The Labour Government

BlueHammer85 said:
Agree, Proving we can identify and catch people who make the return journey. would have been let back straight in under the Tories.
Click to expand...

And you would have demanded them be let in as you would have denounced any policy to get them out as racist.

Some right disingenuous fuckers on here these days.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
Agree, Proving we can identify and catch people who make the return journey. would have been let back straight in under the Tories.
Click to expand...
It’s good that we can do this, but why are they coming back in the first place, knowing that this will happen?

Where did the person get the extra money from as they all seem to be skint when they get here, or are the smugglers utilising their services after they arrive, and hopefully get asylum? Yet they knew the person would be auto-deported, so why send him?

It feels like Farage’s mates are sending them across for media headlines.

Seems all very strange to me and makes no sense at all.
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
It’s good that we can do this, but why are they coming back in the first place, knowing that this will happen?

Where did the person get the extra money from as they all seem to be skint when they get here, or are the smugglers utilising their services after they arrive, and hopefully get asylum? Yet they knew the person would be auto-deported, so why send him?

It feels like Farage’s mates are sending them across for media headlines.

Seems all very strange to me and makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

desperation.
 
Here we go again, let’s subsidise large families with more benefits.

I’m sure those parents who have never worked a day in their lives, but keep on popping kids around This Morning, Loose Women, Play Station 5, the Bookies, the Pub, and a weekly shop at Iceland and B&M bargains will be very grateful to Reeves and Labour.

www.bbc.co.uk

Rachel Reeves suggests family benefit limits will be lifted

The chancellor tells the BBC children in bigger families should not be "penalised" by the welfare system.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
jrb said:
Here we go again, let’s subsidise large families with more benefits.

I’m sure those parents who have never worked a day in their lives, but keep on popping kids around This Morning, Loose Women, Play Station 5, the Bookies, the Pub, and a weekly shop at Iceland and B&M bargains will be very grateful to Reeves and Labour.

www.bbc.co.uk

Rachel Reeves suggests family benefit limits will be lifted

The chancellor tells the BBC children in bigger families should not be "penalised" by the welfare system.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
So you want to see kids in poverty?
 
Talking to my mate over the weekend his girlfriend works in the asylum office, hes says it’s worse than they are letting on, they reckon 30k have disappeared into the ether, nobody knows where they are. Some don’t turn up for their interviews and then the civil servants are getting blamed for not reaching their targets, loads have gone off on stress and those left to cover it all are seriously considering leaving. They all bin their papers before they land and say they are from different countries than they originally are so it helps their case and there’s no way of disproving it. The tories lied about how many they sent back as well, most of them have disappeared and the tories just claimed they’d gone back!
 
hampshireblue said:
Whilst I quite like the idea of some form of minimum investment buy in into public services, the fact is most public projects are not about making money and therefore creating a return. Anybody employing a substantial workforce has real skin in the game making sure that public services, transport, education, child care, etc. work properly because if they don't, they will suffer indirectly as the workforce has to contend with the underfunded services. Surely contributing a bit more to try to ensure workers, on which they rely, don't take so much time for various reasons is a win win?
Click to expand...

All fair comments.

On the point about workforce, it’s all well and good building new schools and hospitals but you still have to staff them. Still the immediate growth would certainly support the treasury coffers thus supporting the workforce. Then there is things like road building or fixing roads that don’t require any workforce once done.

The problem with tax is it’s considered punitive which makes it unpopular with those that pay it, call it an investment and the narrative is changed even if the net result for the individual is unchanged. That partnership could create a more cohesive society.
 
mosssideblue said:
So you want to see kids in poverty?
Click to expand...

If you’re not working, and you are living off benefits, don’t have kids you can’t afford to bring up and pay for. Why should tax payers subsidise the children of parents who aren’t working and aren’t paying into the system that keeps their kids fed, watered, clothed, etc. I’m sure those parents will be more than happy to vote for Labour at the next general election after receiving more money off the already hard pressed government and tax payer for their additional children that their parents can’t provide for without free state benefits. Anyone would think there’s a bottomless pit of money, even though Reeves is about to make tax increases, and is finding every way possible to take more money off hard working people.
 
Last edited:
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