The Labour Party

[Holmes_and_Watson]

18 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

They’ve got an open goal, they just need to tap it in.

• No taking the knee
• No confirming their pronouns
• No suggestions of 8pm curfews for men, even as a joke, when a woman is assaulted
• No CND stuff
• No Dianne Abbott
• No Owen Jones
• Just don’t even mention Israel, or anything related to Judaism, full stop.

From a flyer through my door earlier...

Owen Jones (non woman / never women) and Dianne Abbott (useless / mess) invite you from bended knee, to join them in their anti nuclear conference this weekend, in Jerusalem.  Entry at 5pm, to allow everyone to be safe inside by 8pm.

Some parties just can't help themselves, even if it destroys their chances. 🙂

[Millbrook Saint]

15 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

They released a detailed plan in August explaining exactly how they plan to address the cost of living crisis, which was supported by numerous senior figures in big business. But something about the tone of your post suggests to me that you wouldn't be interested in reading it anyway.

Then Truss came along and well and truly fucked the entire country with her utterly deranged plans that literally everyone with any economic sense could see were a recipe for disaster.

I agree re Truss, totally ridiculous plan, as for labours plan, never saw it, maybe they need to do more to get it out there so people like me can get an idea of what they plan on doing.  At the moment whenever I hear any of them talk all I hear is how bad the tories are, well ok

[Holmes_and_Watson]

Recent interviews I've heard repeat that their policies will be fully costed. There's no indication of what the policies might be, but whenever they have to decide, that will seemingly be the priority. I get the feeling it must cost them a too much to have a dynamic range of ideas that they can balance as they go. Instead, they'd rather give no details at all, so they don't promise anything they can't deliver. 

[Sheaf Saint]

50 minutes ago, Millbrook Saint said:

I agree re Truss, totally ridiculous plan, as for labours plan, never saw it, maybe they need to do more to get it out there so people like me can get an idea of what they plan on doing.  At the moment whenever I hear any of them talk all I hear is how bad the tories are, well ok

See, this again highlights the point @tajjuk made that the majority of the media in this country is heavily right leaning. Their published plan is available on their website, and promoted by them as much as possible on all social media channels. But most of the TV and print media won't bother reporting it.

[whelk]

25 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Recent interviews I've heard repeat that their policies will be fully costed. There's no indication of what the policies might be, but whenever they have to decide, that will seemingly be the priority. I get the feeling it must cost them a too much to have a dynamic range of ideas that they can balance as they go. Instead, they'd rather give no details at all, so they don't promise anything they can't deliver. 

Parliament is only half way through - no opposition costs out the details at this stage. 
plus finances significantly changed since the incompetent fuckwits had a go at an experiment

[whelk]

12 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

See, this again highlights the point @tajjuk made that the majority of the media in this country is heavily right leaning. Their published plan is available on their website, and promoted by them as much as possible on all social media channels. But most of the TV and print media won't bother reporting it.

TBF many voters will never be interested in reading policies but that was my original point of someone like Dodds going on about Islamophobia has no resonance and just fuels the ignorant view shown above.

Sunak shows he is just like Johnson - banging on about woke, Marxist unions and leftie lawyers at PMQs. Boring and doesn’t land like their comms people like to think. Got nothing else though really as all on them. Braverman talking about completely broken systems today that they have been in charge of is comical.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

Parliament is only half way through - no opposition costs out the details at this stage. 
plus finances significantly changed since the incompetent fuckwits had a go at an experiment

What came across, was that costing at a future date was their only policy. It had crossed my mind that they simply hadn't the chance to reassess their plans following the Truss' Clough Tribute Act.

But none of the interviewees provided details of their previous policies, even the ones in August. Nor did they provide alternatives to what had just happened. It felt like trying to win votes, by not being held to account for anything. It's pretty weak, and they held the costing line when point blank asked for examples of any eonomic policy they might have. Opportunities missed to show they were reactive and clear, even in the face of uncertainty. Opportunities missed to show they had a clue. All on the Beeb, at various points during the day, but mainly early morning ones, for what it's worth.

