Bolitics The New Condem Government

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Don't you know? Britain was a crime free utopia of enterprise and common decency before the bloody foreigners turned up. The kind of place a white man can walk down the street without having to slow his speech for a bloody middle-eastern something or other. The kind of green and pleasant land you could let your kids explore without the fear of them being kidnapped and sold into a eastern-European brothel. No such thing as queuing at hospitals or the post office, or bloody call-centres outsourced to India. A wonderful place with laughter and Sunday services and tea with the neighbours and newsagents run by men called John, not Ahmed or whatever they call themselves.

 

O what dire straits we are in! Vote UKIP and kick those the bloody no good urchins out! By god we should sack the whole bloody parliament and get back to absolute monarchy, then we'd have some god damn leadership!

Edited March 29, 2013 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[AVFCforever1991]

This whole daily mail fear crowd holds us back as a species, embrace other cultures, we are all human. 

 

Edited March 29, 2013 by AVFCforever1991

[chrisp65]

 

When will people realise Con/Lab/Lib are all as bad as each other, Flip floping between them every election hasn't worked yet and never will. Currently immigrants have more rights than the english people it's a disgrace. The UK doesn't need dictatorship but it does need leadership, someone with a pair of balls that will lay down rules. These posh boys that win every election will never learn the true meaning of reality. I'm voting for UKIP or no one, they're the only ones who listen to what the people want. 

 

Labour will win regardless, I can't bare to imagine that plum Ed Miliband representing my country 

You make politics in the UK sound like X Factor

The idea is to vote for policies not personalities

And when did UKIP suddenly become "centre right"? I must have missed the announcement and resultant policy shift

Labour are "centre right"

Labour is the very reason why the country is **** up in the first place. 

 

Can you not see the policy of immigrant rights come before english rights. They go to the extreme out of fear of being labelled racists. UKIP are the only people that realise we need to close our borders asap. England can't keep paying for immigrants free benefits and free hospital care, not to mention crime. 

couldn't agree more mate, don't let the others shout you down

 

before all these **** Irish and Welsh and wotnots came over here England was a green and pleasant land of milk honey warm beer and fractions of inches. Then some foreign idiot thought these foreign workers shouldn't die in servitude to coal barons and land owners and only went and invented the **** Labour party. Down hill ever since.

[Ads]

I am not sure where to put this, so I thought I would put it here.

I had a meeting the other day which included a couple of Conservative and Labour politicians. While we were waiting for IT to set some gizmos up, the politicos got to chatting.

One matter they discussed was the Bedroom Tax which one of the Labour politcians said they agreed with it but would "never say that in public, obviously". Now I know politicians are duplicitous and that they are forever saying things in order to climb the greasy pole, willingly taking the whip, but to hear it from somebody who had stood and protested against it is pretty deflating.

The callow generation of politician we must suffer.

[Risso]

This whole daily mail fear crowd holds us back as a species, embrace other cultures, we are all human. 

 

 

Well, yes.  The coast line is obviously a border.

[drat01]

I am not sure where to put this, so I thought I would put it here.

I had a meeting the other day which included a couple of Conservative and Labour politicians. While we were waiting for IT to set some gizmos up, the politicos got to chatting.

One matter they discussed was the Bedroom Tax which one of the Labour politcians said they agreed with it but would "never say that in public, obviously". Now I know politicians are duplicitous and that they are forever saying things in order to climb the greasy pole, willingly taking the whip, but to hear it from somebody who had stood and protested against it is pretty deflating.

The callow generation of politician we must suffer.

 

Apologies for this, but prove this happened!

 

That sounds like me as an attempt by a Tory supporter (and a member of the party?) trying to justify what is a pretty abominable tax implemented by a party that is more concerned with wealth for its supporters than any sort of social conscience 

 

The bedroom tax is another Poll Tax for this god awful Gvmt and more and more of the poorer in society are in for a big shock in the next few months as they suddenly realise what this Gvmt have hit them with while seeing the rewards that the rich - and typically those that have donated to the Tory party - will be enjoying.

