Election Year or Fear!

[Trickytreesreds]

OMG, watching these two muppets.
Starmer like a rabbit in headlights and Making Sunak look good.

We really are off the cliff now.

[Trickytreesreds]

Here's something for far right Reformists in terms they might understand regarding the things they believe about immigrants. It's known as Schrodingers Immigrant It won't load as a JPG or a PNG file from my laptop or with [IMG] at either end of the link. If all else fails just copy and paste the link below...

https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPle...ant/?rdt=35334

Yes,
Come here, with a large family(bring it later), take a low paid job and it entitles you to the whole she bang.
Pay nothing in, yet take out.
Big business is happy with a low paid work force pool, yet the onus moves on to lack of housing/prices. Services over loaded and social issues.
As ever the poor suffer the most in quality of life.

No tax limit raise/ more training eduction/ youngsters get firts dibs on all starter jobs/ make firms pay a better wage. Then more pay tax than currently are.

At the moment we are addcited to cheap , imported labour at the expense of our own youngsters. Not everyone goes to college / university and they are the ones becoming an under class. We are on a one way ticket to becoming a 2nd world country the way we treat our young. GDP per capita is going through the floor.

[Trickytreesreds]

Tis the season of lies.

Reaching Labour’s target for decarbonising the economy will cost “hundreds of billions” of pounds, a shadow minister has disclosed in a recording obtained by The Telegraph.

Darren Jones, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said the £28 billion per year originally allocated to Labour’s green investment plan was a “tiny” amount.

He said the fact that Sir Keir Starmer had downgraded his investment plans from £28 billion to £4.7 billion “made it sound as if we basically junked the whole thing but we definitely haven’t”.

Mr Jones told a public meeting in Bristol that private capital would have to be used to upgrade infrastructure, but “public subsidy” would still be needed alongside that.

His comments are set to reignite the row over Labour’s spending plans.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...n-jones-audio/

[MadAmster]

Yes,
Come here, with a large family(bring it later), take a low paid job and it entitles you to the whole she bang.
Pay nothing in, yet take out.
Big business is happy with a low paid work force pool, yet the onus moves on to lack of housing/prices. Services over loaded and social issues.
As ever the poor suffer the most in quality of life.

No tax limit raise/ more training eduction/ youngsters get firts dibs on all starter jobs/ make firms pay a better wage. Then more pay tax than currently are.

At the moment we are addcited to cheap , imported labour at the expense of our own youngsters. Not everyone goes to college / university and they are the ones becoming an under class. We are on a one way ticket to becoming a 2nd world country the way we treat our young. GDP per capita is going through the floor.

All posted by you without a single trustworthy, verifiable source.

The IFS states that immigrants pay, on average, 10% more in taxes than they receive in benefits. For "native British" that's a mere 5% more.

The IFS (or was it the DWP?) states that immigrants have not forced wage levels down.

TTR and Farridge know better than IFS/DWP but can't/won't supply trustworthy, verifiable sources.

[Andy_Faber]

All posted by you without a single trustworthy, verifiable source.

The IFS states that immigrants pay, on average, 10% more in taxes than they receive in benefits. For "native British" that's a mere 5% more.

The IFS (or was it the DWP?) states that immigrants have not forced wage levels down.

TTR and Farridge know better than IFS/DWP but can't/won't supply trustworthy, verifiable sources.

I think you’re missing TTR/garages point, the average here is massively skewed by immigrants we DO want. The IFS themselves confirm that it’s skewed by high earners, and that the profile excluding (im estimating) top top 5% that you think should be taxed more anyway means most take years to be net contributors, many (it’s inflammatory to say most) never get there. However I’m guessing the high earners exclude the Albanians who now control the UK’s cocaine trade though, so that’s something. Phew!

[MadAmster]

I think you’re missing TTR/garages point, the average here is massively skewed by immigrants we DO want. The IFS themselves confirm that it’s skewed by high earners, and that the profile excluding (im estimating) top top 5% that you think should be taxed more anyway means most take years to be net contributors, many (it’s inflammatory to say most) never get there. However I’m guessing the high earners exclude the Albanians who now control the UK’s cocaine trade though, so that’s something. Phew!

Get Starmer in and with his expert "toolkit" on smashing gangs, he's got more chance of getting at them than Sunak, IMO. Same goes for the people smugglers.

