are ignoring the real threat. According to the NSPCC, the vast majority of CSA victims are abused by relatives or people otherwise known to the family. That doesn’t make for good headlines though. Far easier to ignore the real problem and blame it on foreigners.

That's such a lame argument. Protecting children from one threat doesn't mean you have to give up on the other threat.

You’re arguing your way into an abyss mate - no one is giving up on anything. But the supposed threat from asylum seekers is reported all out of proportion. Ditto arrivals in small boats. It’s parlour games for the intellectually challenged

Totally agree, 200k boat arrivals reported since 2018. Whilst not completely insignificant, it is when you compare it to the Boris Wave over a shorter period topping out at 900k a year…

"

People are complaining about both. In case you haven't noticed, the conservatives were obliterated in the last elections and they still haven't recovered from it. Plus both legal and illegal immigration have different types of issues.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 3 weeks ago

North West


"

I think you are suffering from availability bias, the media, for some reason, reports on incidents that involve asylum seekers far more than they do on British nationals, the amount of coverage is massively disproportionate, and that’s dangerous.

No one is suffering from availability bias. Parents always put the welfare and safety of their kids over helping some strangers from other countries.

In this case, we ideally need information on proportionality between number number of crimes committed by asylum seekers against number of asylum seekers and compare it with the national average. Unfortunately we don't have the number. So parents will err towards safety of their kids. End of the day, the men in these accomodations are unvetted and come from cultures with different values.

You, as a single man will err in the opposite direction.

If a family is scared their child is at danger because of a hotel hosting asylum seekers, then they are ignoring the real threat. According to the NSPCC, the vast majority of CSA victims are abused by relatives or people otherwise known to the family. That doesn’t make for good headlines though. Far easier to ignore the real problem and blame it on foreigners.

That's such a lame argument. Protecting children from one threat doesn't mean you have to give up on the other threat.

You’re arguing your way into an abyss mate - no one is giving up on anything. But the supposed threat from asylum seekers is reported all out of proportion. Ditto arrivals in small boats. It’s parlour games for the intellectually challenged

Totally agree, 200k boat arrivals reported since 2018. Whilst not completely insignificant, it is when you compare it to the Boris Wave over a shorter period topping out at 900k a year…

People are complaining about both. In case you haven't noticed, the conservatives were obliterated in the last elections and they still haven't recovered from it. Plus both legal and illegal immigration have different types of issues."

Sure, but the poster is correct in asserting that one type of immigration gets a lot more attention than another, when it represents a fragment of the overall totals

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hromakeyDreamcoatMan 3 weeks ago

Carlisle


"

I think you are suffering from availability bias, the media, for some reason, reports on incidents that involve asylum seekers far more than they do on British nationals, the amount of coverage is massively disproportionate, and that’s dangerous.

No one is suffering from availability bias. Parents always put the welfare and safety of their kids over helping some strangers from other countries.

In this case, we ideally need information on proportionality between number number of crimes committed by asylum seekers against number of asylum seekers and compare it with the national average. Unfortunately we don't have the number. So parents will err towards safety of their kids. End of the day, the men in these accomodations are unvetted and come from cultures with different values.

You, as a single man will err in the opposite direction. ."

Being a single man does not mean you don’t have children. I simply don’t listen to bullshit racist


" If a family is scared their child is at danger because of a hotel hosting asylum seekers, then they are ignoring the real threat. According to the NSPCC, the vast majority of CSA victims are abused by relatives or people otherwise known to the family. That doesn’t make for good headlines though. Far easier to ignore the real problem and blame it on foreigners.

That's such a lame argument. Protecting children from one threat doesn't mean you have to give up on the other threat."

No, a lame argument is ignoring evidence because it doesn’t suit your agenda. Put it this way, if your child had a 90% chance of being injured doing one activity, and a 10% chance doing another, which activity would you focus most of your efforts on protecting your child while they are doing it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hromakeyDreamcoatMan 3 weeks ago

Carlisle

*bullshit racist propaganda.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otMe66Man 3 weeks ago

Here and there


"

I think you are suffering from availability bias, the media, for some reason, reports on incidents that involve asylum seekers far more than they do on British nationals, the amount of coverage is massively disproportionate, and that’s dangerous.

No one is suffering from availability bias. Parents always put the welfare and safety of their kids over helping some strangers from other countries.

In this case, we ideally need information on proportionality between number number of crimes committed by asylum seekers against number of asylum seekers and compare it with the national average. Unfortunately we don't have the number. So parents will err towards safety of their kids. End of the day, the men in these accomodations are unvetted and come from cultures with different values.

You, as a single man will err in the opposite direction.

If a family is scared their child is at danger because of a hotel hosting asylum seekers, then they are ignoring the real threat. According to the NSPCC, the vast majority of CSA victims are abused by relatives or people otherwise known to the family. That doesn’t make for good headlines though. Far easier to ignore the real problem and blame it on foreigners.

That's such a lame argument. Protecting children from one threat doesn't mean you have to give up on the other threat.

