• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Danishfurniturelover said:
Well she has slashed benefit payments the nazi bitch Reeves.

Rumours that they are planning to send illegals to the Balkans. Is this OK but not Africa? Confusing time for some posters on this board I imagine. But I doubt they will say a word the hypocrisy is galling.
Click to expand...

Go back and read what the issue people had with it, the fact was everyone thought it was a dumb and would never be a deterrent.................

.....................500m spent and those people were right

Sending them to a centre centrally in Europe before sending them back to their original destination is far better then paying someone £5000 to go and live in Africa. You talk about hypocrisy, you should be jumping up and down, short of drowning them in the channel, this is what you have been frothing about for years...........take the win

As for the benefits situation, people who can work should be encouraged and supported to do so, the flip is telling them they have no place in society and should stay at home, which IMO is a far greater crime against people then trying to show them they have a really active role in their communities. There is obviously a balance to strike with it and those that can't work should not be punished, the proof will be in the eating as they say
 
Last edited:
Danishfurniturelover said:
Well she has slashed benefit payments the nazi bitch Reeves.

Rumours that they are planning to send illegals to the Balkans. Is this OK but not Africa? Confusing time for some posters on this board I imagine. But I doubt they will say a word the hypocrisy is galling.
Click to expand...
It's great having a conversation with yourself, as you can arrive at all the conclusions perfectly.:)

Btw...the proposed scheme is clearly different as it is sending illegals that are post processing.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Go back and read what the issue people had with it, the fact was everyone thought it was a dumb and would never be a deterrent.................

.....................500m spent and those people were right

Sending them to a centre centrally in Europe before sending them back to their original destination is far better then paying someone £5000 to go and live in Africa. You talk about hypocrisy, you should be jumping up and down, short of drowning them in the channel, this is what you have been frothing about for years...........take the win

As for the benefits situation, people who can work should be encouraged and supported to do so, the flip is telling them they have no place in society and should stay at home, which IMO is a far greater crime against people then trying to show them they have a really active role in their communities. There is obviously a balance to strike with it and those that can't work should not be punished, the proof will be in the eating as they say
Click to expand...
Nah mate is hypocrisy plain and simple. Try being honest I read so much on here over the years how evil the tories were when they planned it. But now it's fine. It's actually pretty funny.

I voted for Starmer, I actually voted Labour but I got a conservative government haha. Main reason I voted that way was I want the water and rail companies nationalised and the tories were/are bust.

Think some of you far left lefties need to wake up and realise you voted in a tory government.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
It's great having a conversation with yourself, as you can arrive at all the conclusions perfectly.:)

Btw...the proposed scheme is clearly different as it is sending illegals that are post processing.
Click to expand...
Try and justify it all you like but loads of you on here are trying to split hairs so as not to lose face. My respect for the ones that can't admit that has gone right down.

I like the ones that stick to their views rather then change them because "their party" are in power.

It's one of the great things about me, I can criticise anyone as I have no allegiance to any party. The are many great things about me to be fair.
 
markysimmo said:
and Net Zero and Illegals and we're quids in !!
Click to expand...
Pretty sure the outcome of these is the setting for Blade Runner (or idiocracy)

Go and visit countries with lesser social support and see what the conditions are:

People that won't work will still find a way to get money - they'll just rob people like you. Probably violently. Probably including your family. It might even extend beyond just robbery or assault.

People that can and want to work, but the economy doesn't allow them to will still find a way. More likely stealing from businesses, so prices will go up and stock will go down.
You should avoid being robbed, beaten, raped, and maybe killed by those - but you'll still have less.

The streets will become worse.
Facilities will become worse.
Security will become worse.

But apart from that.....
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
Try and justify it all you like but loads of you on here are trying to split hairs so as not to lose face. My respect for the ones that can't admit that has gone right down.
Click to expand...
I think I was just bringing another piece of information into the discussion, hopefully to improve accuracy of conclusions.
I know that's probably outlandish behaviour in some worlds.

Danishfurniturelover said:
I like the ones that stick to their views rather then change them because "their party" are in power
Click to expand...
I don't think people have 'a party' these days tbh. Anyone should be open to change their view, or stick with their view based on the facts presented to them.

Danishfurniturelover said:
It's one of the great things about me, I can criticise anyone as I have no allegiance to any party. The are many great things about me to be fair.
Click to expand...
At least we got to the important thing...you are great! Can't be said enough!
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
Nah mate is hypocrisy plain and simple. Try being honest I read so much on here over the years how evil the tories were when they planned it. But now it's fine. It's actually pretty funny.

