Is there anything in politics more shit than the Labour Party?

[InternationalJambo]

Just now, The Mighty Thor said:

There wasnt a point to engage with. If you're going to come on with lazy tropes which are utter nonsense then I'm not getting into it.

What is utter nonesense? 

[Dawnrazor]

1 minute ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Define the problem?

 

I don't know where you live or if you have hotels housing large numbers of immigrant men?

[InternationalJambo]

🧠 🧼 

[kingantti1874]

1 minute ago, Dawnrazor said:

I don't know where you live or if you have hotels housing large numbers of immigrant men?

honestly, it so unbelievably idiotic.  Reminds me of that guy in Baghdad.  “Nothing to see here” dozens of young Eastern European 20 something men occupying hotels all across central Scotland not a problem.  Doesn’t cost anything. 
 

theres nothing wrong in liberal land. 

[The Mighty Thor]

So from the way this has progressed over the last page, we're not really talking about migration here or indeed border control, are we boys? 

 

We're talking about 'illegal' immigration aren't we? 39,000 last year. 

 

If we had a functioning asylum policy then we may not have the issues we have now. 

 

Do the potential Reform Ltd voters think Farage & Tice have a policy here as having read their manifesto I'm not seeing one. 

[InternationalJambo]

Edited February 13, 2025 by InternationalJambo

[The Mighty Thor]

3 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

honestly, it so unbelievably idiotic.  Reminds me of that guy in Baghdad.  “Nothing to see here” dozens of young Eastern European 20 something men occupying hotels all across central Scotland not a problem.  Doesn’t cost anything. 
 

theres nothing wrong in liberal land. 

I've had a quick read back and nope, I've said none of that. Not a single bit of it. 

 

[Cade]

The UK Government could and should act to properly manage the immigration and asylum systems (the two things are NOT the same thing).

 

Asylum applicants should have safe travel options then stay in processing centres and have their claims processed in a swift manner. If their application is successful, they get to stay, find work and pay taxes like everybody else. If not, then they are deported.
These residential processing centres should be attached to the main points of entry (air and sea ports). They arrive, they go into a centre, then either get deported again or accepted.
It should not be as difficult as it is. Asylum applicants are only in hotels because successive UK Governments (going back many years of both Tory and Labour control) have failed to put in place this sensible system. There is nowhere else to house applicants, so they go into block booked hotels and hostels.

 

Economic migrants should only be granted a work Visa if they have both a residence and a job already lined up for their time here.
The Visa system needs tightening up, but not to the ludicrous levels that the Tories were espousing just before they got kicked into touch.
By all means, look to a points based system with the type of job and length of stay taken into account when awarding or declining a work Visa.

And persons with expired Visas should not be allowed to disappear off-grid, as successive UK Governments have failed to prevent.

 

Another issue is that the housing of migrants has been privatised so the companies tasked with housing migrants buy up the cheapest houses they can find. Which are, obviously, in already run down areas with few prospects. Adding hundreds more people into derelict houses in a broken down shitehole is not helping anybody. This does then lead to criminality (the same option taken by the British born scallies that live in those shiteholes). The myth of the "ghetto" has arisen from this. Migrants have no say in where they are placed. It's not their fault. They just happen to all be placed in the same few shiteholes because that makes more profit for the rehousing companies. Migrants should be equally spread around local authorities across the nation. 

All of this can and should be easily dealt with by a competent Government but for far too long immigration and asylum have been used as political points scoring instead of issues to be resolved. Nobody wants it to work. They'd rather keep the system(s) broken then sell themselves as the solution, for political gain.

And for your information, Asylum applicants only get £49.18 a week. If their accommodation provides meals, then they get £8.86 instead.
 

Edited February 13, 2025 by Cade

[Dawnrazor]

2 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

honestly, it so unbelievably idiotic.  Reminds me of that guy in Baghdad.  “Nothing to see here” dozens of young Eastern European 20 something men occupying hotels all across central Scotland not a problem.  Doesn’t cost anything. 
 

theres nothing wrong in liberal land. 

I get that if a problem is far away, it isn't really a problem for some, but your description is something I see often in and around Morecambe, I've friends in other places that have the same, large groups of men that don't speak English, don't work, have nothing to do getting housed and given money at the tax payers expense.

Ignoring the people in these areas or calling them racist or far right or if using "right wing tropes" is exactly why aresholes like Reform & Farage has risen to the heights they have.

 

[InternationalJambo]

2 minutes ago, Cade said:

The UK Government could and should act to properly manage the immigration and asylum systems (the two things are NOT the same thing).