[tajjuk]

5 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

He seems to have it in for Starmer for daring to be electable and replacing his idealistic poster boy.

He has in for Starmer because he's weak and far too centrist. I mean what Starmer did with the unions and the strikes was bad, still having an official line of 'making Brexit work' is bad, Starmer is not good on a lot of stuff and I don't think he is very electable either.  But they seem to be getting a little better more recently and I hope he is playing his cards close to his chest. 

You can be on the left and electable with proper progressive policies as they are popular. 2017 showed that as Labour has proper progressive policies that would have changed this countries direction and they resonated well, forcing May to form a government with the DUP because she had no real majority and that is with Corbyn causing issues (who is nowhere near as bad as you make out and his reputation comes far more from our idiotic right wing press than anything he did, what he was particularly worse was be crap on the whole anti-semitism thing that lost him votes, no one gives a shit about pacifism and being anti-nuclear, I mean god forbid we don't invade a country again on a lie to get their oil eh? pacifism seems a much better alternative imo.) 

[Lighthouse]

17 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

no one gives a shit about pacifism and being anti-nuclear, I mean god forbid we don't invade a country again on a lie to get their oil eh? pacifism seems a much better alternative imo.) 

I give a sh*t. So do Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Finns, Estonians, Poles, Slovaks, Hungarians and Latvians. Why you’re randomly bringing up an invasion from two decades again in defence of Corbyn, and what relevance it has to anything, I don’t know. This seems a bizarre view for someone who’s pro-EU on the Brexit thread. 

[tajjuk]

4 hours ago, Millbrook Saint said:

Pretty much how I see the labour party and the left in general, they're all too busy hating rich people and tories to propose anything productive which might win my vote

How are they going to stop my mortgage payments raising by £500 a month next year?

How they going to reduce my utilities bill from £350 a month.

How they going to stop enough people crossing the channel in dinghies to fill St Marys more than 3 times over in a year.

Seems to me they have better things to discuss like Islamaphobia and whether women have penises than helping real working class people like me.

You can put the vile James O'Brien up there with Owen Jones as another nasty left wing knob

As opposed to the rich people who just love people like you then? 

Your mortgage payments have gone up and utlities have gone up because of the fucking Tories, yet here you are attacking Labour about it, how actually dumb is that? They literally had a plan to tackle the energy bills, it was a windfall tax on the energy companies, they even gave it to the Tories. The Tories decided nah we won't do that, let them make record profit and we'll borrow from the tax payers to pay it in two years time. 

Their stupid libertarian far right tax cuts for the rich was what spooked the markets, crashed the pound and drove interest rates up. Again Labour have decent plans for growing the economy which doesn't involve dumb trickle down economics BUT THEY ARENT IN POWER SO WTF DO EXPECT THEM TO BE DOING.

How many people cross the channel in boats is irrelevant, it has no real impact on the country, the actual numbers are tiny compared to the population of the country and illegal immigrants can't use public services. The whole fuss about these boats is literally there to distract you from the other shit they are fucking up, the Tories have always used immigration like this, the whole Brexit immigration thing was exactly the same to distract people from the real reason they wanted Brexit. Which was to get us out of the EU so there were no rules and regulations that protected people, the environment, food, animals so they could exploit all that for more profit, plus the looming EU tax avoidance rules that were coming in because the rich people that Labour apparently 'hate' according to you, didn't want to pay taxes so got their Tory chums to drive us out of the EU so they could avoid the rules and pay their fair share. 

If we had legal routes of immigration open for refugees and asylum seekers, i.e. normal ports of entry they wouldn't have to use the boats, that is the elephant in the room no one wants to admit, even the EU as whole skips on that one.  Why would some refugee pay thousands to a criminal gang to cross the channel on a deathtrap if they could just come in via a ferry, train or plane? They wouldn't, but for some bonkers reason you can't claim asylum at normal ports of entry. Also put yourself in their shoes, imagine how desperate these people must be to do this, risk their lives, their kids lives for this, these are people, just normal people, a lot of them fleeing awful things, yet the whole narrative around this seeks to dehumanise them. 

Also imagine not wanting a section of society to be hated on and marginalised, how awful for people to not want that...........................

I mean FFS complaining about boats of a few thousand mostly desperate people like that has any impact on your life whatsoever. 

It isn't the poor souls in those boats that have fucked up the NHS or drove your mortgage payments up or ruined pretty much every public service going its the Tories you were likely have been voting in constantly for the last 12 years. If you actually paid attention to those 'nasty left wing knobs' as you so eloquently put it, you might have notice that people like that have been pointing this out for the last 12 fucking years but people like you seem to prefer to listen Daily Mail and the like, who are owned by billionaires so of course they really care about you and your mortgage........oh wait no they don't, they give a flying monkeys about ordinary people they just want them and their mates to get richer so that is why they push the Tories. 

 

[tajjuk]

1 minute ago, Lighthouse said:

I give a sh*t. So do Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Finns, Estonians, Poles, Slovaks, Hungarians and Latvians. Why you’re randomly bringing up an invasion from two decades again in defence of Corbyn, and what relevance it has to anything, I don’t know. This seems a bizarre view for someone who’s pro-EU on the Brexit thread. 

Because its relevant, we were pushed to war and British people lost their lives because we threw our lot in with the US and their overly aggressive neoconservatism, all on a lie they peddled and was peddled by Blair. Who was the last Labour PM (pretty much) yet you are saying that one of the reason we couldn't possibly elect Corbyn is because he's a pacifists and against war which thus disqualifies him from potentially being a good PM? Yet the last Labour PM we had for any length of time literally took us into a war on a lie, illegally invaded a sovereign state (which is what Putin did) and is essentially a war criminal. Seems a pretty relevant point to me, you use it a criticism of Corbyn, I'd personally give him credit for it considering the alternative we have already seen. 

Then there is literally the whole double standard of it. Why do we give a shit about Ukraine, but its fine for Saudi Arabia to bomb the crap out of Yemen? WITH British and US weapons? We condemn Putin for invading Ukraine, but constantly prop up Israel who brutally oppress the Palestinians, and anyone who criticises that and Israel more often than not gets condemned as anti-Semitic, even though Israel is a nation state not the whole Jewish race of people. We pussy foot around China because let's not piss off China even though they have a horrific human rights record, are persecuting uyghur muslims and are threatening the democratic state of Taiwain, which we all pretend is not a country even though it is. Oh and we completely threw the people of Hong Kong under the bus too, literally people who were pretty much Britain.  Thats all fine though, but lets throw millions of pounds at Ukraine and questioning that and us putting more money into NATO is a bad thing and Corbyn is this giant bogeyman because of it apparently. 

Cos he says stuff like this -

Quote

“I would want to see a world where we start to ultimately disband all military alliances,” he told Times Radio. “The issue has to be: what’s the best way of bringing about peace in the future? Is it by more alliances? Is it by more military buildup?

How unreasonable.....

 

[AlexLaw76]

37 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

As opposed to the rich people who just love people like you then? 

Your mortgage payments have gone up and utlities have gone up because of the fucking Tories, y

 

are they not going up all over the Western World?  

 

[whelk]

8 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

are they not going up all over the Western World?  

 

Presumably you are mystified why Kwarteng isn’t still Chancellor and Truss PM?

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, whelk said:

Presumably you are mystified why Kwarteng isn’t still Chancellor and Truss PM?

Is that a yes or no?

Interest rates and utilities are rising everywhere. Right?

[whelk]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

Is that a yes or no?

Interest rates and utilities are rising everywhere. Right?

Too much effort for you to understand the gilt or bond market I fear or just watch the News. Do you know we have a new PM? Yes or no?

[AlexLaw76]

3 minutes ago, whelk said:

Too much effort for you to understand the gilt or bond market I fear or just watch the News. Do you know we have a new PM? Yes or no?

Brilliant. I take that as a yes then.

all across Europe and the western world, there are massive economic issues like we face in the UK. Those damn Tories.