You’re arguing your way into an abyss mate - no one is giving up on anything. But the supposed threat from asylum seekers is reported all out of proportion. Ditto arrivals in small boats. It’s parlour games for the intellectually challenged "

And here you are playing that very same game in exactly the same way you describe, wakeup call Farage is winning.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ydaz70Man 3 weeks ago

Rotherham /newquay


"

I think you are suffering from availability bias, the media, for some reason, reports on incidents that involve asylum seekers far more than they do on British nationals, the amount of coverage is massively disproportionate, and that’s dangerous.

No one is suffering from availability bias. Parents always put the welfare and safety of their kids over helping some strangers from other countries.

In this case, we ideally need information on proportionality between number number of crimes committed by asylum seekers against number of asylum seekers and compare it with the national average. Unfortunately we don't have the number. So parents will err towards safety of their kids. End of the day, the men in these accomodations are unvetted and come from cultures with different values.

You, as a single man will err in the opposite direction. .

Being a single man does not mean you don’t have children. I simply don’t listen to bullshit racist

If a family is scared their child is at danger because of a hotel hosting asylum seekers, then they are ignoring the real threat. According to the NSPCC, the vast majority of CSA victims are abused by relatives or people otherwise known to the family. That doesn’t make for good headlines though. Far easier to ignore the real problem and blame it on foreigners.

That's such a lame argument. Protecting children from one threat doesn't mean you have to give up on the other threat.

No, a lame argument is ignoring evidence because it doesn’t suit your agenda. Put it this way, if your child had a 90% chance of being injured doing one activity, and a 10% chance doing another, which activity would you focus most of your efforts on protecting your child while they are doing it?"

neither

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"

Sure, but the poster is correct in asserting that one type of immigration gets a lot more attention than another, when it represents a fragment of the overall totals "

That's probably because the poster wasn't following all the news. UK having record breaking net immigration was in the news for long time. That's what forced Sunak to change the rules around legal immigration. "Boriswave" is a well known term for most of the population.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"

Being a single man does not mean you don’t have children. I simply don’t listen to bullshit racist.

"

Ah, the classic. I can't make a rational argument. I will just call them racist.


"

No, a lame argument is ignoring evidence because it doesn’t suit your agenda. Put it this way, if your child had a 90% chance of being injured doing one activity, and a 10% chance doing another, which activity would you focus most of your efforts on protecting your child while they are doing it?"

I will put my effort on both. There are situations where the 10% risk are easier to resolve than the 90% risk. Ever heard of the phrase "low hanging fruits"?

Solving home grown problem takes a long time. We are investing in education and other means to change people's attitude. Solving problems with immigration has an easier solution - Don't let them in.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hromakeyDreamcoatMan 3 weeks ago

Carlisle


"

Being a single man does not mean you don’t have children. I simply don’t listen to bullshit racist.

Ah, the classic. I can't make a rational argument. I will just call them racist.

No, a lame argument is ignoring evidence because it doesn’t suit your agenda. Put it this way, if your child had a 90% chance of being injured doing one activity, and a 10% chance doing another, which activity would you focus most of your efforts on protecting your child while they are doing it?

I will put my effort on both. There are situations where the 10% risk are easier to resolve than the 90% risk. Ever heard of the phrase "low hanging fruits"?

Solving home grown problem takes a long time. We are investing in education and other means to change people's attitude. Solving problems with immigration has an easier solution - Don't let them in. "

It begs the question how well you have vetted the friends and family members that you allow to be around your kids. Given that they are massively more dangerous to them than any asylum seeker.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hromakeyDreamcoatMan 3 weeks ago

Carlisle

Reform UK has suspended a newly elected Sunderland councillor for racist comments, but that’s a different Sunderland councillor to the one who was kicked out of the party the other day. And not the one who was elected on Thursday, who beat his partner and allegedly abused a child.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hromakeyDreamcoatMan 3 weeks ago

Carlisle


"Reform UK has suspended a newly elected Sunderland councillor for racist comments, but that’s a different Sunderland councillor to the one who was kicked out of the party the other day. And not the one who was elected on Thursday, who beat his partner and allegedly abused a child."

Not sure if any of those are the councillor who stood twice as a BNP candidate in the 2000s.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"

It begs the question how well you have vetted the friends and family members that you allow to be around your kids. Given that they are massively more dangerous to them than any asylum seeker."

You should look at this in terms of proportions. What % of friends/relatives in the country have turned out to be criminals. And what % of asylum seekers turned out to be.

But either way, people do try their best to vet them. It's just difficult.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *abioMan 3 weeks ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"“Labour's Bridget Phillipson rightly calls out one of Reform UK's newest councillors, Glen Gibbins who posted that we should melt down Nigerians and fill in pot holes”

This is the type of people we’ll be getting. How low a bar is this? Dear oh dear.

