Latest tactics of Rape Clause Ruth is sectarianism!!! Currently fanning sectarian flames by openly coveting the Orange Order vote (a number of whom were elected as Tories the other week) by describing Corbyn seeking peace in NI as an insult to the servicemen and women who were stationed in NI during the troubles.

 

Not to be beaten apparently the NI Tories stood on a platform of opposing the Good Friday agreement.

 

Sooner sectarianism is punishable with jail time and a permanent ban from public office the better.

Has he? In one of his BBC interviews a few weeks ago, he said that he thought Britain should be prepared to consider a free trade deal with the EU even if the price of that was immigration being no lower than it is now.

Which is a separate point from ending freedom of movement, and is actually the next big problem that the whole political sphere is going to have to deal with - its perpetual dishonesty in hiding behind EU freedom of movement as the reason immigration is so high. Non-EU net immigration alone - i.e., the bit we already have control over - has never once been lower than 100,000 a year since Cameron made the pledge for total net immigration to be less than 100,000. The tell is that chief Brexiteers such as David Davis et al have made the same point as Keir Starmer that they don't see immigration necessarily being any lower after Brexit.

Soo if immigration won't be amy lower, what did peoplw vote for?? Except some non-existent constitutional crisia over being 'ruled by Brussels' (which is not true). Brexiteers annoy me.

wonder if Re-Leavers would feel the same way when they find out the 2 Brexit campaigns were working illegally together (targeting different sections of the population), funded and manipulated by a rich American and foreign companies (see Guardian yesterday) as a precursor to working out how to manipulate the US election too. So not really a democratic election at all if you don't follow the rules....

 

It's fairly clear Wikileaks/Assange is in with farage and farage is in with Trump and Trump is in with Assange - and all are allied with Putin. That's just the famous ones, most of Trump's teams are tied with each other and other countries. Look at farage campaigning for Trump in the USA (after he slagged off Obama for making one comment).

Exactly, surely its a tactical move to shore up the right leaning vote!

 

Your assuming all those that gave ukip a chance will automatically vote Tory this time. In the North there are groups who will vote ukip and give them a chance but never vote Tory as they are traditional labourites.

Latest tactics of Rape Clause Ruth is sectarianism!!! Currently fanning sectarian flames by openly coveting the Orange Order vote (a number of whom were elected as Tories the other week) by describing Corbyn seeking peace in NI as an insult to the servicemen and women who were stationed in NI during the troubles.

 

Not to be beaten apparently the NI Tories stood on a platform of opposing the Good Friday agreement.

 

Sooner sectarianism is punishable with jail time and a permanent ban from public office the better.

 

Disgraceful, bet the woman doesn't have a clue about the Irish conflict either!

Which is a separate point from ending freedom of movement, and is actually the next big problem that the whole political sphere is going to have to deal with - its perpetual dishonesty in hiding behind EU freedom of movement as the reason immigration is so high. Non-EU net immigration alone - i.e., the bit we already have control over - has never once been lower than 100,000 a year since Cameron made the pledge for total net immigration to be less than 100,000. The tell is that chief Brexiteers such as David Davis et al have made the same point as Keir Starmer that they don't see immigration necessarily being any lower after Brexit.

 

It is a separate point, but it was you who raised "freedom of movement" (frankly, I don't think a lot of the public know what that specific term actually means -- my mum thought it meant few/no queues at Customs when going on holiday, rather than the right to settle permanently in another country). My point was specifically that Labour "moderates" like Keir Starmer don't seem to be advocating a substantial reduction in immigration, and then it was you who countered that he supported "ending freedom of movement", which as you now rightly say doesn't necessarily equate to lower immigration.

 

People didn't just vote to regain "control" over immigration only to choose not to use those controls, and they certainly didn't vote to end the current immigration rules only to essentially sign up to the same system in some kind of EFTA arrangement like Keir Starmer seems to be implying. Rightly or wrongly, people voted for less immigration as an end goal, and realistically Labour probably aren't going to get anywhere electorally until they accept it. If the Labour "moderates" think that, in spite of that, they should carry on advocating the immigration status-quo as a point of principle anyway, then that's fine, but they can't then claim they're the ones who know how to make Labour "electable", with all their patronising mantras about "principles without power is pointless" or whatever, if they're knowingly pushing forward a platform which has even less public support than a Corbynista economic platform has (as a comparison between Labour's and the LibDems' results in a few weeks will show).

Edited May 15, 20178 yr by Danny

Your assuming all those that gave ukip a chance will automatically vote Tory this time. In the North there are groups who will vote ukip and give them a chance but never vote Tory as they are traditional labourites.

 

Not just in the north... ;)

 

It is a separate point, but it was you who raised "freedom of movement" (frankly, I don't think a lot of the public know what that specific term actually means -- my mum thought it meant few/no queues at Customs when going on holiday, rather than the right to settle permanently in another country). My point was specifically that Labour "moderates" like Keir Starmer don't seem to be advocating a substantial reduction in immigration, and then it was you who countered that he supported "ending freedom of movement", which as you now rightly say doesn't necessarily equate to lower immigration.