 

[Lighthouse]

26 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

Because its relevant, we were pushed to war and British people lost their lives because we threw our lot in with the US and their overly aggressive neoconservatism, all on a lie they peddled and was peddled by Blair. Who was the last Labour PM (pretty much) yet you are saying that one of the reason we couldn't possibly elect Corbyn is because he's a pacifists and against war which thus disqualifies him from potentially being a good PM? Yet the last Labour PM we had for any length of time literally took us into a war on a lie, illegally invaded a sovereign state (which is what Putin did) and is essentially a war criminal. Seems a pretty relevant point to me, you use it a criticism of Corbyn, I'd personally give him credit for it considering the alternative we have already seen. 

Then there is literally the whole double standard of it. Why do we give a shit about Ukraine, but its fine for Saudi Arabia to bomb the crap out of Yemen? WITH British and US weapons? We condemn Putin for invading Ukraine, but constantly prop up Israel who brutally oppress the Palestinians, and anyone who criticises that and Israel more often than not gets condemned as anti-Semitic, even though Israel is a nation state not the whole Jewish race of people. We pussy foot around China because let's not piss off China even though they have a horrific human rights record, are persecuting uyghur muslims and are threatening the democratic state of Taiwain, which we all pretend is not a country even though it is. Oh and we completely threw the people of Hong Kong under the bus too, literally people who were pretty much Britain.  Thats all fine though, but lets throw millions of pounds at Ukraine and questioning that and us putting more money into NATO is a bad thing and Corbyn is this giant bogeyman because of it apparently. 

Cos he says stuff like this -

How unreasonable.....

 

It’s not relevant, that whole post is just empty whataboutery. If you genuinely can’t see why we (Britain and the EU) might have more of a vested interested in a nuclear armed genocidal dictator trying to get the USSR back together, than a civil war with Houthi rebels, I can’t explain it to you.

I don’t care what he wants, he doesn’t have a prayer of delivering on it. Nuclear weapons are Putin’s last big chip on the world stage, he isn’t letting go of them. If he wants to end all war, he can go and be Miss Teen America and cure cancer whilst he’s at it.

[whelk]

8 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Brilliant. I take that as a yes then.

all across Europe and the western world, there are massive economic issues like we face in the UK. Those damn Tories.

 

Thick fucker

[Weston Super Saint]

9 hours ago, tajjuk said:

 

If we had legal routes of immigration open for refugees and asylum seekers, i.e. normal ports of entry they wouldn't have to use the boats, that is the elephant in the room no one wants to admit, even the EU as whole skips on that one.  Why would some refugee pay thousands to a criminal gang to cross the channel on a deathtrap if they could just come in via a ferry, train or plane? They wouldn't, but for some bonkers reason you can't claim asylum at normal ports of entry. Also put yourself in their shoes, imagine how desperate these people must be to do this, risk their lives, their kids lives for this, these are people, just normal people, a lot of them fleeing awful things, yet the whole narrative around this seeks to dehumanise them. 

 

We have legal routes open for legal immigration.  There is no elephant in the room.

What you are mentioning is 'illegal' immigration.  

Putting myself in the shoes of the desperate people, a lot of whom are fleeing awful things, I too would not want to risk my life and the lives of my kids crossing the channel in a small boat not fit for purpose, especially if I'd travelled through many third countries where I could have legitimately claimed asylum. 

I think you may be confusing legitmate asylum seekers with illegal economic migrants and (even worse) illegal people trafficking.

[egg]

15 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

We have legal routes open for legal immigration.  There is no elephant in the room.

What you are mentioning is 'illegal' immigration.  

Putting myself in the shoes of the desperate people, a lot of whom are fleeing awful things, I too would not want to risk my life and the lives of my kids crossing the channel in a small boat not fit for purpose, especially if I'd travelled through many third countries where I could have legitimately claimed asylum. 

I think you may be confusing legitmate asylum seekers with illegal economic migrants and (even worse) illegal people trafficking.