That person will be gone in a matter of hours and will be an artefact of Reform scaling up so quickly. However, what will be the next excuse Labour ministers will use to cover up their lack of stimulus "

Why is the scaling up argument used for reform.. but the same grace doesn’t seem to be given to the greens? Just curious….

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otMe66Man 3 weeks ago

Here and there


"“Labour's Bridget Phillipson rightly calls out one of Reform UK's newest councillors, Glen Gibbins who posted that we should melt down Nigerians and fill in pot holes”

This is the type of people we’ll be getting. How low a bar is this? Dear oh dear.

That person will be gone in a matter of hours and will be an artefact of Reform scaling up so quickly. However, what will be the next excuse Labour ministers will use to cover up their lack of stimulus

Why is the scaling up argument used for reform.. but the same grace doesn’t seem to be given to the greens? Just curious…. "

the subject was a Reform councillor.🤷🏼‍♂️

Any party scaling at speed is going to hit the same issues, the ones that aren't still do.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hromakeyDreamcoatMan 3 weeks ago

Carlisle


"

It begs the question how well you have vetted the friends and family members that you allow to be around your kids. Given that they are massively more dangerous to them than any asylum seeker.

You should look at this in terms of proportions. What % of friends/relatives in the country have turned out to be criminals. And what % of asylum seekers turned out to be.

But either way, people do try their best to vet them. It's just difficult. "

That’s an interesting way of looking at it. You would be comfortable in using this particular measure, but seem unwilling to use the data the NSPCC provides? It’s starting to sound like this isn’t really about protecting kids after all…

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *abioMan 3 weeks ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"

I think you are suffering from availability bias, the media, for some reason, reports on incidents that involve asylum seekers far more than they do on British nationals, the amount of coverage is massively disproportionate, and that’s dangerous.

No one is suffering from availability bias. Parents always put the welfare and safety of their kids over helping some strangers from other countries.

In this case, we ideally need information on proportionality between number number of crimes committed by asylum seekers against number of asylum seekers and compare it with the national average. Unfortunately we don't have the number. So parents will err towards safety of their kids. End of the day, the men in these accomodations are unvetted and come from cultures with different values.

You, as a single man will err in the opposite direction.

If a family is scared their child is at danger because of a hotel hosting asylum seekers, then they are ignoring the real threat. According to the NSPCC, the vast majority of CSA victims are abused by relatives or people otherwise known to the family. That doesn’t make for good headlines though. Far easier to ignore the real problem and blame it on foreigners.

That's such a lame argument. Protecting children from one threat doesn't mean you have to give up on the other threat.

You’re arguing your way into an abyss mate - no one is giving up on anything. But the supposed threat from asylum seekers is reported all out of proportion. Ditto arrivals in small boats. It’s parlour games for the intellectually challenged

Totally agree, 200k boat arrivals reported since 2018. Whilst not completely insignificant, it is when you compare it to the Boris Wave over a shorter period topping out at 900k a year…

People are complaining about both. In case you haven't noticed, the conservatives were obliterated in the last elections and they still haven't recovered from it. Plus both legal and illegal immigration have different types of issues."

The problem with using the term Boris wave is that it doesn’t talk about the people who come in the boats!

The Boris wave statements by reform are disingenuous because the majority of people are those EU people that would be allowed to stay post Brexit and are coming up to time where they can now get Indefinite leave to remain….

The two other biggest groups of people of people coming under the Boris wave are Hong Kong people who came here when the Chinese took over….. and those people who came here from the Ukraine when war started

So are we saying they are all nasty people… because that is what reform are trying to make people believe…..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *izandpaulCouple 3 weeks ago

merseyside


"

Ask Philip Hammond, he’s the one who coined the phrase, probably whilst realising comparing Singapore & the UK isn’t exactly comparing apples with apples anyway is it?

Its a nonsense statement.

Give yourself a treat and have a break in Singapore.

You'll come home thinking, why the fuck can't the UK be like this.

After a month or so at home, you'll realise why.

I haven't lived there. But travelled there a couple of times and have a few friends living there. Amazing quality of living, great infrastructure and safer than any other country I have been to."

Its an unbelievable place and one any fair minded person would want to aspire to.

If you ever get the chance to work there, grab it with both hands, you won't regret it.

There again you will never regret working overseas for a stint, wherever you end up.

Its why I thought the Singapore on the Thames was a nonsensical comment, even more so than the usual tripe on here.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"

It begs the question how well you have vetted the friends and family members that you allow to be around your kids. Given that they are massively more dangerous to them than any asylum seeker.

You should look at this in terms of proportions. What % of friends/relatives in the country have turned out to be criminals. And what % of asylum seekers turned out to be.

But either way, people do try their best to vet them. It's just difficult.

That’s an interesting way of looking at it. You would be comfortable in using this particular measure, but seem unwilling to use the data the NSPCC provides? It’s starting to sound like this isn’t really about protecting kids after all…"

The data NSPCC provides tells you what % of people committing such crimes belong to each category. But for the problem we are discussing, we need to look at proportionality within each category. What % of asylum seekers have committed the crime? Compare it with what % of rest of the population have committed the crime. It's surprising that I have to explain the basics of statistical inference to a group of people who go around calling other people intellectually inferior.