 

The spin machine blaming "johhny foreigner" and look some unnamed Labour politician said it was OK will be out in force no doubt. Xenophobic and borderline (if not full fat) racist parties like UKIP will be no doubt blame any non British / English (Note: the irony of someone missing the Welsh / Irish post did make me chuckle) in an attempt to grab the scare votes.

 

Expect grubbier and grubbier politics to happen as the weeks and months go on

[Ads]

I often go into meetings wired for sound.

I take a strong exception to being called a liar though.

[drat01]

So who was the Labour politician you are "quoting" and where does it say that "they" - Labour politicians - agreed with the policy?

 

Surely, as you have mentioned in the seedy world of politics and at a time when the Tory party is desperate to win any sort of favour for this ill thought out vindictive policy then this would be political gold dust.

 

Even if this was a supported policy behind closed doors of Labour politicians as you are saying, then it still does not make it a good policy.

[Ads]

I am not a member of any political party or an activist, I am merely commenting on the surpine behaviour of a politician. You're incredibly defensive, that you try to smear my post by suggesting it is some sort of Tory ploy.

I was there to provide legal advice, the details of which are bound by client privilege, the inane chitter is not.

[drat01]

Sorry ads but for you (who has said on previous political threads that you are a Tory supporter) to then say that the Labour party is secretly supporters of this tax but publicly against it while in the company of both Labour and Tory politicians is surely open for the "oh really?" type response? Like you rightly say, politicians (at all levels) are typically liars and slippery gits and the pubic is rightly now getting that more and more. I find it doubtful that any Tory politician would not have made more of this and said so to the press - hence my dubious nature

 

But as said I really don't care if Tory, Labour, Lib Dem . UKIP or whoever is a supporter of this policy, it is wrong in so many ways and when it is implemented by a party that is rewarding the richest in society and in many cases donors to them while hitting the most vulnerable then it should be removed asap (along with those who are inflicting it)

[Ads]

Try reading what is posted instead of what you would like to have been posted.

I didn't say the "Labour Party", I said one politician. The comments and the subsequent laughs at the "don't quote me on that!" suggest to me that its common place. In fact I talk about politicians being duplicitous and its not the fact that a politician has done one thing in public and another in private, more that I heard it first hand.

I have supported the Conservatives at the ballot box, I would hardly say that casts me as some sort of grandee or rqbid activist. But then that is the direction you have tried to steer the conversation, when my initial post was about the hypocrisy of politicians. Ifit has upset you that it was a Labour one, then thats your issue, not mine.

[chrisp65]

I think that on the subject of what some politicians might claim to agree with 'off the record', they probably all even each other out.

 

I know that I've had conversations with a couple of tory candidates that have claimed to be truly embarassed by some of the aggressive heartless toffs in their party. I've also had conversations with a sitting Labour MP where he claimed he couldn't really care less and was in it as a straightforward career choice. That same Labour MP on a separate occassion let a small group of us know he considered himself a 'sleeper' for the far far far left. So I guess what he actually was, was someone that couldn't control his mouth when he'd had a lager.

 

On the subject of immigration, I'd ask the anti immigration brigade to explain to me how the pension system works and what mine will look like in 25 years time if we stop immigration.

 

Farage? Rich chancer enjoying life.

[blandy]

Awol, on 29 Mar 2013 - 18:49, said:

1 of 2 in reply to Blandy - i hate this new quoting format!

Hardly any countries guarantee a right to permanent settlement once a work permit or visa has expired. Are they all prejudiced racists? Note even UKIP are suggesting a temporary freeze, not a moratorium until the end of time..

That's a different point, though I 'fess I didn't make my point too clearly. Basically, work permits allow people to come then leave again. Fine. The issue with stopping all immigration is that if someone comes, settles, maybe marries, maybe has kids, has contributed to society and then wants to stay, contributing, paying taxes etc. and applies for citizenship - UKIP says "no. eff off no-one may stay at all". It's stupid beyond belief. And so counter-productive. Immigrants are much less likely to calim benefits and be a "burden" than non-immigrants, and they are much more likely to contribute. about 6% of immigrants as against 17% of non-immigrants claim benefits at some point. They are more productive than the likes of us. It's not surprising - they are coming here to work and make a better life for themselves and their families. That means they have to work.