Correct. Asylum is a simple concept - get from a place of danger/persecution to a place of safety. The journey should stop there. Anyone then travelling on through other countries and then to here is not seeking asylum, they're traveling to the UK as a destination of choice for economic reasons. Don't get me wrong, I get why they'd want to be somewhere where they're looked after, but let's not try to kid ourselves and others that economic migrants are seeking asylum. 

[hypochondriac]

20 hours ago, tajjuk said:

They have always been a credible option, its just right wing dominated media scare mongering and focusing on dumb culture wars that is the issue, leading the turkeys to vote for Christmas.

Also whats wrong with Owen Jones? Guy talks constant sense. 

Lol

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Correct. Asylum is a simple concept - get from a place of danger/persecution to a place of safety. The journey should stop there. Anyone then travelling on through other countries and then to here is not seeking asylum, they're traveling to the UK as a destination of choice for economic reasons. Don't get me wrong, I get why they'd want to be somewhere where they're looked after, but let's not try to kid ourselves and others that economic migrants are seeking asylum. 

So the Ukrainians currently saying here because of the war are economic migrants and should be sent back?

[egg]

7 minutes ago, aintforever said:

So the Ukrainians currently saying here because of the war are economic migrants and should be sent back?

The discussion was people coming on little boats from France. Do keep up. 

[Weston Super Saint]

19 minutes ago, aintforever said:

So the Ukrainians currently saying here because of the war are economic migrants and should be sent back?

WTF are you on about?

The Ukrainians living here are legal migrants that have followed the legal process having been displaced by war.  The previous poster mentioned that there were no legal routes for migration.  Even you have figured out that's bollocks as you have rightly pointed to the Ukrainian refugees.

[badgerx16]

11 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Is that a yes or no?

Interest rates and utilities are rising everywhere. Right?

Yes, but the UK rates are rising faster than most other European countries.

[aintforever]

3 hours ago, egg said:

The discussion was people coming on little boats from France. Do keep up. 

Wether they come by little boat, big boat or train doesn't change the fact that they didn't stop at the first safe destination, which according to you means they are economic migrants. Do keep up.

[Weston Super Saint]

2 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Wether they come by little boat, big boat or train doesn't change the fact that they didn't stop at the first safe destination, which according to you means they are economic migrants. Do keep up.

I'm not sure you've grasped what is being discussed yet.

[aintforever]

2 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I'm not sure you've grasped what is being discussed yet.

Just pointing out the fact that refugees who don't stop at the first safe place are not by default economic migrants. I thought it was quite an easy point to understand. Clearly not for everyone.

[Weston Super Saint]

13 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Just pointing out the fact that refugees who don't stop at the first safe place are not by default economic migrants. I thought it was quite an easy point to understand. Clearly not for everyone.

UNHCR definition of a refugee (here) :

Quote

Refugees are people who have fled war, violence, conflict or persecution and have crossed an international border to find safety in another country.

They often have had to flee with little more than the clothes on their back, leaving behind homes, possessions, jobs and loved ones. 

Refugees are defined and protected in international law. The 1951 Refugee Convention is a key legal document and defines a refugee as:

“someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.”

Is a 'refugee' who has crossed multiple international borders still a 'refugee'?

Refugees seek refuge from war and persecution.  They don't have to travel half the globe to find that.  That tends to be the remit of the 'economic migrant' - or more commonly when it comes to the UK borders, the 'illegally trafficked worker' or 'modern day slave'....

[Turkish]

29 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I'm not sure you've grasped what is being discussed yet.

there's a surprise.

[aintforever]

6 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

UNHCR definition of a refugee (here) :

Is a 'refugee' who has crossed multiple international borders still a 'refugee'?

Refugees seek refuge from war and persecution.  They don't have to travel half the globe to find that.  That tends to be the remit of the 'economic migrant' - or more commonly when it comes to the UK borders, the 'illegally trafficked worker' or 'modern day slave'....

"tends to be the remit" - in other words not all refugees stop at the first safe place - the Ukrainian refugees currently here being one example.