And I also explained why one is an easier problem to solve than the other.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"

Ask Philip Hammond, he’s the one who coined the phrase, probably whilst realising comparing Singapore & the UK isn’t exactly comparing apples with apples anyway is it?

Its a nonsense statement.

Give yourself a treat and have a break in Singapore.

You'll come home thinking, why the fuck can't the UK be like this.

After a month or so at home, you'll realise why.

I haven't lived there. But travelled there a couple of times and have a few friends living there. Amazing quality of living, great infrastructure and safer than any other country I have been to.

Its an unbelievable place and one any fair minded person would want to aspire to.

If you ever get the chance to work there, grab it with both hands, you won't regret it.

There again you will never regret working overseas for a stint, wherever you end up.

Its why I thought the Singapore on the Thames was a nonsensical comment, even more so than the usual tripe on here."

I have been seriously considering it as my next destination already. It cannot be a retirement destination as they don't give out citizenship or permanent residency that easily. But I am pretty sure I will enjoy my stint there.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hromakeyDreamcoatMan 3 weeks ago

Carlisle


"

It begs the question how well you have vetted the friends and family members that you allow to be around your kids. Given that they are massively more dangerous to them than any asylum seeker.

You should look at this in terms of proportions. What % of friends/relatives in the country have turned out to be criminals. And what % of asylum seekers turned out to be.

But either way, people do try their best to vet them. It's just difficult.

That’s an interesting way of looking at it. You would be comfortable in using this particular measure, but seem unwilling to use the data the NSPCC provides? It’s starting to sound like this isn’t really about protecting kids after all…

The data NSPCC provides tells you what % of people committing such crimes belong to each category. But for the problem we are discussing, we need to look at proportionality within each category. What % of asylum seekers have committed the crime? Compare it with what % of rest of the population have committed the crime. It's surprising that I have to explain the basics of statistical inference to a group of people who go around calling other people intellectually inferior.

And I also explained why one is an easier problem to solve than the other."

So even though the NSPCC are saying that the perpetrators of CSA are massively more likely to be family members or friends of the family you’re still pushing the anti asylum seeker narrative? I’m sure you can see how someone might think that your concern is less about the safety of children and more about something else…

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"

The Boris wave statements by reform are disingenuous because the majority of people are those EU people that would be allowed to stay post Brexit and are coming up to time where they can now get Indefinite leave to remain….

The two other biggest groups of people of people coming under the Boris wave are Hong Kong people who came here when the Chinese took over….. and those people who came here from the Ukraine when war started

So are we saying they are all nasty people… because that is what reform are trying to make people believe….."

The right wingers today see legal and illegal immigration as two different problems. It's the left that usually conflates both based on their needs.

During the boriswave, net migration rose from 111,000 to 906,000. Non-EU net migration rose from 115,000 to 954,000. So it doesn't have anything to do with EU people applying for ILR.

While the Hong Kong and Ukraine visas did cause a little bit of increase, the main sources of the increase were work visas and student visas.

- Work visas issued rose from 125,000 in 2021 to 467,000.

- 285,000 was on the Health and Care worker (H&CW) route.

- Student visas went from 250,000 to 600,000.

The care worker visa route that Boris Johnson opened up resulted in massive abuse. Changes to student visa rules and care worker visas were the prime drivers of Boriswave. Labour scrapped the care worker visas already. Tories under Sunak made changes to student visas rules, because of which legal immigration is going down.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"

So even though the NSPCC are saying that the perpetrators of CSA are massively more likely to be family members or friends of the family you’re still pushing the anti asylum seeker narrative? I’m sure you can see how someone might think that your concern is less about the safety of children and more about something else…"

I explained it many times. Maybe it's a topic that the intellectually superior people find hard to grasp. Here I will do it again.

If 90% of animal bites are dog bites and 10% of animal bites are wolf bites, they will still say that you are more likely to be bitten by dogs than by wolves. That doesn't mean that dogs are generally more dangerous than wolves. You need to look at proportionality based on population of each groups.

We try to solve both the problems. One maybe easier to solve than others.

You are making two mistakes here - Misunderstanding proportionality and assuming that no one cares about the other problem. We care about the other problem too. It's just that one problem is easier to solve.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ark742024Man 3 weeks ago

Stoke/Cheshire


"

I think you are suffering from availability bias, the media, for some reason, reports on incidents that involve asylum seekers far more than they do on British nationals, the amount of coverage is massively disproportionate, and that’s dangerous.

No one is suffering from availability bias. Parents always put the welfare and safety of their kids over helping some strangers from other countries.

In this case, we ideally need information on proportionality between number number of crimes committed by asylum seekers against number of asylum seekers and compare it with the national average. Unfortunately we don't have the number. So parents will err towards safety of their kids. End of the day, the men in these accomodations are unvetted and come from cultures with different values.

You, as a single man will err in the opposite direction.

If a family is scared their child is at danger because of a hotel hosting asylum seekers, then they are ignoring the real threat. According to the NSPCC, the vast majority of CSA victims are abused by relatives or people otherwise known to the family. That doesn’t make for good headlines though. Far easier to ignore the real problem and blame it on foreigners.

That's such a lame argument. Protecting children from one threat doesn't mean you have to give up on the other threat.

You’re arguing your way into an abyss mate - no one is giving up on anything. But the supposed threat from asylum seekers is reported all out of proportion. Ditto arrivals in small boats. It’s parlour games for the intellectually challenged

And here you are playing that very same game in exactly the same way you describe, wakeup call Farage is winning."

Just like he “won” the Brexit referendum - there’s nothing to win.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ark742024Man 3 weeks ago

Stoke/Cheshire


"

So even though the NSPCC are saying that the perpetrators of CSA are massively more likely to be family members or friends of the family you’re still pushing the anti asylum seeker narrative? I’m sure you can see how someone might think that your concern is less about the safety of children and more about something else…

I explained it many times. Maybe it's a topic that the intellectually superior people find hard to grasp. Here I will do it again.

If 90% of animal bites are dog bites and 10% of animal bites are wolf bites, they will still say that you are more likely to be bitten by dogs than by wolves. That doesn't mean that dogs are generally more dangerous than wolves. You need to look at proportionality based on population of each groups.

We try to solve both the problems. One maybe easier to solve than others.

You are making two mistakes here - Misunderstanding proportionality and assuming that no one cares about the other problem. We care about the other problem too. It's just that one problem is easier to solve."

Immigration is a net gain for the economy so this argument is beyond stupid

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"

Immigration is a net gain for the economy so this argument is beyond stupid "

Legal immigration and illegal immigration are two different things. Illegal immigration is net loss for the economy and causes social issues too. Conflating legal and illegal immigration is... what do they call it? Yeah "beyond stupid".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ark742024Man 3 weeks ago

Stoke/Cheshire


"

Immigration is a net gain for the economy so this argument is beyond stupid

Legal immigration and illegal immigration are two different things. Illegal immigration is net loss for the economy and causes social issues too. Conflating legal and illegal immigration is... what do they call it? Yeah "beyond stupid"."

There’s no such thing as illegal immigration - anyone found to have no right to be in the country is removed.

Yeah - beyond stupid

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"

Immigration is a net gain for the economy so this argument is beyond stupid

Legal immigration and illegal immigration are two different things. Illegal immigration is net loss for the economy and causes social issues too. Conflating legal and illegal immigration is... what do they call it? Yeah "beyond stupid".

There’s no such thing as illegal immigration - anyone found to have no right to be in the country is removed.

Yeah - beyond stupid "

Both of us know what kind of immigration we are talking about. If getting stuck on semantics is the best you could do, it just shows that you don't have any other rational argument to make. So, carry on

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ingdomNightTimePleasuresMan 3 weeks ago

nearby


"

There’s no such thing as illegal immigration - anyone found to have no right to be in the country is removed.

"

I think you’ll find those referred to have not been removed and costing the taxpayer north of £5bn a year.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ark742024Man 3 weeks ago

Stoke/Cheshire


"

Immigration is a net gain for the economy so this argument is beyond stupid

Legal immigration and illegal immigration are two different things. Illegal immigration is net loss for the economy and causes social issues too. Conflating legal and illegal immigration is... what do they call it? Yeah "beyond stupid".

There’s no such thing as illegal immigration - anyone found to have no right to be in the country is removed.

Yeah - beyond stupid

Both of us know what kind of immigration we are talking about. If getting stuck on semantics is the best you could do, it just shows that you don't have any other rational argument to make. So, carry on "

It isn’t semantics champ - it’s reality.

Define “illegal immigration”

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ark742024Man 3 weeks ago

Stoke/Cheshire


"

There’s no such thing as illegal immigration - anyone found to have no right to be in the country is removed.

I think you’ll find those referred to have not been removed and costing the taxpayer north of £5bn a year. "

I think you’ll find that those are people waiting to be processed

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"

Immigration is a net gain for the economy so this argument is beyond stupid

Legal immigration and illegal immigration are two different things. Illegal immigration is net loss for the economy and causes social issues too. Conflating legal and illegal immigration is... what do they call it? Yeah "beyond stupid".

There’s no such thing as illegal immigration - anyone found to have no right to be in the country is removed.

Yeah - beyond stupid

Both of us know what kind of immigration we are talking about. If getting stuck on semantics is the best you could do, it just shows that you don't have any other rational argument to make. So, carry on

It isn’t semantics champ - it’s reality.

