FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Is our government value for money?
Is our government value for money?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Simply put do you think they are? Are we getting any value from it? Is taxpayers money being wasted? What do you think the government should prioritise? With our money?" This current Government is simply wasting time and money. They are out of ideas and they are lacking the will and the imagination to resolve their own self-made crises. Unfortunately, they have also left us all with the unfortunate belief that ALL Governments are not good custodians of the public purse and that is quite unfortunate. | |||
| |||
"The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems"." It’s a time-tested trick. And people fall for it again and again. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems"." The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve." They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. | |||
"The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". It’s a time-tested trick. And people fall for it again and again. " As demonstrated by the above sarcastic post. But you're right. It works over and over again. The entire system is set up for self preservation, keep people divided, keep people blaming anyone and everything except those in power. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. " So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place?" We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. | |||
| |||
"So last year almost 716 billion was collected in tax last year this year its 786 billion. Dropped to 583 in 2021 In 2020 it was 621 billion. All this Not including council tax So it begs the question where is the money going? Year on year there has been an increase? Why do the services we pay for feel even worse though they are getting more money now" Friends and neighbours of the government took a large chunk of the for their PPE start ups in 2020/2021. Since then, who knows. | |||
"So last year almost 716 billion was collected in tax last year this year its 786 billion. Dropped to 583 in 2021 In 2020 it was 621 billion. All this Not including council tax So it begs the question where is the money going? Year on year there has been an increase? Why do the services we pay for feel even worse though they are getting more money now Friends and neighbours of the government took a large chunk of the for their PPE start ups in 2020/2021. Since then, who knows." 2020 and 2021 were down on the tax take so that doesn't answer the question. I'm going to assume that although the tax take is up in the last 2 years, so is the cost of borrowing and spending so probably a net loss. This is a guess, I haven't looked into it. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. " Why does anyone think Britain is a "global leader" and why is that important? Do people in Monaco or Liechtenstein sit around worrying about whether they are "global leaders"? Do people in Mexico or Zimbabwe wake up every day and think "ooh I wonder what the UK is doing today, let me look so I can follow it's lead"? It's total nonsense. The three main priorities for people consistently politically at the moment are the economy healthy and immigration. I'm not really convinced that people highlighting immigration as an issue are doing so because they want more of it. If you are concerned about housing then it's simply a numbers issue. Look at the growth in the population and the number of houses being built. There is an obvious mismatch. Much of population growth is driven my immigration. That simply cannot be ignored. If you want mass immigration at current levels, fine, but you are going to have to build hundreds of thousands of extra houses a year to accommodate it, and there simply isn't the appetite to do that. House pricing is simply supply and demand. Do the maths. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. Why does anyone think Britain is a "global leader" and why is that important? Do people in Monaco or Liechtenstein sit around worrying about whether they are "global leaders"? Do people in Mexico or Zimbabwe wake up every day and think "ooh I wonder what the UK is doing today, let me look so I can follow it's lead"? It's total nonsense. The three main priorities for people consistently politically at the moment are the economy healthy and immigration. I'm not really convinced that people highlighting immigration as an issue are doing so because they want more of it. If you are concerned about housing then it's simply a numbers issue. Look at the growth in the population and the number of houses being built. There is an obvious mismatch. Much of population growth is driven my immigration. That simply cannot be ignored. If you want mass immigration at current levels, fine, but you are going to have to build hundreds of thousands of extra houses a year to accommodate it, and there simply isn't the appetite to do that. House pricing is simply supply and demand. Do the maths." We haven’t built social housing at the required levels since post-WW2. It’s not an immigration problem, it’s a policy problem. And I do want immigration- because we *need* immigration in order to keep our economy afloat. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. Why does anyone think Britain is a "global leader" and why is that important? Do people in Monaco or Liechtenstein sit around worrying about whether they are "global leaders"? Do people in Mexico or Zimbabwe wake up every day and think "ooh I wonder what the UK is doing today, let me look so I can follow it's lead"? It's total nonsense. The three main priorities for people consistently politically at the moment are the economy healthy and immigration. I'm not really convinced that people highlighting immigration as an issue are doing so because they want more of it. If you are concerned about housing then it's simply a numbers issue. Look at the growth in the population and the number of houses being built. There is an obvious mismatch. Much of population growth is driven my immigration. That simply cannot be ignored. If you want mass immigration at current levels, fine, but you are going to have to build hundreds of thousands of extra houses a year to accommodate it, and there simply isn't the appetite to do that. House pricing is simply supply and demand. Do the maths. We haven’t built social housing at the required levels since post-WW2. It’s not an immigration problem, it’s a policy problem. And I do want immigration- because we *need* immigration in order to keep our economy afloat." I don't think you'll find anyone on here against 'controlled immigration' I hope you don't need me to explain