 

Asylum applicants should have safe travel options then stay in processing centres and have their claims processed in a swift manner. If their application is successful, they get to stay, find work and pay taxes like everybody else. If not, then they are deported.
These residential processing centres should be attached to the main points of entry (air and sea ports). They arrive, they go into a centre, then either get deported again or accepted.
It should not be as difficult as it is. Asylum applicants are only in hotels because successive UK Governments (going back many years of both Tory and Labour control) have failed to put in place this sensible system. There is nowhere else to house applicants, so they go into block booked hotels and hostels.

 

Economic migrants should only be granted a work Visa if they have both a residence and a job already lined up for their time here.
The Visa system needs tightening up, but not to the ludicrous levels that the Tories were espousing just before they got kicked into touch.
By all means, look to a points based system with the type of job and length of stay taken into account when awarding or declining a work Visa.

And persons with expired Visas should not be allowed to disappear off-grid, as successive UK Governments have failed to prevent.

 

Another issue is that the housing of migrants has been privatised so the companies tasked with housing migrants buy up the cheapest houses they can find. Which are, obviously, in already run down areas with few prospects. Adding hundreds more people into derelict houses in a broken down shitehole is not helping anybody. This does then lead to criminality (the same option taken by the British born scallies that live in those shiteholes). The myth of the "ghetto" has arisen from this. Migrants have no say in where they are placed. It's not their fault. They just happen to all be placed in the same few shiteholes because that makes more profit for the rehousing companies. Migrants should be equally spread around local authorities across the nation. 

All of this can and should be easily dealt with by a competent Government but for far too long immigration and asylum have been used as political points scoring instead of issues to be resolved. Nobody wants it to work. They'd rather keep the system(s) broken then sell themselves as the solution, for political gain.
 

What about the elephant in the room of legal migrants being allowed 6 family members into the UK? 

[kingantti1874]

6 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

I've had a quick read back and nope, I've said none of that. Not a single bit of it. 

 

Well you’ve tried to dismiss legitimate concerts and deflected so I can be forgiven for concluding you don’t think migration is a problem.
 

 Legal and illegal immigration Is problem, 800k people a year is far far too many especially when a huge majority are a drain on society.  As for the “working population” arguement which will no doubt arise.  ! Well maybe we should try poking at (or whipping) 9+ million leeches in the UK who only seek to take. 

Edited February 13, 2025 by kingantti1874

[kingantti1874]

4 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

I get that if a problem is far away, it isn't really a problem for some, but your description is something I see often in and around Morecambe, I've friends in other places that have the same, large groups of men that don't speak English, don't work, have nothing to do getting housed and given money at the tax payers expense.

Ignoring the people in these areas or calling them racist or far right or if using "right wing tropes" is exactly why aresholes like Reform & Farage has risen to the heights they have.

 

correct.  The socialist mind can’t comprehend genuine concerns, and spend their time labelling people who raise valid concerns as racists. 
 

 

[kingantti1874]

3 minutes ago, InternationalJambo said:

What about the elephant in the room of legal migrants being allowed 6 family members into the UK? 

an utter utter joke. 

[InternationalJambo]

Just now, kingantti1874 said:

correct.  The socialist mind can’t comprehend genuine concerns, and spend their time labelling people who raise valid concerns as racists. 
 

 

You are bang on👍

 

Seems anything out with a leftist point of view is labelled xyz nowadays. Any time these points are raised it is a moral argument which is mental seeing what is happening around us. 

[The Mighty Thor]

1 minute ago, kingantti1874 said:

Well you’ve tried to dismiss legitimate concerts and deflected so I can be forgiven for concluding you don’t think migration is a problem.
 

 Legal and illegal immigration Is problem, 800k people a year is far far too many especially when a huge majority are a drain on society.  As for the “working population” arguement which will no doubt arise.  ! Well maybe we should try poking at (or whipping) 9+ million leeches in the UK who only seek to take. 

I don't think migration is a problem. Neither do you. 

 

You think 'illegal' immigration is a problem. 39, 000 in 2024.

 

I think that's a problem as the UK doesn't have a grown up asylum policy, which it should have. 

 

I'm not seeing a grown policy from Reform Ltd which a lot of people seem to be gravitating towards. 

[The Mighty Thor]

8 minutes ago, InternationalJambo said:

What about the elephant in the room of legal migrants being allowed 6 family members into the UK? 

https://www.gov.uk/uk-family-visa

 

I've had a quick read through and didn't see the 6 family thing.

 

Have I missed it?

[Dawnrazor]

4 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

I don't think migration is a problem. Neither do you. 

 

You think 'illegal' immigration is a problem. 39, 000 in 2024.

 

I think that's a problem as the UK doesn't have a grown up asylum policy, which it should have. 

 

I'm not seeing a grown policy from Reform Ltd which a lot of people seem to be gravitating towards. 

It doesn't matter to people in say, Morecambe or Livingston if the people in question are legal or illegal I'd say, the local problem and costs are the same.

[The Mighty Thor]

2 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

It doesn't matter to people in say, Morecambe or Livingston if the people in question are legal or illegal I'd say, the local problem and costs are the same.

It really does because as this thread shows 'migration' is being used as a catch all term for what people really mean which is 'illegal' entry to the UK for those seeking asylum, which is as we've established 3% of those coming to the UK. 

 

People here legally would be entitled to work or study. 

 

The costs being incurred at the moment are the costs of not having an asylum policy.

[The Mighty Thor]

So to summarise before I feck off to bed.

We've got a problem with immigration and border control

We've got 1.2m migrants

We've got 39,000 'illegals'

We've got no asylum policy

They don't get £780,000 each

You can't bring 6 family members on each Visa

And Reform Ltd don't have a credible policy on how to fix any of it.

 

* too early for woke socialists and lefty lawyers?

 

[kingantti1874]

21 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

I don't think migration is a problem. Neither do you. 

 

You think 'illegal' immigration is a problem. 39, 000 in 2024.

 

I think that's a problem as the UK doesn't have a grown up asylum policy, which it should have. 

 

I'm not seeing a grown policy from Reform Ltd which a lot of people seem to be gravitating towards. 

I encourage legal migration for those who come here to contribute where we need people to contribute, people who want to and are willing to integrate, to respect our culture whilst of course representing their own. But the numbers are far too high.  Our infrastructure simply cannot cope, and the there are too many from the 700-800k per annum who simply add no value. 
 

Multiple family members? What is that about?  . Maybe we should copy some policies from Australia.  family members can still come. But it will cost £50k-£100k per head up front.  Separate the wheat from the chaff. 
 

these problems are real, and they aren’t that complex to solve with the right will to do

 

 

Edited February 13, 2025 by kingantti1874

[Dawnrazor]

2 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

It really does because as this thread shows 'migration' is being used as a catch all term for what people really mean which is 'illegal' entry to the UK for those seeking asylum, which is as we've established 3% of those coming to the UK. 

 

People here legally would be entitled to work or study. 

 

The costs being incurred at the moment are the costs of not having an asylum policy.

It doesn't matter to people who have the problem spoken about on their doorstep, that I can assure you.

The problem isn't that they could work or study the problem is that most don't, the costs being incurred at the moment is still being picked up by the tax payers, this may down to the asylum policy being shit, but that's neither here nor there right now, it's to be paid for, and the tax payers are picking up the tab.

[kingantti1874]

2 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

So to summarise before I feck off to bed.

We've got a problem with immigration and border control

We've got 1.2m migrants

We've got 39,000 'illegals'

We've got no asylum policy

They don't get £780,000 each

You can't bring 6 family members on each Visa

And Reform Ltd don't have a credible policy on how to fix any of it.

 

* too early for woke socialists and lefty lawyers?

 

See that your summary. Not the actual summary.  If people keep denying there is a problem they aren’t going to like how this plays out. 

[ƒιѕнρℓαρѕ]

1 hour ago, kingantti1874 said:

and the safety point I’ve stated are fact. Unchecked migration, large scale migration of organised criminals has caused enormous issues in Sweden. It’s not debate and it’s not parroting shit of social media.  Stone, cold unchallengeable fact

 

as for the U.K. . Of course it’s socialist, the state is enormous, our welfare bill is unprecedented, our immigration policies are weak, the unions have far too much influence, we are taxed on what we earn, what we buy, what we save and when we die.

 

its socialist by every measure but not socialist enough for some 

 

Trope trope trope. 14 years of Tory governments and we're a socialist state 😆

[The Mighty Thor]

Just now, kingantti1874 said:

I encourage legal migration for those who come here to contribute where we need people to contribute, people who want to and are willing to integrate, to respect our culture whilst of course representing their own. But the numbers are far too high.  Our infrastructure simply cannot cope, and the there are too many from the 700-800k per annum who simply add no value. 
 

as above 6 family members? What is that about?  . Maybe we should copy some policies from Australia.  Up to 6 family members can still come. But it will cost £50k-£100k per head up front.  Separate the wheat from the chaff. 
 

these problems are real, and they aren’t that complex to solve with the right will to do

 

 

What is the right number?