Define “illegal immigration” "

We both know what kind is of immigration we are talking about. If you want to talk about their economic impact, we can talk. If you want to waste time over semantics, find someone else. I just know that you would rather stick to semantics because you don't have any other valid argument to make.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ark742024Man 3 weeks ago

Stoke/Cheshire


"

Immigration is a net gain for the economy so this argument is beyond stupid

Legal immigration and illegal immigration are two different things. Illegal immigration is net loss for the economy and causes social issues too. Conflating legal and illegal immigration is... what do they call it? Yeah "beyond stupid".

There’s no such thing as illegal immigration - anyone found to have no right to be in the country is removed.

Yeah - beyond stupid

Both of us know what kind of immigration we are talking about. If getting stuck on semantics is the best you could do, it just shows that you don't have any other rational argument to make. So, carry on

It isn’t semantics champ - it’s reality.

Define “illegal immigration”

We both know what kind is of immigration we are talking about. If you want to talk about their economic impact, we can talk. If you want to waste time over semantics, find someone else. I just know that you would rather stick to semantics because you don't have any other valid argument to make."

You know it doesn’t exist - it’s called irregular immigration and that’s a phrase used by left and right before you start

It isn’t semantics - it’s what all this is about.

Still, you carry on

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"

Immigration is a net gain for the economy so this argument is beyond stupid

Legal immigration and illegal immigration are two different things. Illegal immigration is net loss for the economy and causes social issues too. Conflating legal and illegal immigration is... what do they call it? Yeah "beyond stupid".

There’s no such thing as illegal immigration - anyone found to have no right to be in the country is removed.

Yeah - beyond stupid

Both of us know what kind of immigration we are talking about. If getting stuck on semantics is the best you could do, it just shows that you don't have any other rational argument to make. So, carry on

It isn’t semantics champ - it’s reality.

Define “illegal immigration”

We both know what kind is of immigration we are talking about. If you want to talk about their economic impact, we can talk. If you want to waste time over semantics, find someone else. I just know that you would rather stick to semantics because you don't have any other valid argument to make.

You know it doesn’t exist - it’s called irregular immigration and that’s a phrase used by left and right before you start

It isn’t semantics - it’s what all this is about.

Still, you carry on "

Yeah you can call it irregular immigration or whatever. It still hasn't changed the point I was making. They are a net negative for the economy. There are additional social issues also to worry about. But let's not discuss that. It's important to argue on semantics 👍

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ark742024Man 3 weeks ago

Stoke/Cheshire


"

Immigration is a net gain for the economy so this argument is beyond stupid

Legal immigration and illegal immigration are two different things. Illegal immigration is net loss for the economy and causes social issues too. Conflating legal and illegal immigration is... what do they call it? Yeah "beyond stupid".

There’s no such thing as illegal immigration - anyone found to have no right to be in the country is removed.

Yeah - beyond stupid

Both of us know what kind of immigration we are talking about. If getting stuck on semantics is the best you could do, it just shows that you don't have any other rational argument to make. So, carry on

It isn’t semantics champ - it’s reality.

Define “illegal immigration”

We both know what kind is of immigration we are talking about. If you want to talk about their economic impact, we can talk. If you want to waste time over semantics, find someone else. I just know that you would rather stick to semantics because you don't have any other valid argument to make.

You know it doesn’t exist - it’s called irregular immigration and that’s a phrase used by left and right before you start

It isn’t semantics - it’s what all this is about.

Still, you carry on

Yeah you can call it irregular immigration or whatever. It still hasn't changed the point I was making. They are a net negative for the economy. There are additional social issues also to worry about. But let's not discuss that. It's important to argue on semantics 👍"

You’ve no idea what you’re talking about - step away from the keyboard

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"

Immigration is a net gain for the economy so this argument is beyond stupid

Legal immigration and illegal immigration are two different things. Illegal immigration is net loss for the economy and causes social issues too. Conflating legal and illegal immigration is... what do they call it? Yeah "beyond stupid".

There’s no such thing as illegal immigration - anyone found to have no right to be in the country is removed.

Yeah - beyond stupid

Both of us know what kind of immigration we are talking about. If getting stuck on semantics is the best you could do, it just shows that you don't have any other rational argument to make. So, carry on

It isn’t semantics champ - it’s reality.

Define “illegal immigration”

We both know what kind is of immigration we are talking about. If you want to talk about their economic impact, we can talk. If you want to waste time over semantics, find someone else. I just know that you would rather stick to semantics because you don't have any other valid argument to make.

You know it doesn’t exist - it’s called irregular immigration and that’s a phrase used by left and right before you start

It isn’t semantics - it’s what all this is about.

Still, you carry on

Yeah you can call it irregular immigration or whatever. It still hasn't changed the point I was making. They are a net negative for the economy. There are additional social issues also to worry about. But let's not discuss that. It's important to argue on semantics 👍

You’ve no idea what you’re talking about - step away from the keyboard "

Ok, Nobel Laureate.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ark742024Man 3 weeks ago

Stoke/Cheshire


"

Immigration is a net gain for the economy so this argument is beyond stupid

Legal immigration and illegal immigration are two different things. Illegal immigration is net loss for the economy and causes social issues too. Conflating legal and illegal immigration is... what do they call it? Yeah "beyond stupid".