what that actually means | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. Why does anyone think Britain is a "global leader" and why is that important? Do people in Monaco or Liechtenstein sit around worrying about whether they are "global leaders"? Do people in Mexico or Zimbabwe wake up every day and think "ooh I wonder what the UK is doing today, let me look so I can follow it's lead"? It's total nonsense. The three main priorities for people consistently politically at the moment are the economy healthy and immigration. I'm not really convinced that people highlighting immigration as an issue are doing so because they want more of it. If you are concerned about housing then it's simply a numbers issue. Look at the growth in the population and the number of houses being built. There is an obvious mismatch. Much of population growth is driven my immigration. That simply cannot be ignored. If you want mass immigration at current levels, fine, but you are going to have to build hundreds of thousands of extra houses a year to accommodate it, and there simply isn't the appetite to do that. House pricing is simply supply and demand. Do the maths. We haven’t built social housing at the required levels since post-WW2. It’s not an immigration problem, it’s a policy problem. And I do want immigration- because we *need* immigration in order to keep our economy afloat. I don't think you'll find anyone on here against 'controlled immigration' I hope you don't need me to explain what that actually means" I’ve already seen people on here who are against ‘controlled immigration’ (And we’ve always had ‘controlled immigration’, we just had governments who didn’t fully use the ‘controls’ available to them) | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems"." At no point as the government said small boat crossings are causing all the problems. Both main parties acknowledge it is a problem that needs to be resolved. People in the UK are saying that they do not want an influx of economic migrants being allowed to enter the country illegally. Can you see how that is now something the government are expected to deal with? | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". At no point as the government said small boat crossings are causing all the problems. Both main parties acknowledge it is a problem that needs to be resolved. People in the UK are saying that they do not want an influx of economic migrants being allowed to enter the country illegally. Can you see how that is now something the government are expected to deal with? " Illegal entrants by definition aren’t economic migrants, because illegal entrants are unable to work. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. Why does anyone think Britain is a "global leader" and why is that important? Do people in Monaco or Liechtenstein sit around worrying about whether they are "global leaders"? Do people in Mexico or Zimbabwe wake up every day and think "ooh I wonder what the UK is doing today, let me look so I can follow it's lead"? It's total nonsense. The three main priorities for people consistently politically at the moment are the economy healthy and immigration. I'm not really convinced that people highlighting immigration as an issue are doing so because they want more of it. If you are concerned about housing then it's simply a numbers issue. Look at the growth in the population and the number of houses being built. There is an obvious mismatch. Much of population growth is driven my immigration. That simply cannot be ignored. If you want mass immigration at current levels, fine, but you are going to have to build hundreds of thousands of extra houses a year to accommodate it, and there simply isn't the appetite to do that. House pricing is simply supply and demand. Do the maths. We haven’t built social housing at the required levels since post-WW2. It’s not an immigration problem, it’s a policy problem. And I do want immigration- because we *need* immigration in order to keep our economy afloat. I don't think you'll find anyone on here against 'controlled immigration' I hope you don't need me to explain what that actually means I’ve already seen people on here who are against ‘controlled immigration’ (And we’ve always had ‘controlled immigration’, we just had governments who didn’t fully use the ‘controls’ available to them)" I guess you really don't understand what that means then. 'Controlled immigration' for me (and many many others) is using a SOL, very much like Australia. I mean if your argument for immigration is economy as you said, it makes perfect sense. 'Controlled immigration' did not exist within the EU regardless of how you try to spin it. I don't think many would be against it. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". At no point as the government said small boat crossings are causing all the problems. Both main parties acknowledge it is a problem that needs to be resolved. People in the UK are saying that they do not want an influx of economic migrants being allowed to enter the country illegally. Can you see how that is now something the government are expected to deal with? Illegal entrants by definition aren’t economic migrants, because illegal entrants are unable to work. " But they will get benefits until granted asylum and work permits. Either that or disappear and work underground. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. Why does anyone think Britain is a "global leader" and why is that important? Do people in Monaco or Liechtenstein sit around worrying about whether they are "global leaders"? Do people in Mexico or Zimbabwe wake up every day and think "ooh I wonder what the UK is doing today, let me look so I can follow it's lead"? It's total nonsense. The three main priorities for people consistently politically at the moment are the economy healthy and immigration. I'm not really convinced that people highlighting immigration as an issue are doing so because they want more of it. If you are concerned about housing then it's simply a numbers issue. Look at the growth in the population and the number of houses being built. There is an obvious mismatch. Much of population growth is driven my immigration. That simply cannot be ignored. If you want mass immigration at current levels, fine, but you are going to have to build hundreds of thousands of extra houses a year to accommodate it, and there simply isn't the appetite to do that. House pricing is simply supply and demand. Do the maths. We haven’t built social housing at the required levels since post-WW2. It’s not an immigration problem, it’s a policy problem. And I do want immigration- because we *need* immigration in order to keep our economy afloat. I don't think you'll find anyone on here against 'controlled immigration' I hope you don't need me to explain what that actually means I’ve already seen people on here who are against ‘controlled immigration’ (And we’ve always had ‘controlled immigration’, we just had governments who didn’t fully use the ‘controls’ available to them) I guess you really don't understand what that means then. 