The Labour Government

.db. said:
The Migration Observatiry didn’t say that the current and future planned UK infrastructure is suitable for a 30-60m population?
Click to expand...

The last time the UK population was 30m was in the 1860s.

Seems unlikely any serious source would argue something that stupid, so perhaps link to something if you’re going to claim it as a source?
 
domalino said:
Sorry but deciding we can’t have immigration because of recycling & the state of water companies is a joke, these industries havent maxed out, they’re underfunded and poorly managed. 20% of the water supply is lost to waste because of bad infrastructure and management by water companies that have doubled their profits in 5 years. Your water supply concerns would be entirely addressed by nationalising a public resource and investing the money we pay for water in the infrastructure instead of paying dividends to their foreign owners and relying on the state to bail them out.

Britain has half the population density of the Netherlands, a country which is a net exporter of food. You present these things as insurmountable problems that just can’t be gotten around, but that’s simply not true.

And if it upsets you that your main anti immigration talking points are straight off a 1970s NF flyer and have as much legitimacy now as they did then, that’s not my fault for pointing it out.

That’s not to say I, or anyone, is a supporter of completely unchecked, unlimited immigration, it’s just pointing out “The island is full” rhetoric is far right bollocks and always has been.
Click to expand...
In the parallel universe you seem to inhabit, then perhaps all of the above is true. The fact the country is in the state it's in, rather neatly demonstrates that we don't actually live in your parallel universe. We are not the Netherlands, or the Nordics and we will never be like them. I constantly hear you lot saying "why can't we be like e.g. Sweden or Finland or Norway". Well no shit Sherlock, because 1,000 years of history has made us not like the Swedes, Fins or Norwegians. That's the reality you lot don't seem to be able to suck up. We are intrinsically less socialist, less left wing, more like the US than we are like many in the EU.
 
Chippy_boy said:
In the parallel universe you seem to inhabit, then perhaps all of the above is true. The fact the country is in the state it's in, rather neatly demonstrates that we don't actually live in your parallel universe. We are not the Netherlands, or the Nordics and we will never be like them. I constantly hear you lot saying "why can't we be like e.g. Sweden or Finland or Norway". Well no shit Sherlock, because 1,000 years of history has made us not like the Swedes, Fins or Norwegians. That's the reality you lot don't seem to be able to suck up. We are intrinsically less socialist, less left wing, more like the US than we are like many in the EU.
Click to expand...

So your argument is that 1000 years of history means we can’t nationalise water companies and reduce water waste.

Completely delusional and ignores the fact privatisation has only existed for 30 years, but other than that, great point!

By the way, anyone who thinks we are more politically aligned to the US than the EU clearly has no* understanding of politics in either region.

Ask people if they want armed ICE agents picking people up off the street and locking them in prison camps without food or water. Ask people if they want to pay £1000 a month for private health insurance or an NHS, ask people if they want to ban abortion and arrest doctors who perform them.

The UK may sit between the EU and US politically, but it’s 5x closer to the EU, and outside Farage’s genuflecting for his American paymasters, the UK publics’ opinion of American political policy has never been lower.
 
Last edited:
Just for a start, the USA is dominated by 'Christians'.

The UK is not, and has not been, in living memory. Arguably, since 1660. While there are a few 'Christians' knocking about, most UK Christians are laid-back people and do not dictate to others. (As an aside, they often do stuff for the community, and rarely, if ever, believe that Jesus suffered on the cross to make them wealthy and/or powerful.
 
BrianW said:
Just for a start, the USA is dominated by 'Christians'.

The UK is not, and has not been, in living memory. Arguably, since 1660. While there are a few 'Christians' knocking about, most UK Christians are laid-back people and do not dictate to others. (As an aside, they often do stuff for the community, and rarely, if ever, believe that Jesus suffered on the cross to make them wealthy and/or powerful.
Click to expand...
Most Christians aren't Christians anyway. Gun wielding pissed up maniacs don't exactly fit the bill of upstanding Christians. The nationalists here aren't Christians either, they just use that tag because Christianity is part of a picture of a so called national identity.

The far-right also use demographic change in religion to justify an incoming threat, they'll for example say that there are decreasing numbers of Christians and increasing numbers of Muslims.

This is true but they forget that Christian numbers are decreasing because people are becoming less religious. The biggest threat to Christianity isn't Islam, it's atheism/agnostics. The far-right however won't attack an atheist because they don't actually care because they aren't actually Christians themselves, plus most atheists are white.

Religion, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

The religion of usual residents and household religious composition in England and Wales, Census 2021 data.
www.ons.gov.uk
 
We've got Guardiola said:
Most Christians aren't Christians anyway. Gun wielding pissed up maniacs don't exactly fit the bill of upstanding Christians. The nationalists here aren't Christians either, they just use that tag because Christianity is part of a picture of a so called national identity.

The far-right also use demographic change in religion to justify an incoming threat, they'll for example say that there are decreasing numbers of Christians and increasing numbers of Muslims.

This is true but they forget that Christian numbers are decreasing because people are becoming less religious. The biggest threat to Christianity isn't Islam, it's atheism/agnostics. The far-right however won't attack an atheist because they don't actually care because they aren't actually Christians themselves, plus most atheists are white.

Religion, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

The religion of usual residents and household religious composition in England and Wales, Census 2021 data.
www.ons.gov.uk
Click to expand...
While true, in America not being 'religious or believing in god' is a vote loser in some states.In the UK most people couldn't care less when they are voting.
 
maxwellblue said:
Haha, so you're happy for someone to come on a boat who has contributed nothing to get well looked after but a person who has worked all their lives in the uk and paid tax and ni to get nowt because they choose to live out their retirement somewhere warmer.

Also the big difference with immigrants from the uk who choose to live abroad aren't a burden on the country they choose to live in unlike all these cookers coming over in boats.
Click to expand...
Fuck me, we're being invaded by cookers now? The national grid cannae cope...
 
We've got Guardiola said:
Most Christians aren't Christians anyway. Gun wielding pissed up maniacs don't exactly fit the bill of upstanding Christians. The nationalists here aren't Christians either, they just use that tag because Christianity is part of a picture of a so called national identity.
Click to expand...

There was a reason I put 'Christians' in inverted commas

Many so-called Christians are not Christians at all. Frankly, they are heretics, and if you examine their opinions, they contradict every word Jesus spoke.
 
Has anyone figured out how exactly extending from 5 years to 15 years the time a legal migrant has to wait before they can claim indefinate leave to remain, acts as any kind of disincentive? Or even makes any difference at all?

So someone who wants to remain here permanently, can live, work, use our public services including the NHS, and breed whilst waiting 15 years instead of 5. And then after that time, they will be able to carry on doing exactly what they've been doing for the previous 5 or 15 years. Puzzling.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Has anyone figured out how exactly extending from 5 years to 15 years the time a legal migrant has to wait before they can claim indefinate leave to remain, acts as any kind of disincentive? Or even makes any difference at all?

So someone who wants to remain here permanently, can live, work, use our public services including the NHS, and breed whilst waiting 15 years instead of 5. And then after that time, they will be able to carry on doing exactly what they've been doing for the previous 5 or 15 years. Puzzling.
Click to expand...


Isn't it about access to the public purse/funds? Despite what people read or think EVERY visa application to the UK states that there will be no access to public funds.
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
Isn't it about access to the public purse/funds? Despite what people read or think EVERY visa application to the UK states that there will be no access to public funds.
Click to expand...
Maybe? I don't know. But what does that mean exactly? I mean if someone cannot support themselves or becomes ill, we don't just let them die by the roadside.
 
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