 

Our infrastructure has been crumbling for years but gathered pace when Osborne brought in austerity in 2011 so I'm not really sure it has much to do with 'ar country being full up' 

 

Interesting fact - net migration in 2011 was 680,000 versus 780,000 in 2024.

 

We're migrants an issue in 2011 too? 

 

If these problems were not difficult they'd have been done globally long before now. 

 

 

 

[The Mighty Thor]

7 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

See that your summary. Not the actual summary.  If people keep denying there is a problem they aren’t going to like how this plays out. 

 

On the basis of posts and openly sourced facts that's where this conversation is over the last 2 pages 🤷‍♂️

[Dawnrazor]

7 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

So to summarise before I feck off to bed.

We've got a problem with immigration and border control

We've got 1.2m migrants

We've got 39,000 'illegals'

We've got no asylum policy

They don't get £780,000 each

You can't bring 6 family members on each Visa

And Reform Ltd don't have a credible policy on how to fix any of it.

 

* too early for woke socialists and lefty lawyers?

 

 

"A family visa allows eligible foreign nationals to join a UK resident for a period of six months or more 

To apply, the UK resident must have a valid immigration status and meet certain relationship requirements 

The type of family visa depends on the relationship between the applicant and the family member 

Dependant visa 

A dependant visa is for family members of a UK resident who is on a work or student visa

Eligibility criteria vary depending on the applicant's leave route"

 

Migrants can bring family members, I'm not sure if 6 is possible, I'd like to see figures for people who don't go back, if there is any.

 

[kingantti1874]

1 minute ago, ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ said:

 

Trope trope trope. 14 years of Tory governments and we're a socialist state 😆

Every word I said was unchallengeable fact, which only leads mean to conclude you’ve no idea what “trope” actually means.  

[kingantti1874]

3 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

What is the right number?

 

Our infrastructure has been crumbling for years but gathered pace when Osborne brought in austerity in 2011 so I'm not really sure it has much to do with 'ar country being full up' 

 

Interesting fact - net migration in 2011 was 680,000 versus 780,000 in 2024.

 

We're migrants an issue in 2011 too? 

 

If these problems were not difficult they'd have been done globally long before now. 

 

 

 

Net zero until our infrastructure allows us to

comfortably accommodate more people.  We do not have the houses, schools, hospitals, dentists to accommodate more people. As before we have plenty of economically inactive people who could solve the labour shortage with the correct motivation. 

 

I’ve outlined some suggestions on this thread which would solve this problem in the U.K. in a matter of weeks.  All of which are practical and possible.  

[ƒιѕнρℓαρѕ]

14 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Every word I said was unchallengeable fact, which only leads mean to conclude you’ve no idea what “trope” actually means.  

 

It's you, you haven't a clue what socialism is!

 

socialism

/sō′shə-lĭz″əm/

 

noun

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

 

The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.

 

A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See communism, Fourierism, saint-simonianism, forms of socialism.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Socialism. - drag everyone to the same level as yourself 

 

in other words , what you’ve got I want 

Edited February 13, 2025 by JudyJudyJudy

[Dawnrazor]

7 minutes ago, ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ said:

 

It's you, you haven't a clue what socialism is!

 

socialism

/sō′shə-lĭz″əm/

 

noun

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

 

The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.

 

A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See communism, Fourierism, saint-simonianism, forms of socialism.

Is there any country where it's worked in the long term?

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

24 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Every word I said was unchallengeable fact, which only leads mean to conclude you’ve no idea what “trope” actually means.  

The royal family take half a billion off the tax payer and we're a socialist state?

 

[ƒιѕнρℓαρѕ]

2 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

Is there any country where it's worked in the long term?

 

Couldn't tell you, I'm disagreeing with the ridiculous assertion that the UK's a socialist state from someone who hasn't got the first clue what socialism is.

[ƒιѕнρℓαρѕ]

2 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

The royal family take half a billion off the tax payer and we're a socialist state?

 

 

The word he's looking for is capitalist. It's ****ing mental eh?

[trotter]

18 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Net zero until our infrastructure allows us to

comfortably accommodate more people.  We do not have the houses, schools, hospitals, dentists to accommodate more people. As before we have plenty of economically inactive people who could solve the labour shortage with the correct motivation. 

 

I’ve outlined some suggestions on this thread which would solve this problem in the U.K. in a matter of weeks.  All of which are practical and possible.  

Agree fully. 