'Controlled immigration' for me (and many many others) is using a SOL, very much like Australia. I mean if your argument for immigration is economy as you said, it makes perfect sense. 'Controlled immigration' did not exist within the EU regardless of how you try to spin it. I don't think many would be against it." We weren’t in Schengen so we had border checks. And there are EU rules about deporting those who are unable to provide for themselves or work. We chose not to use those rules. And non-EU migration (the majority to the U.K.) was always able to be controlled - again, govt chose their policies. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. Why does anyone think Britain is a "global leader" and why is that important? Do people in Monaco or Liechtenstein sit around worrying about whether they are "global leaders"? Do people in Mexico or Zimbabwe wake up every day and think "ooh I wonder what the UK is doing today, let me look so I can follow it's lead"? It's total nonsense. The three main priorities for people consistently politically at the moment are the economy healthy and immigration. I'm not really convinced that people highlighting immigration as an issue are doing so because they want more of it. If you are concerned about housing then it's simply a numbers issue. Look at the growth in the population and the number of houses being built. There is an obvious mismatch. Much of population growth is driven my immigration. That simply cannot be ignored. If you want mass immigration at current levels, fine, but you are going to have to build hundreds of thousands of extra houses a year to accommodate it, and there simply isn't the appetite to do that. House pricing is simply supply and demand. Do the maths. We haven’t built social housing at the required levels since post-WW2. It’s not an immigration problem, it’s a policy problem. And I do want immigration- because we *need* immigration in order to keep our economy afloat." Well I think it's a matter of opinion as to whether our economy "needs" so much immigration, or whether it has simply become reliant on cheap foreign labour as it's the easy option. If you want to build hundreds of thousands of extra social homes every year to house immigrants that's fine, but you need to explain which public services you are going to cut to fund it. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". At no point as the government said small boat crossings are causing all the problems. Both main parties acknowledge it is a problem that needs to be resolved. People in the UK are saying that they do not want an influx of economic migrants being allowed to enter the country illegally. Can you see how that is now something the government are expected to deal with? Illegal entrants by definition aren’t economic migrants, because illegal entrants are unable to work. But they will get benefits until granted asylum and work permits. Either that or disappear and work underground." Do you know what benefits they get, out of interest? | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". At no point as the government said small boat crossings are causing all the problems. Both main parties acknowledge it is a problem that needs to be resolved. People in the UK are saying that they do not want an influx of economic migrants being allowed to enter the country illegally. Can you see how that is now something the government are expected to deal with? " I used the line "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems" because it summarises the governments message. There isn't enough time and space to articulate every single piece of government anti-immigrant rhetoric in here. I assumed it would be okay to paraphrase. It's in the government's interest to keep this issue alive and in the forefront of people's minds. It's an extremely effective tool for them. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. Why does anyone think Britain is a "global leader" and why is that important? Do people in Monaco or Liechtenstein sit around worrying about whether they are "global leaders"? Do people in Mexico or Zimbabwe wake up every day and think "ooh I wonder what the UK is doing today, let me look so I can follow it's lead"? It's total nonsense. The three main priorities for people consistently politically at the moment are the economy healthy and immigration. I'm not really convinced that people highlighting immigration as an issue are doing so because they want more of it. If you are concerned about housing then it's simply a numbers issue. Look at the growth in the population and the number of houses being built. There is an obvious mismatch. Much of population growth is driven my immigration. That simply cannot be ignored. If you want mass immigration at current levels, fine, but you are going to have to build hundreds of thousands of extra houses a year to accommodate it, and there simply isn't the appetite to do that. House pricing is simply supply and demand. Do the maths. We haven’t built social housing at the required levels since post-WW2. It’s not an immigration problem, it’s a policy problem. And I do want immigration- because we *need* immigration in order to keep our economy afloat. I don't think you'll find anyone on here against 'controlled immigration' I hope you don't need me to explain what that actually means I’ve already seen people on here who are against ‘controlled immigration’ (And we’ve always had ‘controlled immigration’, we just had governments who didn’t fully use the ‘controls’ available to them) I guess you really don't understand what that means then. 'Controlled immigration' for me (and many many others) is using a SOL, very much like Australia. I mean if your argument for immigration is economy as you said, it makes perfect sense. 'Controlled immigration' did not exist within the EU regardless of how you try to spin it. I don't think many would be against it. We weren’t in Schengen so we had border checks. And there are EU rules about deporting those who are unable to provide for themselves or work. We chose not to use those rules. And non-EU migration (the majority to the U.K.) was always able to be controlled - again, govt chose their policies. " This is one of those occasions where you won't listen to other opinions and thoughts. Whether the government chose to use or not, it wasn't controlled. | |||