 

People didn't just vote to regain "control" over immigration only to choose not to use those controls, and they certainly didn't vote to end the current immigration rules only to essentially sign up to the same system in some kind of EFTA arrangement like Keir Starmer seems to be implying. Rightly or wrongly, people voted for less immigration as an end goal, and realistically Labour probably aren't going to get anywhere electorally until they accept it. If the Labour "moderates" think that, in spite of that, they should carry on advocating the immigration status-quo as a point of principle anyway, then that's fine, but they can't then claim they're the ones who know how to make Labour "electable", with all their patronising mantras about "principles without power is pointless" or whatever, if they're knowingly pushing forward a platform which has even less public support than a Corbynista economic platform has (as a comparison between Labour's and the LibDems' results in a few weeks will show).

 

Oh 10 years of failed massive reductions in immigration should help everyone get over that view. May had 6 years opportunity to reduce it and didn't. Employers are the ones who choose to hire foreigners - on the plus side, as many employers relocate to EU there should be a British qualifed workforce available and looking for jobs willing to take crappier wages and crappier jobs who can undercut the foreigners. Yes, British workers can become the new Polish, hurrah!

 

Except for those professions owned by foreigners who demand non-EU foreign workers (currently about 100,000 plus a year) of course. And builders for those houses that need to be built - so we'll need Polish people for that of course, we haven't the skilled numbers here. And the agricultural crops and cleaning jobs that no-one wants to do for £7 an hour - you can get that cash in hand and keep the benefits too. Oh, and nursing/hospital staff too, we'll still need them of course.

 

Pointing out these sorts of issues, and talking about them sensibly, might make those prone to frothing at the mouth over foreigners at least accept that there might be an alternative view rather than, "that's it vote over job done keep 'em out". I would love to hear the views of Mrs Boris Johnson and Mrs Farage on this issue - we already know the views of Mrs Clegg (to choose another politician who doesn't necessarily agree with Brexit at all costs), and she seems very sane.

It is a separate point, but it was you who raised "freedom of movement" (frankly, I don't think a lot of the public know what that specific term actually means -- my mum thought it meant few/no queues at Customs when going on holiday, rather than the right to settle permanently in another country). My point was specifically that Labour "moderates" like Keir Starmer don't seem to be advocating a substantial reduction in immigration, and then it was you who countered that he supported "ending freedom of movement", which as you now rightly say doesn't necessarily equate to lower immigration.

 

People didn't just vote to regain "control" over immigration only to choose not to use those controls, and they certainly didn't vote to end the current immigration rules only to essentially sign up to the same system in some kind of EFTA arrangement like Keir Starmer seems to be implying. Rightly or wrongly, people voted for less immigration as an end goal, and realistically Labour probably aren't going to get anywhere electorally until they accept it. If the Labour "moderates" think that, in spite of that, they should carry on advocating the immigration status-quo as a point of principle anyway, then that's fine, but they can't then claim they're the ones who know how to make Labour "electable", with all their patronising mantras about "principles without power is pointless" or whatever, if they're knowingly pushing forward a platform which has even less public support than a Corbynista economic platform has (as a comparison between Labour's and the LibDems' results in a few weeks will show).

I'm kind of glad it won't be Labour testing whether the public actually does want lower immigration in practice though. There's a good reason why despite Theresa May having the power to take non-EU net migration to near-zero it hasn't happened - if people think the UK's social care system is falling apart now...

I'm kind of glad it won't be Labour testing whether the public actually does want lower immigration in practice though. There's a good reason why despite Theresa May having the power to take non-EU net migration to near-zero it hasn't happened - if people think the UK's social care system is falling apart now...

 

....the government could actually increase wages for social-care workers so that it's sufficiently attractive for British workers to fill the gaps left by migrant workers?

 

Although I dislike the "immigrants are eroding our culture" bollocks, I'm getting tired of liberal commentators implying that young Brits are too "lazy" or "entitled" to fill the jobs that migrants fill.

Edited May 16, 20178 yr by Danny

....the government could actually increase wages for social-care workers so that it's sufficiently attractive for British workers to fill the gaps left by migrant workers?

 

Although I dislike the "immigrants are eroding our culture" bollocks, I'm getting tired of liberal commentators implying that young Brits are too "lazy" or "entitled" to fill the jobs that migrants fill.

 

I think a big part of the issue is reasonable housing. House prices are extremely overinflated and it's difficult (particularly in London) to be able to rent/buy a place by yourself. Flat/house shares have become common and I believe that migrants are more likely to share a house/flat with others (correct me if I'm wrong). Therefore a lot of the low-skilled migrants that take up the lower paid jobs tend to have have lower housing costs than the average British person. So it makes it difficult for a British person to accept a job at a low wage because they wouldn't be able to make ends meet otherwise.