Quote

So you think illegal immigration is a good thing? If they are illegal then they can’t work legally, so can’t pay tax and are not contributing to broader society. In that situation people are also logically more likely to turn to crime. Amnesties do encourage more of the same and on a very basic level if you can’t secure your own borders then you can’t secure your country. Acting to do something about that is just common sense, not dog whistle politics.

Acting to do something might be very welcome. On the other hand, where we are is that there are something like 340,000 people who we know about but don't have a scooby where they are. And God knows how many more we don't know about. So what do we do? We're not capable of finding them and expelling them. They're not paying taxes, but a large proportion are likely to be working. Do we just say, as UKIP has, "throw them all out" with not a hope of ever doing so, or do we as you propose actually do something. And what would that something be? Surely considering bringing them into the mainstream of society is worth thinking about and reviewing? Why rule it out, like that, unless you're playing to prejudices and fears, or you have actually considered it in depth and can explain why you think that's not in any way a partial or full soultion. ANd if it isn't explain why not - gain credibility. But of course it's the former. They offer no solution, or idea. It's hollow rhetoric.

Quote

Looked at another way the intent is clearly to make Parliament sovereign again and not subject to any authority that is not directly accountable to the British people. Prior to the UK ratifying the HRA were any of the points you raised not already addressed – right to a fair trial, prohibition of torture, prohibition of slavery etc etc? Did we live in a police state before we had the protection of Strasbourg? No, and making Parliament sovereign again wouldn’t diminish the rights of the British people one iota, but it would be a benefit.

So the HRA is actually fine - you've no argument with it's content? it's just that you (or UKIP who we're talking about) don't like the idea/principle of there being a higher set of laws that the UK must abide by? International War Crimes laws - are they OK? or money laundering regs? I think UKIP (and some nobber tories) are again just using the HRA as a kind of anvil on which to bash their antipathy to anything "non-british" (whatever they perceive that to be).

Why don't the French or the Germans or the Danes or...have the same level of antipathy to the HRA? They are just as proud of their nationality and so on, and their sovereignty. The nations who tend to object to human rights tend to be the ones with serious flaws in their citizens liberties and rights.

Quote

Had hoped you might look a bit more deeply at that one (End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies) to be honest, that’s the sort of cop out less thoughtful posters would use.

I thought it was so clear, Jon. London, Birmingham, Bradford, Leicester and so on are clearly now "multi-cultural" there are large swathes of non anglo-saxon people living there and elsewhere. So should schools, libraries, hospitals and the rest be permitted to teach kids about the cultures of various people, should they be allowed to provide books and leaflets helping people understand the nature of the societies they live in, teach about british values, polish traditions, or Bangladeshi, or Hindu or Chinese or US, or French? Because that's what the UKIPs are against. Education and help and understanding the nature of society as it is. They're all about trying to somehow re-wind to the 1950s and before. It's head in the sand idiocy. It's negative, again. Trading on fear and rejection of anything that isn't white british (English). Not quite racist, but just fear of change and fear and dislike of the unfamiliar. That's how it comes across to me. It doesn't mean people who like UKIP are all racists, or all scared of foreigners, but I'd much prefer positive suggestions or policies rather than ban this, end that, stop the other.

[blandy]

chrisp65, on 30 Mar 2013 - 10:42, said:

Farage? Rich chancer enjoying life.

Spot on. not a man of principle. He's happy to take the wages and expenses of a Euro MP, while barely attending that parliament and contributing. He's good at getting his mug on the telly, and he's sharp at picking on issues that people are worried about and bending the debate around populist points, but there are no answers there. Chancer is so right.

[colhint]

I think that on the subject of what some politicians might claim to agree with 'off the record', they probably all even each other out.

 

I know that I've had conversations with a couple of tory candidates that have claimed to be truly embarassed by some of the aggressive heartless toffs in their party. I've also had conversations with a sitting Labour MP where he claimed he couldn't really care less and was in it as a straightforward career choice. That same Labour MP on a separate occassion let a small group of us know he considered himself a 'sleeper' for the far far far left. So I guess what he actually was, was someone that couldn't control his mouth when he'd had a lager.