"So last year almost 716 billion was collected in tax last year this year its 786 billion. Dropped to 583 in 2021 In 2020 it was 621 billion. All this Not including council tax So it begs the question where is the money going? Year on year there has been an increase? Why do the services we pay for feel even worse though they are getting more money now Friends and neighbours of the government took a large chunk of the for their PPE start ups in 2020/2021. Since then, who knows. 2020 and 2021 were down on the tax take so that doesn't answer the question. I'm going to assume that although the tax take is up in the last 2 years, so is the cost of borrowing and spending so probably a net loss. This is a guess, I haven't looked into it." You'll notice I didn't claim to answer the question. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. Why does anyone think Britain is a "global leader" and why is that important? Do people in Monaco or Liechtenstein sit around worrying about whether they are "global leaders"? Do people in Mexico or Zimbabwe wake up every day and think "ooh I wonder what the UK is doing today, let me look so I can follow it's lead"? It's total nonsense. The three main priorities for people consistently politically at the moment are the economy healthy and immigration. I'm not really convinced that people highlighting immigration as an issue are doing so because they want more of it. If you are concerned about housing then it's simply a numbers issue. Look at the growth in the population and the number of houses being built. There is an obvious mismatch. Much of population growth is driven my immigration. That simply cannot be ignored. If you want mass immigration at current levels, fine, but you are going to have to build hundreds of thousands of extra houses a year to accommodate it, and there simply isn't the appetite to do that. House pricing is simply supply and demand. Do the maths. We haven’t built social housing at the required levels since post-WW2. It’s not an immigration problem, it’s a policy problem. And I do want immigration- because we *need* immigration in order to keep our economy afloat. Well I think it's a matter of opinion as to whether our economy "needs" so much immigration, or whether it has simply become reliant on cheap foreign labour as it's the easy option. If you want to build hundreds of thousands of extra social homes every year to house immigrants that's fine, but you need to explain which public services you are going to cut to fund it. " We face a pension and healthcare crisis and need working immigrants to plug the many gaps and pay for it. You want your pension, right? Want healthcare as you get older? You want immigrants, believe me. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". At no point as the government said small boat crossings are causing all the problems. Both main parties acknowledge it is a problem that needs to be resolved. People in the UK are saying that they do not want an influx of economic migrants being allowed to enter the country illegally. Can you see how that is now something the government are expected to deal with? Illegal entrants by definition aren’t economic migrants, because illegal entrants are unable to work. But they will get benefits until granted asylum and work permits. Either that or disappear and work underground. Do you know what benefits they get, out of interest? " Google can help you. I'm sure that's how this works  | |||
"So last year almost 716 billion was collected in tax last year this year its 786 billion. Dropped to 583 in 2021 In 2020 it was 621 billion. All this Not including council tax So it begs the question where is the money going? Year on year there has been an increase? Why do the services we pay for feel even worse though they are getting more money now Friends and neighbours of the government took a large chunk of the for their PPE start ups in 2020/2021. Since then, who knows. 2020 and 2021 were down on the tax take so that doesn't answer the question. I'm going to assume that although the tax take is up in the last 2 years, so is the cost of borrowing and spending so probably a net loss. This is a guess, I haven't looked into it. You'll notice I didn't claim to answer the question. " If you weren't attempting to answer the question then your post was nonsense. The OP asked a question. You replied directly to the OP. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. Why does anyone think Britain is a "global leader" and why is that important? Do people in Monaco or Liechtenstein sit around worrying about whether they are "global leaders"? Do people in Mexico or Zimbabwe wake up every day and think "ooh I wonder what the UK is doing today, let me look so I can follow it's lead"? It's total nonsense. The three main priorities for people consistently politically at the moment are the economy healthy and immigration. I'm not really convinced that people highlighting immigration as an issue are doing so because they want more of it. If you are concerned about housing then it's simply a numbers issue. Look at the growth in the population and the number of houses being built. There is an obvious mismatch. Much of population growth is driven my immigration. That simply cannot be ignored. If you want mass immigration at current levels, fine, but you are going to have to build hundreds of thousands of extra houses a year to accommodate it, and there simply isn't the appetite to do that. House pricing is simply supply and demand. Do the maths. We haven’t built social housing at the required levels since post-WW2. It’s not an immigration problem, it’s a policy problem. And I do want immigration- because we *need* immigration in order to keep our economy afloat. I don't think you'll find anyone on here against 'controlled immigration' I hope you don't need me to explain what that actually means I’ve already seen people on here who are against ‘controlled immigration’ (And we’ve always had ‘controlled immigration’, we just had governments who didn’t fully use the ‘controls’ available to them) I guess you really don't understand what that means then. 'Controlled immigration' for me (and many many others) is using a SOL, very much like Australia. I mean if your argument for immigration is economy as you said, it makes perfect sense. 