[Weston Super Saint]

4 minutes ago, aintforever said:

"tends to be the remit" - in other words not all refugees stop at the first safe place - the Ukrainian refugees currently here being one example.

You keep mentioning the Ukrainian refugees as if it's some kind of trump card. You fail to recall that they have all been transported to the UK (and other countries) from Poland which was their first safe place!

You also haven't grasped that the very existence of Ukrainian refugees backs up my assertion that there ARE legal routes into the country for legal migrants and indeed refugees.

Legal migrants don't need to cross the channel in a shitty little boat.  Illegal migrants on the other hand do.  Pretty simple concept that you seem to keep tripping yourself up on.

[aintforever]

26 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

You keep mentioning the Ukrainian refugees as if it's some kind of trump card. You fail to recall that they have all been transported to the UK (and other countries) from Poland which was their first safe place!

You also haven't grasped that the very existence of Ukrainian refugees backs up my assertion that there ARE legal routes into the country for legal migrants and indeed refugees.

Legal migrants don't need to cross the channel in a shitty little boat.  Illegal migrants on the other hand do.  Pretty simple concept that you seem to keep tripping yourself up on.

Blimey, you really are as thick as mince.

I have never commented on who is legal or illegal, just saying that refugees don't stop being refugees just because they didn't stay in the first safe place - as you say so yourself, the Ukrainians didn't stop in their first safe country which was probably Poland.

There are legal routes but it's easier for people coming from some countries than others. Not all countries have the same scheme as Ukrainians.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, aintforever said:

Blimey, you really are as thick as mince.

I have never commented on who is legal or illegal, just saying that refugees don't stop being refugees just because they didn't stay in the first safe place - as you say so yourself, the Ukrainians didn't stop in their first safe country which was probably Poland.

There are legal routes but it's easier for people coming from some countries than others. Not all countries have the same scheme as Ukrainians.

Jesus wept.

Refugees seek refuge - there's a fucking huge clue in the name.

People travelling across multiple safe countries to their desired location are migrants. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

18 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

See, this again highlights the point @tajjuk made that the majority of the media in this country is heavily right leaning. Their published plan is available on their website, and promoted by them as much as possible on all social media channels. But most of the TV and print media won't bother reporting it.

By the time of the election  their “plan” won’t differ greatly from the trajectory we’re on. In fact it wouldn’t surprise me if come that time Starmer will do what Blair did & promise to stick to Tory public spending plans. Anything else leaves them fighting Sunak on his home turf, risky strategy. 

[Sheaf Saint]

49 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

By the time of the election  their “plan” won’t differ greatly from the trajectory we’re on. In fact it wouldn’t surprise me if come that time Starmer will do what Blair did & promise to stick to Tory public spending plans. Anything else leaves them fighting Sunak on his home turf, risky strategy. 

Yeah probably, but with more emphasis on windfall taxes on energy companies.

And on that note, I see BP have today reported profits almost treble what they made for the same period last year.

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

People travelling across multiple safe countries to their desired location are migrants. 

Unless they are Ukrainian.

[whelk]

21 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Yeah probably, but with more emphasis on windfall taxes on energy companies.

And on that note, I see BP have today reported profits almost treble what they made for the same period last year.

Windfall tax guaranteed. They are biding time for optimum impact

[Millbrook Saint]

On 31/10/2022 at 21:05, tajjuk said:

As opposed to the rich people who just love people like you then? 

Your mortgage payments have gone up and utlities have gone up because of the fucking Tories, yet here you are attacking Labour about it, how actually dumb is that? They literally had a plan to tackle the energy bills, it was a windfall tax on the energy companies, they even gave it to the Tories. The Tories decided nah we won't do that, let them make record profit and we'll borrow from the tax payers to pay it in two years time. 

Their stupid libertarian far right tax cuts for the rich was what spooked the markets, crashed the pound and drove interest rates up. Again Labour have decent plans for growing the economy which doesn't involve dumb trickle down economics BUT THEY ARENT IN POWER SO WTF DO EXPECT THEM TO BE DOING.