 

The housing market bubble needs to burst and a lot more homes built/freed up. I personally think there should be a law that you cannot own more than two homes and that foreign investors should have strict limits on the housing they can buy. Immigration should be reduced as well, as the population increasing by 500,000+ people each year (Births+net migration) isn't sustainble. Of course immigration shouldn't be gone completely, but should be reduced from its recent record highs to more appropriate levels.

....the government could actually increase wages for social-care workers so that it's sufficiently attractive for British workers to fill the gaps left by migrant workers?

 

Although I dislike the "immigrants are eroding our culture" bollocks, I'm getting tired of liberal commentators implying that young Brits are too "lazy" or "entitled" to fill the jobs that migrants fill.

The UK has an employment gap that in nursing, for example, will take up to a generation to fix, and that's if the situation was rectified now rather than continued to be run into the ground. It's not just wages, it's setting up the education and training infrastructure that just isn't there at the moment. Our long-term unemployment rate is at historically low levels so I don't think attracting British workers to industries currently propped up by immigrant labour is going to be particularly fruitful.

 

And along the same lines, I'm tired of the "

" comments. Not only a misrepresentation but it also conjures up an idea of a two-tier country where UK-born people have different ambitions to immigrants. Ew. Such comments are not particularly liberal.

Edited May 16, 20178 yr by Harve

I think a big part of the issue is reasonable housing. House prices are extremely overinflated and it's difficult (particularly in London) to be able to rent/buy a place by yourself. Flat/house shares have become common and I believe that migrants are more likely to share a house/flat with others (correct me if I'm wrong). Therefore a lot of the low-skilled migrants that take up the lower paid jobs tend to have have lower housing costs than the average British person. So it makes it difficult for a British person to accept a job at a low wage because they wouldn't be able to make ends meet otherwise.

 

The housing market bubble needs to burst and a lot more homes built/freed up. I personally think there should be a law that you cannot own more than two homes and that foreign investors should have strict limits on the housing they can buy. Immigration should be reduced as well, as the population increasing by 500,000+ people each year (Births+net migration) isn't sustainble. Of course immigration shouldn't be gone completely, but should be reduced from its recent record highs to more appropriate levels.

 

I agree with a number of these comments, actually. Not sure we could get a law banning two-home ownership, and we still need a rented sector, but I'd go along with banning mortgages on Buy-To-Let, heavy taxes on second homes that aren't either lived in full-time or rented, and ban foreign-investment ownership of all existing British homes/flats unless they are actually putting money into building them in the first place. If they live in the UK in that property, then fine.

On the Today programme this morning the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, couldn't say when the Tory manifesto will be published. It was originally expected last week. Could it be that they are still having blazing rows over the contents? Or is it so that they can still parrot the answer "Wait for the manifesto" when they are asked a vaguely difficult question? Sounds like a coalition of chaos to me.

And along the same lines, I'm tired of the "

" comments. Not only a misrepresentation but it also conjures up an idea of a two-tier country where UK-born people have different ambitions to immigrants.

 

In many cases, ISTM it's not a case of not wanting such jobs, but being unable to live on the low wages such jobs usually pay.

I agree with a number of these comments, actually. Not sure we could get a law banning two-home ownership, and we still need a rented sector, but I'd go along with banning mortgages on Buy-To-Let, heavy taxes on second homes that aren't either lived in full-time or rented, and ban foreign-investment ownership of all existing British homes/flats unless they are actually putting money into building them in the first place. If they live in the UK in that property, then fine.

If I remember correctly, one of the countries so often named on the list of countries who restrict foreign property investment is Australia and their law requires a foreign owner to make substantial revisions and upgrades. Think it's to force them into buying and doing up shitholes instead of new builds. The Coalition could have watered this down since I last read about it.

 

 

I'd be totally for a ban on buy-to-let mortgages, a ban on non-residents owning property, compulsory repurchase of continuously empty property and key for me in Manchester is a ban on developments being sold as "buy-to-let/investment only".

 

Yes we need a rental sector but that can't come at the expense of home affordability for first time buyers. We should build more social housing, restrict the ability of private landlords to push through massive rent increases and crack down on those letting houses in disgusting condition (including seizure of the property if necessary)

 

This will never happen of course as the problematic generation are the ones in charge. They got on the housing ladder and pulled it up after them

In many cases, ISTM it's not a case of not wanting such jobs, but being unable to live on the low wages such jobs usually pay.

f*** me. A post by vidcapper I agree with.

 

Brb going to have an acid bath to feel clean again

f*** me. A post by vidcapper I agree with.

 

Brb going to have an acid bath to feel clean again

 

:lol:

 

Seriously though, while my opinions are socially conservative, my economic ones are relatively liberal.

Edited May 17, 20178 yr by vidcapper

f*** me. A post by vidcapper I agree with.

 

Brb going to have an acid bath to feel clean again

 

 

LOL next you'll be agreeing with one of my opinions. :lol: