Bellend Sebastian Posted 9 June 2022 Share Posted 9 June 2022 30 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said: If you ever find yourself agreeing with Dorries then safe to assume you are wrong. I think they should put her in charge for a bit, just to see what happens 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ealingfox Posted 9 June 2022 Share Posted 9 June 2022 1 hour ago, Bellend Sebastian said: It's really hard to know who to trust sometimes e.g. this - Nadine Dorries or literally anybody else https://bylinetimes.com/2022/06/09/one-big-bag-of-lies-says-reality-show-family-nadine-dorries-accused-of-being-paid-actors/ Boris-bummers will retweet Nadine Dorries and Michael Fabricant and then tweet about how Labour aren't a credible party. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Lionator Posted 9 June 2022 Author Popular Post Share Posted 9 June 2022 Why when talking about nationalising railways, do tories bring up how terrible British rail was? Nationalising railways wouldn’t mean going back to 1975, everyone else in Europe does it through the public purse, so should we. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robo61 Posted 9 June 2022 Share Posted 9 June 2022 4 minutes ago, Lionator said: Why when talking about nationalising railways, do tories bring up how terrible British rail was? Nationalising railways wouldn’t mean going back to 1975, everyone else in Europe does it through the public purse, so should we. That is the ridiculous thing about the current state of our railways, subsidies to the Private Rail Compnies are now higher then they ever were under the nationlised BR. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 9 June 2022 Share Posted 9 June 2022 9 hours ago, ealingfox said: Boris-bummers will retweet Nadine Dorries and Michael Fabricant and then tweet about how Labour aren't a credible party. Really? I have seen literally no one agreeing with anything either of them say. Oh actually thought her tik tok style vid the other day was ok, but no doubt fully scripted and produced for her. The got themselves elected somehow, but should really be nowhere near actual government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 9 June 2022 Share Posted 9 June 2022 12 hours ago, ozleicester said: So surgeons only do it for the money? I tend to think that people would do they best they could even if they werent rewarded by obscene amounts of cash. As demonstrated by nurses. trickle wasnt serious...????????... From the Financial Times 2011... Trickle-down theory is dead. The belief fostered by Ronald Reagan in the US and Margaret Thatcher in the UK in the 1980s, that if the rich got richer their income and wealth would trickle down the income scale so that a rising tide lifted all the boats, has had the last rites pronounced on it – by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. I didn't say that, I said would enough people put in all the extra work to become a surgeon with the time commitment and impact on the rest of their lives that entails if there was sufficient compensation. Just like people wouldn't work two jobs if it didn't pay them the additional money they need to live. Sadly money is a factor for nearly everyone. Much as I value nurses (I am married to one) they would accept that it is much harder to become a doctor or surgeon, while at the same time rightly arguing they deserve more than say a healthcare assistant with less responsibility and fewer skills and no degree. Well done on finding a nonsense quote on trickle down theory vaguely and incorrectly referencing people who were in power decades ago. Thatcher let people by their council houses and ecouraged them to buy shares in privatised BT, BAA, Rail etc. Hardly aiming at the rich. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 9 June 2022 Share Posted 9 June 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Robo61 said: That is the ridiculous thing about the current state of our railways, subsidies to the Private Rail Compnies are now higher then they ever were under the nationlised BR. Rail got more expensive to run like everything else I guess - decades of underinvestment in infrastructure and rolling stock is not a great comparison either. I'm not convinced the current model is very good, but BR was probably just about impossible to overhaul from where it was. Edited 9 June 2022 by Jon the Hat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Weller Posted 10 June 2022 Share Posted 10 June 2022 You can have democracy or you can have vast levels of inequality, but you can’t have both. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 10 June 2022 Share Posted 10 June 2022 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Mr Weller said: You can have democracy or you can have vast levels of inequality, but you can’t have both. I'm, not sure I agree. I suspect you can have vast levels of inequality as long as you look after the poorest properly. Someone will always be the poorest, but they can and should be helped out of poverty and provided with a decent standard of living. I am generally of the view that too long with one party in power is bad for the country, and it is probably time for Labour to have a go to fix the stuff Tories aren't good at. Edit although that is probably what you mean I guess - the extremities have to be reigned in for democracy to suceed. In which case I agree! Although I wouldn't necessarily bother reigning in the Super rich as then they would just bugger off somewhere else with the tax they do pay. Edited 10 June 2022 by Jon the Hat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Weller Posted 10 June 2022 Share Posted 10 June 2022 3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said: I'm, not sure I agree. I suspect you can have vast levels of inequality as long as you look after the poorest properly. Someone will always be the poorest, but they can and should be helped out of poverty and provided with a decent standard of living. I am generally of the view that too long with one party in power is bad for the country, and it is probably time for Labour to have a go to fix the stuff Tories aren't good at. Edit although that is probably what you mean I guess - the extremities have to be reigned in for democracy to suceed. In which case I agree! Although I wouldn't necessarily bother reigning in the Super rich as then they would just bugger off somewhere else with the tax they do pay. Democracy only works if people believe in it but they don’t believe in it if it doesn’t work for them. A few of the plutocrats may leave if wealth is more evenly distributed but the overall wealth of the economy increases and the quality of life for most improves. I’m not talking about absolute equality, just tolerable levels of inequality to allow the vast majority to have a vested interest in maintaining democracy. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVFox Posted 10 June 2022 Share Posted 10 June 2022 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61754394 It’s becoming a little more obvious that Rishi may be out of his depth…and I also wouldn’t be surprised if Johnson wants him gone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox_up_north Posted 10 June 2022 Share Posted 10 June 2022 I was thinking about this today...for those that avoid paying tax, maybe reframe it and say "you can pay for 2/3/however many police officers per year". There'll be that sense of pride and gloating but we still get 2 more coppers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxdiamond Posted 10 June 2022 Share Posted 10 June 2022 8 hours ago, Jon the Hat said: I didn't say that, I said would enough people put in all the extra work to become a surgeon with the time commitment and impact on the rest of their lives that entails if there was sufficient compensation. Just like people wouldn't work two jobs if it didn't pay them the additional money they need to live. Sadly money is a factor for nearly everyone. Much as I value nurses (I am married to one) they would accept that it is much harder to become a doctor or surgeon, while at the same time rightly arguing they deserve more than say a healthcare assistant with less responsibility and fewer skills and no degree. Well done on finding a nonsense quote on trickle down theory vaguely and incorrectly referencing people who were in power decades ago. Thatcher let people by their council houses and ecouraged them to buy shares in privatised BT, BAA, Rail etc. Hardly aiming at the rich. The fall out from Thatcher continues. The housing situation is a disgrace. There are many children and grandchildren of those council house tenants that would love a decent council house and pay a reasonable rent in relation to their income. Most of those shares ended up with the usual big city friends of the Tories. National assets sold on the cheap. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 10 June 2022 Share Posted 10 June 2022 What's crazy is that we are still so fixated on the partygate, lying and all that despicable behaviour that the whole insane and clearly illegal asylum seekers to Rwanda plan is still going ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingkisnorbo Posted 10 June 2022 Share Posted 10 June 2022 High court holds up deportation order for asylum seekers to Rwanda next week. Vile tory fvcks. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parafox Posted 10 June 2022 Share Posted 10 June 2022 (edited) 31 minutes ago, kingkisnorbo said: High court holds up deportation order for asylum seekers to Rwanda next week. Vile tory fvcks. From The Grauniad (sic): The government’s plan to force people seeking refuge in the UK to leave with a one-way ticket to Rwanda has surprised many, has few precedents, and has been condemned as cruel and unworkable. Who does the government say could be sent to Rwanda? Any adult who comes into the UK without authorisation – via train, boat or plane – could be considered for relocation to Rwanda. There will be an assessment stage, where the strength of each individual’s asylum claim will be taken into account, officials said, as well as the way they arrived in the country. What are the criteria for those chosen to be sent to Rwanda? UK officials say it is “the strength of their claim”, but details so far are scarce, partly because they do not want to tip off people coming to the UK. Rwanda has said it will only accept adults without a criminal record. How many people will be