'Controlled immigration' did not exist within the EU regardless of how you try to spin it. I don't think many would be against it. We weren’t in Schengen so we had border checks. And there are EU rules about deporting those who are unable to provide for themselves or work. We chose not to use those rules. And non-EU migration (the majority to the U.K.) was always able to be controlled - again, govt chose their policies. This is one of those occasions where you won't listen to other opinions and thoughts. Whether the government chose to use or not, it wasn't controlled." Government chose not to use the immigration controls available to them You blame the system and not the government. If I have an oven glove available and I choose not to use it, do you blame the pan for burning me? | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". At no point as the government said small boat crossings are causing all the problems. Both main parties acknowledge it is a problem that needs to be resolved. People in the UK are saying that they do not want an influx of economic migrants being allowed to enter the country illegally. Can you see how that is now something the government are expected to deal with? Illegal entrants by definition aren’t economic migrants, because illegal entrants are unable to work. But they will get benefits until granted asylum and work permits. Either that or disappear and work underground. Do you know what benefits they get, out of interest? Google can help you. I'm sure that's how this works "Oh, I know the answer already. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. Why does anyone think Britain is a "global leader" and why is that important? Do people in Monaco or Liechtenstein sit around worrying about whether they are "global leaders"? Do people in Mexico or Zimbabwe wake up every day and think "ooh I wonder what the UK is doing today, let me look so I can follow it's lead"? It's total nonsense. The three main priorities for people consistently politically at the moment are the economy healthy and immigration. I'm not really convinced that people highlighting immigration as an issue are doing so because they want more of it. If you are concerned about housing then it's simply a numbers issue. Look at the growth in the population and the number of houses being built. There is an obvious mismatch. Much of population growth is driven my immigration. That simply cannot be ignored. If you want mass immigration at current levels, fine, but you are going to have to build hundreds of thousands of extra houses a year to accommodate it, and there simply isn't the appetite to do that. House pricing is simply supply and demand. Do the maths. We haven’t built social housing at the required levels since post-WW2. It’s not an immigration problem, it’s a policy problem. And I do want immigration- because we *need* immigration in order to keep our economy afloat. I don't think you'll find anyone on here against 'controlled immigration' I hope you don't need me to explain what that actually means I’ve already seen people on here who are against ‘controlled immigration’ (And we’ve always had ‘controlled immigration’, we just had governments who didn’t fully use the ‘controls’ available to them) I guess you really don't understand what that means then. 'Controlled immigration' for me (and many many others) is using a SOL, very much like Australia. I mean if your argument for immigration is economy as you said, it makes perfect sense. 'Controlled immigration' did not exist within the EU regardless of how you try to spin it. I don't think many would be against it. We weren’t in Schengen so we had border checks. And there are EU rules about deporting those who are unable to provide for themselves or work. We chose not to use those rules. And non-EU migration (the majority to the U.K.) was always able to be controlled - again, govt chose their policies. This is one of those occasions where you won't listen to other opinions and thoughts. Whether the government chose to use or not, it wasn't controlled. Government chose not to use the immigration controls available to them You blame the system and not the government. If I have an oven glove available and I choose not to use it, do you blame the pan for burning me? " I'm not blaming the system. I'm saying people want controlled immigration | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". At no point as the government said small boat crossings are causing all the problems. Both main parties acknowledge it is a problem that needs to be resolved. People in the UK are saying that they do not want an influx of economic migrants being allowed to enter the country illegally. Can you see how that is now something the government are expected to deal with? Illegal entrants by definition aren’t economic migrants, because illegal entrants are unable to work. But they will get benefits until granted asylum and work permits. Either that or disappear and work underground. Do you know what benefits they get, out of interest? Google can help you. I'm sure that's how this works
Oh, I know the answer already."Then why ask? Are you going to tell me its pittance? | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". At no point as the government said small boat crossings are causing all the problems. Both main parties acknowledge it is a problem that needs to be resolved. People in the UK are saying that they do not want an influx of economic migrants being allowed to enter the country illegally. Can you see how that is now something the government are expected to deal with? I used the line "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems" because it summarises the governments message. There isn't enough time and space to articulate every single piece of government anti-immigrant rhetoric in here. I assumed it would be okay to paraphrase. It's in the government's interest to keep this issue alive and in the forefront of people's minds. It's an extremely effective tool for them." I'm sorry Johnny, you throw this message out at every opportunity, as if it is true. If you are saying the government are always trying to distract then why not say that? We are smart enough to understand those words without the adding unfounded narrative bolted on, it is almost a kind of subliminal messaging you have going on there. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". At no point as the government said small boat crossings are causing all the problems. Both main parties acknowledge it is a problem that needs to be resolved. People in the UK are saying that they do not want an influx of economic migrants being allowed to enter the country illegally. Can you see how that is now something the government are expected to deal with? Illegal entrants by definition aren’t economic migrants, because illegal entrants are unable to work. But they will get benefits until granted asylum and work permits. Either that or disappear and work underground. Do you know what benefits they get, out of interest? Google can help you. I'm sure that's how this works
Oh, I know the answer already.
Then why ask? Are you going to tell me its pittance?
"Another poster said they get benefits while their asylum is processed. I’m gauging his knowledge of what benefits they get. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. Why does anyone think Britain is a "global leader" and why is that important? Do people in Monaco or Liechtenstein sit around worrying about whether they are "global leaders"? Do people in Mexico or Zimbabwe wake up every day and think "ooh I wonder what the UK is doing today, let me look so I can follow it's lead"? It's total nonsense. The three main priorities for people consistently politically at the moment are the economy healthy and immigration. I'm not really convinced that people highlighting immigration as an issue are doing so because they want more of it. If you are concerned about housing then it's simply a numbers issue. Look at the growth in the population and the number of houses being built. There is an obvious mismatch. Much of population growth is driven my immigration. That simply cannot be ignored. If you want mass immigration at current levels, fine, but you are going to have to build hundreds of thousands of extra houses a year to accommodate it, and there simply isn't the appetite to do that. House pricing is simply supply and demand. Do the maths. We haven’t built social housing at the required levels since post-WW2. It’s not an immigration problem, it’s a policy problem. And I do want immigration- because we *need* immigration in order to keep our economy afloat. Well I think it's a matter of opinion as to whether our economy "needs" so much immigration, or whether it has simply become reliant on cheap foreign labour as it's the easy option. If you want to build hundreds of thousands of extra social homes every year to house immigrants that's fine, but you need to explain which public services you are going to cut to fund it. We face a pension and healthcare crisis and need working immigrants to plug the many gaps and pay for it. You want your pension, right? Want healthcare as you get older? You want immigrants, believe me." What is a "pensions crisis" and how are immigrants going to help? In terms of healthcare the entire system needs overhauling. "Our NHS" simply isn't working. The only reason we continue with it is purely ideological. In terms of staffing both in the NHS and generally the economy needs to wean itself off cheap foreign labour, instead of having millions of people in the UK living on benefits and importing foreigners to do the work. The Left's view on foreign workers is quite odd I find. 150 years ago if cheap labour was brought in from the neighbouring village workers would have called them scabs. Now cheap labour is brought in from overseas and the Left thinks it's marvellous. One of the many reasons why the Left has lost its way. | |||
"So last year almost 716 billion was collected in tax last year this year its 786 billion. Dropped to 583 in 2021 In 2020 it was 621 billion. All this Not including council tax So it begs the question where is the money going? Year on year there has been an increase? Why do the services we pay for feel even worse though they are getting more money now Friends and neighbours of the government took a large chunk of the for their PPE start ups in 2020/2021. Since then, who knows. 2020 and 2021 were down on the tax take so that doesn't answer the question. I'm going to assume that although the tax take is up in the last 2 years, so is the cost of borrowing and spending so probably a net loss. This is a guess, I haven't looked into it. You'll notice I didn't claim to answer the question. If you weren't attempting to answer the question then your post was nonsense. The OP asked a question. You replied directly to the OP." I was joining the discussion. Anyway, this feels like it's going to descend into the standard personal jabs. So I will leave you all to it. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". At no point as the government said small boat crossings are causing all the problems. Both main parties acknowledge it is a problem that needs to be resolved. People in the UK are saying that they do not want an influx of economic migrants being allowed to enter the country illegally. Can you see how that is now something the government are expected to deal with? Illegal entrants by definition aren’t economic migrants, because illegal entrants are unable to work. But they will get benefits until granted asylum and work permits. Either that or disappear and work underground. Do you know what benefits they get, out of interest? Google can help you. I'm sure that's how this works
Oh, I know the answer already.
Then why ask? Are you going to tell me its pittance?
Another poster said they get benefits while their asylum is processed. I’m gauging his knowledge of what benefits they get."That wasn't another poster, that was me. Are you denying they get benefits or was I being factual? | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. Why does anyone think Britain is a "global leader" and why is that important? Do people in Monaco or Liechtenstein sit around worrying about whether they are "global leaders"? Do people in Mexico or Zimbabwe wake up every day and think "ooh I wonder what the UK is doing today, let me look so I can follow it's lead"? It's total nonsense. The three main priorities for people consistently politically at the moment are the economy healthy and immigration. I'm not really convinced that people highlighting immigration as an issue are doing so because they want more of it. If you are concerned about housing then it's simply a numbers issue. Look at the growth in the population and the number of houses being built. There is an obvious mismatch. Much of population growth is driven my immigration. That simply cannot be ignored. If you want mass immigration at current levels, fine, but you are going to have to build hundreds of thousands of extra houses a year to accommodate it, and there simply isn't the appetite to do that. House pricing is simply supply and demand. Do the maths. We haven’t built social housing at the required levels since post-WW2. It’s not an immigration problem, it’s a policy problem. And I do want immigration- because we *need* immigration in order to keep our economy afloat. Well I think it's a matter of opinion as to whether our economy "needs" so much immigration, or whether it has simply become reliant on cheap foreign labour as it's the easy option. If you want to build hundreds of thousands of extra social homes every year to house immigrants that's fine, but you need to explain which public services you are going to cut to fund it. We face a pension and healthcare crisis and need working immigrants to plug the many gaps and pay for it. You want your pension, right? Want healthcare as you get older? You want immigrants, believe me. What is a "pensions crisis" and how are immigrants going to help? In terms of healthcare the entire system needs overhauling. "Our NHS" simply isn't working. The only reason we continue with it is purely ideological. In terms of staffing both in the NHS and generally the economy needs to wean itself off cheap foreign labour, instead of having millions of people in the UK living on benefits and importing foreigners to do the work. The Left's view on foreign workers is quite odd I find. 150 years ago if cheap labour was brought in from the neighbouring village workers would have called them scabs. Now cheap labour is brought in from overseas and the Left thinks it's marvellous. One of the many reasons why the Left has lost its way." Immigrants help the pension crisis by working and paying tax. The current generation of workers pay the pensions of the previous generation - that’s how the system works. You want to reduce immigration, slow the economy - that financial knock on effect has to go somewhere. | |||
| |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". At no point as the government said small boat crossings are causing all the problems. Both main parties acknowledge it is a problem that needs to be resolved. People in the UK are saying that they do not want an influx of economic migrants being allowed to enter the country illegally. Can you see how that is now something the government are expected to deal with? Illegal entrants by definition aren’t economic migrants, because illegal entrants are unable to work. But they will get benefits until granted asylum and work permits. Either that or disappear and work underground. Do you know what benefits they get, out of interest? Google can help you. I'm sure that's how this works
Oh, I know the answer already.
Then why ask? Are you going to tell me its pittance?
Another poster said they get benefits while their asylum is processed. I’m gauging his knowledge of what benefits they get.
That wasn't another poster, that was me. Are you denying they get benefits or was I being factual?"Did I deny they get benefits? I asked what benefits they get. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. Why does anyone think Britain is a "global leader" and why is that important? Do people in Monaco or Liechtenstein sit around worrying about whether they are "global leaders"? Do people in Mexico or Zimbabwe wake up every day and think "ooh I wonder what the UK is doing today, let me look so I can follow it's lead"? It's total nonsense. The three main priorities for people consistently politically at the moment are the economy healthy and immigration. I'm not really convinced that people highlighting immigration as an issue are doing so because they want more of it. If you are concerned about housing then it's simply a numbers issue. Look at the growth in the population and the number of houses being built. There is an obvious mismatch. Much of population growth is driven my immigration. That simply cannot be ignored. If you want mass immigration at current levels, fine, but you are going to have to build hundreds of thousands of extra houses a year to accommodate it, and there simply isn't the appetite to do that. House pricing is simply supply and demand. Do the maths. We haven’t built social housing at the required levels since post-WW2. It’s not an immigration problem, it’s a policy problem. And I do want immigration- because we *need* immigration in order to keep our economy afloat. Well I think it's a matter of opinion as to whether our economy "needs" so much immigration, or whether it has simply become reliant on cheap foreign labour as it's the easy option. If you want to build hundreds of thousands of extra social homes every year to house immigrants that's fine, but you need to explain which public services you are going to cut to fund it. We face a pension and healthcare crisis and need working immigrants to plug the many gaps and pay for it. You want your pension, right? Want healthcare as you get older? You want immigrants, believe me. What is a "pensions crisis" and how are immigrants going to help? In terms of healthcare the entire system needs overhauling. "Our NHS" simply isn't working. The only reason we continue with it is purely ideological. In terms of staffing both in the NHS and generally the economy needs to wean itself off cheap foreign labour, instead of having millions of people in the UK living on benefits and importing foreigners to do the work. The Left's view on foreign workers is quite odd I find. 150 years ago if cheap labour was brought in from the neighbouring village workers would have called them scabs. Now cheap labour is brought in from overseas and the Left thinks it's marvellous. One of the many reasons why the Left has lost its way. Immigrants help the pension crisis by working and paying tax. The current generation of workers pay the pensions of the previous generation - that’s how the system works. You want to reduce immigration, slow the economy - that financial knock on effect has to go somewhere. " You sound suspiciously like Jeremy Hunt. Are you sure you aren't a Conservative voter? | |||