I voted for Starmer, I actually voted Labour but I got a conservative government haha. Main reason I voted that way was I want the water and rail companies nationalised and the tories were/are bust.

Think some of you far left lefties need to wake up and realise you voted in a tory government.
Click to expand...
Centrist so you can't even get that right. Didn't vote in the last two elections, so can't even get that bit right either.

If you can't see the major difference in the plans, one of which was clearly a dead PR exercise that died on its arse and the only one success person.... they paid to leave, then you ain't interested enough in the details

Also we clearly had an exchange on here literally weeks back where I said illegal immigration needed sorting and I was open to ideas but yet to hear a coherent one.

I think me and @Mikey10 had a barny on here about benefits being abused a fair few years back too when I was over zealous with saying it was being abused

Lastly I think Starmer is a whelk
 
Last edited:
ricky2tricky4city said:
Many things in the OBR forecast report post Reeves spring statement are more than a little concerning
Click to expand...
Although as you said (I think you said it), they're only of concern as Reeves has decided to tie civil service orthodoxy around her neck with her daft "fiscal rules" ...so everytime the economy goes in a direction her analysts didn't predict that noose gets tighter and tighter
 
Gutter Boy said:
Isnt the more concerning thing that the OBR are just 3 unelected, unaccountable economists, of a particular Thatcherite persuasion?
Click to expand...
That's suggesting something sinister behind the OBR's intention. The OBR's role is to provide the government independent analysis of the economic consequence of their actions. Nothing more, nothing less. The government can choose to do with it as they wish.

Word on Thatcher: Thatcher did what was necessary for the working classes of this country to live safer, longer, better lives.

Yes, she closed British industry, but it was dirty, unsafe work that kept communities in poverty ("I don't need to learn, I'll go down't pit like me father") and was dying on its ar** anyway due to competition from south Asia (textiles) and east Asia and Germany (manufacturing).

Thatcher transformed the British economy to a global services centre, playing on Britain's strengths and in the process making the call centre, retail and leisure (safe, warm, comfortable), the bastions of working class British jobs.

When Reeves gets f**ked by the OBR, it's not actually them that's f***ing her. It's her own fiscal rules that say she will not borrow to fund day-to-day expenditure (i.e. run a budget deficit). The economic situation is too volatile globally to set yourself up with that sort of commitment, which coupled with a commitment not to raise taxes can only lead to austerity. That's not some faceless OBR Thatcherite's fault, it's Reeve's own fault.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
That's suggesting something sinister behind the OBR's intention. The OBR's role is to provide the government independent analysis of the economic consequence of their actions. Nothing more, nothing less. The government can choose to do with it as they wish.

Word on Thatcher: Thatcher did what was necessary for the working classes of this country to live safer, longer, better lives.

Yes, she closed British industry, but it was dirty, unsafe work that kept communities in poverty ("I don't need to learn, I'll go down't pit like me father") and was dying on its ar** anyway due to competition from south Asia (textiles) and east Asia and Germany (manufacturing).

Thatcher transformed the British economy to a global services centre, playing on Britain's strengths and in the process making the call centre, retail and leisure (safe, warm, comfortable), the bastions of working class British jobs.

When Reeves gets f**ked by the OBR, it's not actually them that's f***ing her. It's her own fiscal rules that say she will not borrow to fund day-to-day expenditure (i.e. run a budget deficit). The economic situation is too volatile globally to set yourself up with that sort of commitment, which coupled with a commitment not to raise taxes can only lead to austerity. That's not some faceless OBR Thatcherite's fault, it's Reeve's own fault.
Click to expand...

Did you live through the Thatcher era, or is this 'learned' from somewhere? Can you offer a little more solid and supported-information on the bold-faced above?
 
thfcsteff said:
Did you live through the Thatcher era, or is this 'learned' from somewhere? Can you offer a little more solid and supported-information on the bold-faced above?
Click to expand...
I was 8 years old when Thatcher left office, although most of that time wasn't spent in the UK (i was also born abroad). I think its pretty well established and agreed that Thatcher presided over probably the biggest economic and societal change the country had seen since the industrial revolution. She closed down traditional British industry and focused growth in services. Whether what she did was a good thing is obviously still a matter of fierce debate. My parents can't stand Thatcher: Dad's been a pretty much life long member of the Labour Party and Fabian Society so definitely didn't learn it from them :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back