There’s no such thing as illegal immigration - anyone found to have no right to be in the country is removed.

Yeah - beyond stupid

Both of us know what kind of immigration we are talking about. If getting stuck on semantics is the best you could do, it just shows that you don't have any other rational argument to make. So, carry on

It isn’t semantics champ - it’s reality.

Define “illegal immigration”

We both know what kind is of immigration we are talking about. If you want to talk about their economic impact, we can talk. If you want to waste time over semantics, find someone else. I just know that you would rather stick to semantics because you don't have any other valid argument to make.

You know it doesn’t exist - it’s called irregular immigration and that’s a phrase used by left and right before you start

It isn’t semantics - it’s what all this is about.

Still, you carry on

Yeah you can call it irregular immigration or whatever. It still hasn't changed the point I was making. They are a net negative for the economy. There are additional social issues also to worry about. But let's not discuss that. It's important to argue on semantics 👍

You’ve no idea what you’re talking about - step away from the keyboard

Ok, Nobel Laureate."

Oh dear me

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London

Employment rate of refugees who have been given right to work - 51%

Even the ones who work earn less than the national average, making them overall a net drain on the economy. And that's not even looking at cost of housing asylum seekers before they get refugee status.

But let's not discuss that. Let's focus on the more important million dollar question - Should it be called illegal immigration or irregular immigration?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hromakeyDreamcoatMan 3 weeks ago

Carlisle


"

So even though the NSPCC are saying that the perpetrators of CSA are massively more likely to be family members or friends of the family you’re still pushing the anti asylum seeker narrative? I’m sure you can see how someone might think that your concern is less about the safety of children and more about something else…

I explained it many times. Maybe it's a topic that the intellectually superior people find hard to grasp. Here I will do it again.

If 90% of animal bites are dog bites and 10% of animal bites are wolf bites, they will still say that you are more likely to be bitten by dogs than by wolves. That doesn't mean that dogs are generally more dangerous than wolves. You need to look at proportionality based on population of each groups.

We try to solve both the problems. One maybe easier to solve than others.

You are making two mistakes here - Misunderstanding proportionality and assuming that no one cares about the other problem. We care about the other problem too. It's just that one problem is easier to solve."

How many incidents of CSA are committed by asylum seekers? I mean if you are that afraid of them you should have some idea, yeah? Otherwise you appear to be basing the danger to children from asylum seekers on something other than evidence.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"

How many incidents of CSA are committed by asylum seekers? I mean if you are that afraid of them you should have some idea, yeah? Otherwise you appear to be basing the danger to children from asylum seekers on something other than evidence."

We don't have the numbers. That's the problem. It's not just CSA btw. There are other crimes too.

With lack of information, you, a single man err towards assuming that they are all safe. You don't have any data to prove it. Parents on the other hand err towards assuming that they are a danger, especially given all the stories they have read about it in the news. End of the day, they are unvetted young men who came into the country from places with different cultures.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otMe66Man 3 weeks ago

Here and there


"Employment rate of refugees who have been given right to work - 51%

Even the ones who work earn less than the national average, making them overall a net drain on the economy. And that's not even looking at cost of housing asylum seekers before they get refugee status.

But let's not discuss that. Let's focus on the more important million dollar question - Should it be called illegal immigration or irregular immigration? "

The same discussions happen time and time again, there really are people who can't understand national mood, stats or why things are now changing the way they are.

I think this is reflected in Farage's success and others lack of ability see needed change, it is a little like turning an oil tanker around, nothing seems to be happening for an age and then suddenly we are facing a new direction. The unaware are then scratching their heads wondering how did that happen...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hromakeyDreamcoatMan 3 weeks ago

Carlisle


"

How many incidents of CSA are committed by asylum seekers? I mean if you are that afraid of them you should have some idea, yeah? Otherwise you appear to be basing the danger to children from asylum seekers on something other than evidence.

We don't have the numbers. That's the problem. It's not just CSA btw. There are other crimes too.

With lack of information, you, a single man err towards assuming that they are all safe. You don't have any data to prove it. Parents on the other hand err towards assuming that they are a danger, especially given all the stories they have read about it in the news. End of the day, they are unvetted young men who came into the country from places with different cultures."

You’re having difficulty with comprehension: single man does not mean no children. I look at the evidence, and the evidence tells me that you are far more likely to be sexually assaulted by a white Briton than you are an asylum seeker. You seem to be obsessed with asylum seekers, when it’s someone far closer to home who is the real threat.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"

You’re having difficulty with comprehension: single man does not mean no children.

"

So be it. In general, parents have a different outlook of these things.


"

I look at the evidence, and the evidence tells me that you are far more likely to be sexually assaulted by a white Briton than you are an asylum seeker. You seem to be obsessed with asylum seekers, when it’s someone far closer to home who is the real threat."