IMO, there are some "pan European" agreements that the UK really should rejoin. There's the immigration group for one, I forget its name. If BoJo hadn't taken us out of that one we'd have far less of an issue with "boat people" than we currently have. Then there's the police cooperation unit which we also left, another BoJo error. There are probably other areas where pan European cooperation would aid both the EU and the UK. None of which would involve the UK requiring EU membership or rejoining the Customs Union or requiring Freedom of Movement. The question is, will both sides be sensible enough to see the mutual benefit and reinstate those agreements that were erroneously dumped?

[swaledale]

The whole small boats issue is overblown, even at its highest, its less than 50,000, compared with 685,000 legal migration. It could be resolved through the provision of a legal route and fast effective processing of asylum claims.

I mean its good job we had Brexit when net migration was 50% lower! Mainly because those that came in worked, then returned home and as the economic conditions improved in their home countries even many who had settled returned. There was a constant flow of European and Uk people to and from Europe. But the narrow minded Brits, most of whom would rather claim benefits than move even 50 miles to get a job took umbrage and so we had Brexit.

Well given that Farage has talked about net zero migration, then admitted that immigrants would be allowed in to do essential jobs and skilled work ( though apparently at a higher NI contribution) thats not going to be much different to now under the Tories scheme.

OK so there's a myth put around that actually if we trained the existing workforce there wouldn't be a need for immigration, which kind of implies that its not just low paid jobs, but never mind.

Given that unemployment is at 4%, and that 4% is generally seen as full employment, where are all these people that can apparently do these jobs going to be found?

Anyway obviously those that think the media does not reflect the world they live in, due to there being an overrepresentation of ethnic minorities on TV news etc. Aren't happy with high earning immigrants either, or more likely the children of immigrants. I mean people coming over here, getting educated and getting good jobs and paying tax, its not on I tell you!!

How in a place thats 95% white british, the pressure on housing schools, the NHS and other services can be down to immigration is a peculiar logic that escapes me.

But nobody seems to have twigged that in the last 14 years this and previous Tory governments have slashed funding for all services whilst the population increases.

IF the population growth had been due to resident birth rate, then this scape goating of immigrants wouldn't hold water.

Your pint is spot on MA, the Uk takes in a smaller proportion of Asylum seekers than any other country and pre Brexit we had effective returns agreements, which this Government didn't continue due to its stupid ideological refusal to work with the EU!

[Andy_Faber]

a place thats 95% white british

Naughty naughty, making stuff up again!

[MadAmster]

Watched a rerun of the Red v Blue "debate". They seemed to agree on a fair few things but worded it differently so as to appear "different".

Both had something to say on decency and respect etc but only one of them demonstrated it, and that wasn't Sunak. Starmer, generally, kept schtum when Rishi was speaking. Rishi, on the other hand, blathered on and on when Sir K was talking.

Sunak seems to love the word "surrender" and Starmer informed the world that "his Dad was a toolmaker".

Sunak also came over as somewhat of a bully, Starmer said, several times, that it's time politicians went back to service. Serving the populace.

Sunak couldn't counter that only a few hundred immigrants would be sent to Rwanda, at great cost, under the current deal.

Starmer intends to beat the trafficking gangs by international cooperation, something he did with terrorists. To me a better option than Sunak's Rwanda non-solution that is very costly when it's only going to solve maybe 400 cases out of the 50,000 illegal immigrants since Sunak took office.

Neither will be getting my vote for the reasons outlined in a previous post on this forum.

I'm still looking forward to several visits to the UK each year in the future but, as I've said before, I won't be coming back to live.

[Trickytreesreds]

Get Starmer in and with his expert "toolkit" on smashing gangs, he's got more chance of getting at them than Sunak, IMO. Same goes for the people smugglers.

IMO, there are some "pan European" agreements that the UK really should rejoin. There's the immigration group for one, I forget its name. If BoJo hadn't taken us out of that one we'd have far less of an issue with "boat people" than we currently have. Then there's the police cooperation unit which we also left, another BoJo error. There are probably other areas where pan European cooperation would aid both the EU and the UK. None of which would involve the UK requiring EU membership or rejoining the Customs Union or requiring Freedom of Movement. The question is, will both sides be sensible enough to see the mutual benefit and reinstate those agreements that were erroneously dumped?

propaganda.
Has Starmer, or Europe stopped the drug trade?
Has Europe stopped the gamgs exporting them into Europe?

No it bloody hasn't. Only way is to cut out the market. If there was no drug users, or party packages for immigrants there would be no business model.
You're living in dream land maddy, if you think suits signing fancy agreements solves anything.

All I'll say to you is Poland. Deployed the army, tossed back any that made it miles inland. It stopped, dead. Though I didn't go and take loads of pictures for you, to prove it.