 

On the subject of immigration, I'd ask the anti immigration brigade to explain to me how the pension system works and what mine will look like in 25 years time if we stop immigration.

 

Farage? Rich chancer enjoying life.

 

 

on the Subject of Immigration, can anyone from the pro immigration brigade explain to Chris what his pension look like in 25 years time

 

Blair? Really rich chancer enjoying life

[blandy]

On the subject of immigration, I'd ask the anti immigration brigade to explain to me how the pension system works and what mine will look like in 25 years time if we stop immigration.

 

 

on the Subject of Immigration, can anyone from the pro immigration brigade explain to Chris what his pension look like in 25 years time

 

Blair? Really rich chancer enjoying life

Well, pensioners have their state pensions paid by the people working right now. And it will be the same in the future. We have an ageing population profile, so without more younger people coming to the country we will struggle to have the tax revenue to pay people's pensions in the future. It's the poles and other people coming here and paying tax on their hard work that is helping to fund current pensioners pensions. So if they go way, or stop coming, then we're worse off. It's that simple. As I said before, they work more and claim less than non-immigrants.

Blair - lying word removed.

[colhint]

So when these people coming in retire, they will need more people to come in to pay their pensions, and so will these. At what point do we think the uk is full up. 80 million, 100, 200. Maybe a billion. Not suggesting they do or don't work or claim benefits. I'm sure the overwhelming majority are good decent citizens.

[chrisp65]

So when these people coming in retire, they will need more people to come in to pay their pensions, and so will these. At what point do we think the uk is full up. 80 million, 100, 200. Maybe a billion. Not suggesting they do or don't work or claim benefits. I'm sure the overwhelming majority are good decent citizens.

Well, with the population currently at approx 70M, but the UK only about 10% urbanised, we can have a few more yet.

 

Britain is not 'full'. What's full is the existing city periphery poor persons belt. It's a dilema, the cleaners need to live close to the money, if only we could do without cleaners (and their disgusting needs for cheap food and health care), then the nice cities could be nicer.

[snowychap]

So when these people coming in retire, they will need more people to come in to pay their pensions, and so will these. At what point do we think the uk is full up.

I'm not sure the 'full up' talk is a great way to take the conversation. It's rather been the mainstay of anti-immigration attitudes for as long as I can remember - it was certainly the first thing that I can recall being said when members of my family spoke about the subject when I was a kid. It was rather amusing and troubling at the same time considering that a good proportion of my family three generations back (i.e. my great grandparents' generation) were Irish immigrants.

On the retiring and needing people to pay for their pensions and so on, I think the use of the word 'more' is a bit of a problem. It suggests that this becomes an ever increasing number, i.e. one needs a larger population in each subsequent generation in order to support the transfer payments to the retired, rather than 'more' as in more than would otherwise be if we relied on current birth rates.

The real worry, surely, is that the whole thing gets to a point where it almost irreversably collapses when there are not enough people of working age to support those that are too old and frail to work (not just those who have elected to retire)?

It's at that time when some very nasty measures may end up being discussed as a matter of course under the banners of 'political and economic necessity' and 'affordability'.

[colhint]

I actually think full up is the right dialogue. There will come a point in the not too distant future when we cannot produce enough food for ourselves. Then not long after we will have to import water. I am not sure there would be space for enough desalination plant, and these actually do need the right types of water. Now people who say there is plenty of space, Well yes, there is enough if we give up vast tracts of agricultural land for this,  Dont think you can just add the welsh Mountain  or scottish highlands to the equation. The reason they produce little food is because it doesn't grow there. t. So if you have a problem with uk, simple turn off the food and water supply. We are the second most densely populated country in europe, after holland, but that is an area the size of yorkshire, and flat and fantastic agricultural land. It is my opinion that the cost of land in this country is so great now that future generations will have no hope of ever owning a house. If that population increases the cost of that land will escalate