And you are going around in circles now. I just explained this with the dog and wolf example. It's really shocking how the intellectually superior people like you are struggling to understand this simple concept.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hromakeyDreamcoatMan 3 weeks ago

Carlisle


"

You’re having difficulty with comprehension: single man does not mean no children.

So be it. In general, parents have a different outlook of these things.

I look at the evidence, and the evidence tells me that you are far more likely to be sexually assaulted by a white Briton than you are an asylum seeker. You seem to be obsessed with asylum seekers, when it’s someone far closer to home who is the real threat.

And you are going around in circles now. I just explained this with the dog and wolf example. It's really shocking how the intellectually superior people like you are struggling to understand this simple concept."

You’re getting yourself tied up in knots, percentages don’t matter, numbers do. 100% of 1 is still far fewer than 1% of a million.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostindreamsMan 3 weeks ago

London


"

You’re having difficulty with comprehension: single man does not mean no children.

So be it. In general, parents have a different outlook of these things.

I look at the evidence, and the evidence tells me that you are far more likely to be sexually assaulted by a white Briton than you are an asylum seeker. You seem to be obsessed with asylum seekers, when it’s someone far closer to home who is the real threat.

And you are going around in circles now. I just explained this with the dog and wolf example. It's really shocking how the intellectually superior people like you are struggling to understand this simple concept.

You’re getting yourself tied up in knots, percentages don’t matter, numbers do. 100% of 1 is still far fewer than 1% of a million."

Phew. Again. Simple concept. Go and re-read the dog and wolf example I mentioned. Just because dogs have higher bite incidents doesn't mean that wolves are less dangerous. This is a classic and well known case of misusing statistics to make a point. You are doing exactly that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hromakeyDreamcoatMan 3 weeks ago

Carlisle


"

You’re having difficulty with comprehension: single man does not mean no children.

So be it. In general, parents have a different outlook of these things.

I look at the evidence, and the evidence tells me that you are far more likely to be sexually assaulted by a white Briton than you are an asylum seeker. You seem to be obsessed with asylum seekers, when it’s someone far closer to home who is the real threat.

And you are going around in circles now. I just explained this with the dog and wolf example. It's really shocking how the intellectually superior people like you are struggling to understand this simple concept.

You’re getting yourself tied up in knots, percentages don’t matter, numbers do. 100% of 1 is still far fewer than 1% of a million.

Phew. Again. Simple concept. Go and re-read the dog and wolf example I mentioned. Just because dogs have higher bite incidents doesn't mean that wolves are less dangerous. This is a classic and well known case of misusing statistics to make a point. You are doing exactly that.

"

I fear you are allowing something to get in the way of looking at the evidence. And I think it’s fairly obvious what that is.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otMe66Man 3 weeks ago

Here and there


"

You’re having difficulty with comprehension: single man does not mean no children.

So be it. In general, parents have a different outlook of these things.

I look at the evidence, and the evidence tells me that you are far more likely to be sexually assaulted by a white Briton than you are an asylum seeker. You seem to be obsessed with asylum seekers, when it’s someone far closer to home who is the real threat.

And you are going around in circles now. I just explained this with the dog and wolf example. It's really shocking how the intellectually superior people like you are struggling to understand this simple concept.

You’re getting yourself tied up in knots, percentages don’t matter, numbers do. 100% of 1 is still far fewer than 1% of a million."

You might want to look at that statement again, because it could be a game changer for your argument.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

  

By *eroy1000Man 3 weeks ago

milton keynes


"

So even though the NSPCC are saying that the perpetrators of CSA are massively more likely to be family members or friends of the family you’re still pushing the anti asylum seeker narrative? I’m sure you can see how someone might think that your concern is less about the safety of children and more about something else…

I explained it many times. Maybe it's a topic that the intellectually superior people find hard to grasp. Here I will do it again.

If 90% of animal bites are dog bites and 10% of animal bites are wolf bites, they will still say that you are more likely to be bitten by dogs than by wolves. That doesn't mean that dogs are generally more dangerous than wolves. You need to look at proportionality based on population of each groups.

We try to solve both the problems. One maybe easier to solve than others.

You are making two mistakes here - Misunderstanding proportionality and assuming that no one cares about the other problem. We care about the other problem too. It's just that one problem is easier to solve.

How many incidents of CSA are committed by asylum seekers? I mean if you are that afraid of them you should have some idea, yeah? Otherwise you appear to be basing the danger to children from asylum seekers on something other than evidence."

Here is a bit of an overview of sexual crimes by asylum seekers in the UK:

Key Findings on Sexual Assaults and Foreign Nationals (2024–2025):UK Context: According to Ministry of Justice data obtained via Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, foreign nationals accounted for roughly 15% to 22% of sexual offence convictions in 2024, representing 1,118 known foreign national convictions out of 7,874 total convictions.London Data: Reports suggest that in London, foreign nationals accounted for over 40% of charges for sexual offenses, although this figure is debated, with some arguing it refers to "proceeded against" (charged) rather than convicted individuals.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

0.6875

0.0156