How many people cross the channel in boats is irrelevant, it has no real impact on the country, the actual numbers are tiny compared to the population of the country and illegal immigrants can't use public services. The whole fuss about these boats is literally there to distract you from the other shit they are fucking up, the Tories have always used immigration like this, the whole Brexit immigration thing was exactly the same to distract people from the real reason they wanted Brexit. Which was to get us out of the EU so there were no rules and regulations that protected people, the environment, food, animals so they could exploit all that for more profit, plus the looming EU tax avoidance rules that were coming in because the rich people that Labour apparently 'hate' according to you, didn't want to pay taxes so got their Tory chums to drive us out of the EU so they could avoid the rules and pay their fair share. 

If we had legal routes of immigration open for refugees and asylum seekers, i.e. normal ports of entry they wouldn't have to use the boats, that is the elephant in the room no one wants to admit, even the EU as whole skips on that one.  Why would some refugee pay thousands to a criminal gang to cross the channel on a deathtrap if they could just come in via a ferry, train or plane? They wouldn't, but for some bonkers reason you can't claim asylum at normal ports of entry. Also put yourself in their shoes, imagine how desperate these people must be to do this, risk their lives, their kids lives for this, these are people, just normal people, a lot of them fleeing awful things, yet the whole narrative around this seeks to dehumanise them. 

Also imagine not wanting a section of society to be hated on and marginalised, how awful for people to not want that...........................

I mean FFS complaining about boats of a few thousand mostly desperate people like that has any impact on your life whatsoever. 

It isn't the poor souls in those boats that have fucked up the NHS or drove your mortgage payments up or ruined pretty much every public service going its the Tories you were likely have been voting in constantly for the last 12 years. If you actually paid attention to those 'nasty left wing knobs' as you so eloquently put it, you might have notice that people like that have been pointing this out for the last 12 fucking years but people like you seem to prefer to listen Daily Mail and the like, who are owned by billionaires so of course they really care about you and your mortgage........oh wait no they don't, they give a flying monkeys about ordinary people they just want them and their mates to get richer so that is why they push the Tories. 

 

Mortgages are going up because the bank of England put the base rates up to combat inflation.  We've got inflation because we switched the economy off for 2 years, told everyone to stay home and printed money to keep them there.   Irrelevant whether the tories or labour were in power the same would have happened, in fact Starmer wanted us locked down longer.

The rest of what you  say is waffle, I don't see many poor souls crossing the channel, I see mostly full grown men who have abandoned their families for a better life, unlike the Ukrainians who made sure their women and children got out, then went back to fight for their country.  Imagine being in such fear of your life you run past 10 houses who could take you in and protect you so you could get to the one at the end which seems much nicer than the others.

What a load of nonsense about hating a section of society, the labour deputy was caught calling tories scum, how nice of her, you have others saying that tory politicians who happen to not be white are coconuts, hmm how very nice and civil.  Seems to me the labour party are the party of hate, I'm sorry if you can't deal with it but you need to stop reading the guardian.

In the meantime I'll continue to wait to see how labour will rebuild the economy and get my mortgage rates down, cos I'll happily vote for them then

At the end of the day, I'll support either party, but labour at this point in time don't appear to be the party who would look after the cv

 

 

[Turkish]

19 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Jesus wept.

Refugees seek refuge - there's a fucking huge clue in the name.

People travelling across multiple safe countries to their desired location are migrants. 

There is a cycle to pretty much all aintforevers posting.

He'll wade into a topic not fully understanding it trying to make some feeble point. When he gets pulled up on it he'll claim he was pointing something very important but everyone else was too thick to realise it. He'll then get shown up for being a bellend and competely missing the point of the comment he was responding to he'll get all angry accusing everyone who doesn't agree with him of being really really thick. It's very, very amusing. 

[sadoldgit]

25 minutes ago, Millbrook Saint said:

Mortgages are going up because the bank of England put the base rates up to combat inflation.  We've got inflation because we switched the economy off for 2 years, told everyone to stay home and printed money to keep them there.   Irrelevant whether the tories or labour were in power the same would have happened, in fact Starmer wanted us locked down longer.