removed? Boris Johnson has said the agreement is “uncapped” and that Rwanda will have the “capacity to resettle tens of thousands of people in the years ahead”. But officials believe it will take weeks, if not months, for the scheme to actually begin sending people to Rwanda. Those seeking asylum from Rwanda are not expected to be sent back there, regardless of how they entered the UK. Rwanda asylum plan: who does it target and is it going to happen? | Immigration and asylum | The Guardian My thoughts: What does the last line mean? Seeking asylum from the cruel regime in Rwanda is legitimate for Rwandans but we're sending people to that very regime. It simply doesn't make sense. Cruel and unworkable yet the High Court agrees with the Gov. Absolutely disgraceful and I sincerely hope this come back on the Tories and their contemptable (sp) cronies. There has to be a way of managing influxes of asylum seekers, legal or otherwise, but surely, this isn't it. It's claimed the plan is to cut off the money supply to people smugglers by dissuading those willing to risk their lives to get here. I don't see how, other than the fear of being sent to Rwanda, which is not a place any intelligent person would want to live. Another example, IMO, of Priti Patel's arrogance and complete lack of compassion driven only by ambition. I think she sees herself as a future leader/PM. God help us. Edited 10 June 2022 by Parafox 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fazzer 7 Posted 10 June 2022 Share Posted 10 June 2022 I don't necessarily agree with or support the Rwanda thing. So what can be done to stop those coming across the channel (10k) already this year alone, added to which is 300k net migration annually. We surely can't carry on like this, there has to be a cap. So how could such a cap be enforced? Anyone saying a cap on numbers is not needed, sorry but I disagree. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Captain... Posted 10 June 2022 Popular Post Share Posted 10 June 2022 1 hour ago, Fazzer 7 said: I don't necessarily agree with or support the Rwanda thing. So what can be done to stop those coming across the channel (10k) already this year alone, added to which is 300k net migration annually. We surely can't carry on like this, there has to be a cap. So how could such a cap be enforced? Anyone saying a cap on numbers is not needed, sorry but I disagree. How is shifting them to another country addressing the problem? We need a fair asylum program that works with other developed European countries to keep asylum seekers safe and not demonise them. We need population growth to facilitate economic growth so I'm not worried by 10k people coming here if they are allowed to join society and contribute. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiritwalker Posted 10 June 2022 Share Posted 10 June 2022 Priti Patel has called the partnership with Rwanda “world leading”. With all the“world leading”policies and schemes this government comes up with it’s a mystery that they’re so unpopular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovril Posted 10 June 2022 Share Posted 10 June 2022 1 minute ago, Spiritwalker said: Priti Patel has called the partnership with Rwanda “world leading”. With all the“world leading”policies and schemes this government comes up with it’s a mystery that they’re so unpopular. They went for a while with three word slogans - get Brexit done, build back better. But obviously that was still too tricky so they've simplified it further. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiberalFox Posted 10 June 2022 Share Posted 10 June 2022 Apparently the country is full because the Murdoch press has said so. So the obvious solution of safe routes into the UK for people wishing to claim asylum isn't acceptable. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVFox Posted 10 June 2022 Share Posted 10 June 2022 What if we taxed immigrants at a higher rate? Say for the first 5 years of there settlement in the UK. Got to be honest I’m not sure if that’s a wholly awful thing to suggest, or if it is an easily packagable solution to those who cannot stand the thought of immigrants coming into this country in search of a better life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daggers Posted 10 June 2022 Share Posted 10 June 2022 6 minutes ago, LVocey said: Got to be honest I’m not sure if that’s a wholly awful thing to suggest It is. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVFox Posted 10 June 2022 Share Posted 10 June 2022 1 minute ago, Daggers said: It is. Yeah…just feel like immigration is just one of those things as a country we don’t get behind half as much as we should. Especially with our history of how it’s benefited us so much! It’s plainly obvious that we are lacking the work staff usually taken up by immigrants but I’d imagine a poll of the country would put those in favour of easy immigration at less than 50% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingkisnorbo Posted 10 June 2022 Share Posted 10 June 2022 The Rwanda move is nothing but a thinly veiled tongue in cheek way of Patel and her like to practice their prejudice. Nothing more, nothing less. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts