The Labour Government

metalblue said:
I didn’t see anything remotely racist in that comment. Care to explain?
Click to expand...
Some people go out of their way to be offended and find what they are looking for when it’s more than obvious that it it isn’t there. If you argue black is white and you agree white is black, they will then argue the opposite. It’s laughable mate.
 
PPT said:
Some people go out of their way to be offended and find what they are looking for when it’s more than obvious that it it isn’t there. If you argue black is white and you agree white is black, they will then argue the opposite. It’s laughable mate.
Click to expand...
Given I never said that post was racist, I’m not sure you’ve seen the wood for the trees.

Seems VAT on private schools has energised you to post your frustrations. Everyone has triggers.
 
Don Karleone said:



Scumbags
Click to expand...

I think this is a good thing in some ways, as going forwards, if you can't afford to have more than two children, you shouldn't expect others to pay for them instead.

But if you lose your job or they move the goal posts after you have them then it's really a different issue.
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
Anybody who is still trying to defend the Rwanda scheme (of which there still seems to be a few) needs to read this paper from March. They clearly must think the country just has bags and bags of money to fritter around.



View attachment 126175

For anybody doing the maths that is £170,874 per person over 5 years + £400,000 per person for the first 300 people. An eye-watering sum of money that doesn’t even capture the additional fixed contributions to the ETI fund. Storing claimants on Bibby Stockholm costs £45,000+ per year. Another incredible waste of money.

Actually processing an asylum claim costs £12,000 plus whatever support an approved refugee might require if they are successful. But if they are successful then they aren’t economic migrants are they?

And this as a deterrent? Well here’s one for you. Even if through this policy you deterred every single asylum seeker from coming here for an entire year, then we would still be paying more to Rwanda than we would save. If we generously ignore the huge up-front fixed cost, then if we send 1,000 people to Rwanda each year we would need to deter between 50-75% of unsuccessful asylum claimants from coming here for it to make economic sense in the long-term. That is fantasy. Are people really willing to bet close to a billion pounds on deterring over half of a group of people who clearly aren’t deterred by the much higher odds prospect of drowning in the Channel?

So Yvette Cooper is entirely correct when she describes this as an obscene waste of money. If people think we can sensibly afford a scheme like this right now they are living in an alternate reality.
Click to expand...
Evidence suggests that the scheme was starting to work. But in no way can I defend the amount of money that this has cost.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
I think this is a good thing in some ways, as going forwards, if you can't afford to have more than two children, you shouldn't expect others to pay for them instead.

But if you lose your job or they move the goal posts after you have them then it's really a different issue.
Click to expand...


I'm more arsed about punishing kids that had no say in that decision, to be honest.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
I think this is a good thing in some ways, as going forwards, if you can't afford to have more than two children, you shouldn't expect others to pay for them instead.

But if you lose your job or they move the goal posts after you have them then it's really a different issue.
Click to expand...
Not really the point. There are numerous Labour MPs have been vociferous in their objection to the cap. Rayner called it heinous in opposition as an example.

There was even a Labour MP who tabled an identical amendment (that wasn't selected) who didn't vote for what she apparently felt strongly about.
 
Starmer’s honeymoon period already over as he ensures children remain in poverty and punishes every MP who dared to step out of line.

Anyone who expected real change with a Labour vote must be disappointed.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Evidence suggests that the scheme was starting to work. But in no way can I defend the amount of money that this has cost.
Click to expand...

If you offered me £10 million a day to return to work, I'd be in the office like a shot, so it would work. However, it would not be cost-effective. And I'd jack it in after 3 days as it would be enough to satisfy my greediest instincts and then some.

As we had to accept an equal number of people from Rwanda, it was only ever, at best, a very expensive swap policy for immigrants. And Rwanda was sending us its 'complex cases'. Maybe a tad costly for the NHS and so on? A good example of 'performative policies' intended to appeal to a certain class of voter, a class unlikely to read the small print in the contract. It was neither practicable nor pragmatic. Nor was it intended to be. It was all about stirring emotions, which the modern right seems to think is a good alternative to sensible government.
 
meltonblue said:
Well go back thirty years and it wasn’t education paid for by the consumer, it was seen as an essential part of the state education service to have a fully functioning society. It’s also not a luxury only available to people based on their personal wealth (well, their families wealth). The attainment is based on academic merit of the individual.

Personally I’d rather go back to scrapping university fees or at the very least make changes to the interest paid on student loans. My sons lucky in that I’m in the position where I can pay off his fees for him up front, plenty aren’t though.
Click to expand...

You’d pay his fees off after tax?!?!! Are you actually insane?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top