The rest of what you  say is waffle, I don't see many poor souls crossing the channel, I see mostly full grown men who have abandoned their families for a better life, unlike the Ukrainians who made sure their women and children got out, then went back to fight for their country.  Imagine being in such fear of your life you run past 10 houses who could take you in and protect you so you could get to the one at the end which seems much nicer than the others.

What a load of nonsense about hating a section of society, the labour deputy was caught calling tories scum, how nice of her, you have others saying that tory politicians who happen to not be white are coconuts, hmm how very nice and civil.  Seems to me the labour party are the party of hate, I'm sorry if you can't deal with it but you need to stop reading the guardian.

In the meantime I'll continue to wait to see how labour will rebuild the economy and get my mortgage rates down, cos I'll happily vote for them then

At the end of the day, I'll support either party, but labour at this point in time don't appear to be the party who would look after the cv

 

 

So you have managed to see the 7000 “migrants” shipped over from Albania for criminal activities but somehow have managed to miss the 33,000 genuine refugees who have arrived this year? For someone who says they are balanced that does seem a very selective statement. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, Millbrook Saint said:

Mortgages are going up because the bank of England put the base rates up to combat inflation.  We've got inflation because we switched the economy off for 2 years, told everyone to stay home and printed money to keep them there.   Irrelevant whether the tories or labour were in power the same would have happened, in fact Starmer wanted us locked down longer.

 

 

 

Spot on.

We also didn’t turn off the printing press’ early enough & didn’t raise interest rates quickly enough. Had we locked down longer, we’d have been in an even worse situation. Labour can tinker around the edges with wealth & windfall taxes, but they’ll be in the same straight jacket if they form the next government. The markets will view unfunded spending increases the same why it viewed unfunded tax cuts. 

[aintforever]

3 hours ago, Millbrook Saint said:

Mortgages are going up because the bank of England put the base rates up to combat inflation.  We've got inflation because we switched the economy off for 2 years, told everyone to stay home and printed money to keep them there. 

How come rates jumped up after this then?

[Holmes_and_Watson]

I had no idea the cost of glossy supplements could derail the economy. 48 pages doesn't seem that much. 🙂

[Turkish]

3 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Spot on.

We also didn’t turn off the printing press’ early enough & didn’t raise interest rates quickly enough. Had we locked down longer, we’d have been in an even worse situation. Labour can tinker around the edges with wealth & windfall taxes, but they’ll be in the same straight jacket if they form the next government. The markets will view unfunded spending increases the same why it viewed unfunded tax cuts. 

remember how some on here were desperate for that. Now they're moaning that they money they trousered whilst sitting on their arses has to be paid back. The ones who have a right to moan are the ones who didn't get a penny in Furlough money but are still being penalised by it, but i suspect they're quietly cracking on with their lives and dealing with what's thrown at them, rather than bleating about it.

[Turkish]

5 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

So you have managed to see the 7000 “migrants” shipped over from Albania for criminal activities but somehow have managed to miss the 33,000 genuine refugees who have arrived this year? For someone who says they are balanced that does seem a very selective statement. 

that's just reminded me, i bet you're glad you got turned down for that loan now Soggy aren't you. Imagine how you'd be struggling now with the additional debt you'd have taken on, turned out to be a very wise decision by the lender didn't it, despite your moaning at the time about how terrible it was.

[whelk]

Haha the amateurs are playing at economics. So easy to brainwash folk.

[Weston Super Saint]

3 hours ago, aintforever said:

How come rates jumped up after this then?

 

It's complicated.  You wouldn't have a hope.

[Weston Super Saint]

7 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

So you have managed to see the 7000 “migrants” shipped over from Albania for criminal activities but somehow have managed to miss the 33,000 genuine refugees who have arrived this year? For someone who says they are balanced that does seem a very selective statement. 

Where did these 33,000 'genuine refugees' come from?

[badgerx16]

11 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Where did these 33,000 'genuine refugees' come from?

France