Maw and Paw Trotter live in Penicuik, where they are just finishing building the last of several hundred, if not a thousand or more. However, nothing has been done to address the issues that will come with it. All the primary and secondary schools are at capacity, there is no availability at either of the doctor surgeries, the waiting list at the dentist is a mile long (although I grant you that one is pretty much universal), the main road into and out of town was already a nightmare and has only got worse, the fire station is part time and only has one engine, it just goes on and on. 

[trotter]

3 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

The royal family take half a billion off the tax payer and we're a socialist state?

 

Is it not often stated that whilst they do, they bring several times that back to UK plc in others ways? Or is that just made up bollocks?

[Dawnrazor]

1 minute ago, ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ said:

 

Couldn't tell you, I'm disagreeing with the ridiculous assertion that the UK's a socialist state from someone who hasn't got the first clue what socialism is.

To be fair, it looks like the books of previous socialist countries 😂

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

1 minute ago, ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ said:

 

The word he's looking for is capitalist. It's ****ing mental eh?

Thicker than a turd stuck in the neck of a bottle.

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 minutes ago, Lord Montpelier said:

In other words. What youve got i want and i cant be arsed to put the legwork in to get it. 

Yep . 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

Just now, trotter said:

Is it not often stated that whilst they do, they bring several times that back to UK plc in others ways? Or is that just made up bollocks?

The pandas used to bring in more tourists than those leaches.

[kingantti1874]

16 minutes ago, ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ said:

 

It's you, you haven't a clue what socialism is!

 

socialism

/sō′shə-lĭz″əm/

 

noun

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

 

The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.

 

A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See communism, Fourierism, saint-simonianism, forms of socialism.

Thanks for googling it.  And we tick many of those boxes 

[ƒιѕнρℓαρѕ]

2 minutes ago, trotter said:

Is it not often stated that whilst they do, they bring several times that back to UK plc in others ways? Or is that just made up bollocks?

 

Do they? Or would we still get those tourists if they were hounded out? The Palace of Versailles doesn't need royalty to get 10m visitors a year.

Do the crown estates need the royal family to function?

 

So yeah, made up bollocks.

[ƒιѕнρℓαρѕ]

2 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Thanks for googling it.  And we tick many of those boxes 

 

We tick exactly none of those boxes FFS 😆

[the posh bit]

17 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Socialism. - drag everyone to the same level as yourself 

 

in other words , what you’ve got I want 

 

Didn't you vote for Jeremy Corbyn in 2019???

[kingantti1874]

8 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

The royal family take half a billion off the tax payer and we're a socialist state?

 

Tax what we earn, tax what we buy, tax what we save and taxed when we die.  All to prop up the state which is far too large, people with no right to be here and people who feel entitled to be kept.  Socialist, woke, liberal  legal and political boxes ticked all over the places. Country is a total and utter mess with 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

Just now, kingantti1874 said:

Tax what we earn, tax what we buy, tax what we save and taxed when we die.  All to prop up the state which is far too large, people with no right to be here and people who feel entitled to be kept.  Socialist, woke, liberal  legal and political boxes ticked all over the places. Country is a total and utter mess with 

Double down, eh? What a slaver.

 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

Just now, Lord Montpelier said:

Whats your upper limit on immigration per year. 1m, 5m, 10m ? Do you believe we should have a limit ? If you do, what should it be ? 

I don't that's the problem. The royal family are. Get rid of them and we could save billions a year. The half a billion is just what we're allowed to know about. Their security costs are a secret. That money could be put back into employing people to process the refugees.

[kingantti1874]

2 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

Double down, eh? What a slaver.

 

Ah. The gif - you know you’ve won when someone replies with a moronic gif. You can’t challenge a single statement I made in that post.  
 

Key features of socialism include:

 

- **Public Ownership**: The state or community owns key industries and resources, such as transportation, healthcare ✅ , and education ✅ , to ensure that everyone has access to essential services. ✅ 

- **Economic Planning**: The government often plays a significant role in planning and regulating the economy to achieve specific social and economic goals. ✅ 

- **Wealth Redistribution**: Policies aim to reduce income inequality through progressive(UNFAIR) taxation ✅ , social welfare programs ✅ , and other measures to support the less fortunate(LAZY WORKSHY). ✅ ✅ ✅ 

 

Socialist state.  End of 

[JFK-1]

I think I sometimes drift towards the Billy Connolly view of politicians including the comment "don't vote it only encourages them"

 

I have watched a lot of Connolly and he has himself confessed that during the act he would sometimes find himself going off on unplanned tangents which take him away from his intended story/punch line, then he has to find a way to work it back. I think this short clip looks like him in one of these tangents trying to find a way back.

 

 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

1 minute ago, Lord Montpelier said:

So you agree we should be tightening our border controls ? 

No.