"So last year almost 716 billion was collected in tax last year this year its 786 billion. Dropped to 583 in 2021 In 2020 it was 621 billion. All this Not including council tax So it begs the question where is the money going? Year on year there has been an increase? Why do the services we pay for feel even worse though they are getting more money now Friends and neighbours of the government took a large chunk of the for their PPE start ups in 2020/2021. Since then, who knows. 2020 and 2021 were down on the tax take so that doesn't answer the question. I'm going to assume that although the tax take is up in the last 2 years, so is the cost of borrowing and spending so probably a net loss. This is a guess, I haven't looked into it. You'll notice I didn't claim to answer the question. If you weren't attempting to answer the question then your post was nonsense. The OP asked a question. You replied directly to the OP. I was joining the discussion. Anyway, this feels like it's going to descend into the standard personal jabs. So I will leave you all to it." You keep going on about 'personal insults', if you think I insulted you then I genuinely don't think this forum is a good place for you to be. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. Why does anyone think Britain is a "global leader" and why is that important? Do people in Monaco or Liechtenstein sit around worrying about whether they are "global leaders"? Do people in Mexico or Zimbabwe wake up every day and think "ooh I wonder what the UK is doing today, let me look so I can follow it's lead"? It's total nonsense. The three main priorities for people consistently politically at the moment are the economy healthy and immigration. I'm not really convinced that people highlighting immigration as an issue are doing so because they want more of it. If you are concerned about housing then it's simply a numbers issue. Look at the growth in the population and the number of houses being built. There is an obvious mismatch. Much of population growth is driven my immigration. That simply cannot be ignored. If you want mass immigration at current levels, fine, but you are going to have to build hundreds of thousands of extra houses a year to accommodate it, and there simply isn't the appetite to do that. House pricing is simply supply and demand. Do the maths. We haven’t built social housing at the required levels since post-WW2. It’s not an immigration problem, it’s a policy problem. And I do want immigration- because we *need* immigration in order to keep our economy afloat. Well I think it's a matter of opinion as to whether our economy "needs" so much immigration, or whether it has simply become reliant on cheap foreign labour as it's the easy option. If you want to build hundreds of thousands of extra social homes every year to house immigrants that's fine, but you need to explain which public services you are going to cut to fund it. We face a pension and healthcare crisis and need working immigrants to plug the many gaps and pay for it. You want your pension, right? Want healthcare as you get older? You want immigrants, believe me. What is a "pensions crisis" and how are immigrants going to help? In terms of healthcare the entire system needs overhauling. "Our NHS" simply isn't working. The only reason we continue with it is purely ideological. In terms of staffing both in the NHS and generally the economy needs to wean itself off cheap foreign labour, instead of having millions of people in the UK living on benefits and importing foreigners to do the work. The Left's view on foreign workers is quite odd I find. 150 years ago if cheap labour was brought in from the neighbouring village workers would have called them scabs. Now cheap labour is brought in from overseas and the Left thinks it's marvellous. One of the many reasons why the Left has lost its way. Immigrants help the pension crisis by working and paying tax. The current generation of workers pay the pensions of the previous generation - that’s how the system works. You want to reduce immigration, slow the economy - that financial knock on effect has to go somewhere. You sound suspiciously like Jeremy Hunt. Are you sure you aren't a Conservative voter?" Because I understand how pensions work? | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". At no point as the government said small boat crossings are causing all the problems. Both main parties acknowledge it is a problem that needs to be resolved. People in the UK are saying that they do not want an influx of economic migrants being allowed to enter the country illegally. Can you see how that is now something the government are expected to deal with? Illegal entrants by definition aren’t economic migrants, because illegal entrants are unable to work. But they will get benefits until granted asylum and work permits. Either that or disappear and work underground. Do you know what benefits they get, out of interest? Google can help you. I'm sure that's how this works
Oh, I know the answer already.
Then why ask? Are you going to tell me its pittance?
Another poster said they get benefits while their asylum is processed. I’m gauging his knowledge of what benefits they get.
That wasn't another poster, that was me. Are you denying they get benefits or was I being factual?
Did I deny they get benefits? I asked what benefits they get.
"You claim to already know? Was it a genuine question? | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". At no point as the government said small boat crossings are causing all the problems. Both main parties acknowledge it is a problem that needs to be resolved. People in the UK are saying that they do not want an influx of economic migrants being allowed to enter the country illegally. Can you see how that is now something the government are expected to deal with? Illegal entrants by definition aren’t economic migrants, because illegal entrants are unable to work. But they will get benefits until granted asylum and work permits. Either that or disappear and work underground. Do you know what benefits they get, out of interest? Google can help you. I'm sure that's how this works
Oh, I know the answer already.
Then why ask? Are you going to tell me its pittance?
Another poster said they get benefits while their asylum is processed. I’m gauging his knowledge of what benefits they get.
That wasn't another poster, that was me. Are you denying they get benefits or was I being factual?
Did I deny they get benefits? I asked what benefits they get.
You claim to already know? Was it a genuine question?"Yes it was. There’s some bizarre thought out there that asylum seekers benefits are sizeable when they’re actually slim pickings. Im always keen to dispel the myth. | |||
"So last year almost 716 billion was collected in tax last year this year its 786 billion. Dropped to 583 in 2021 In 2020 it was 621 billion. All this Not including council tax So it begs the question where is the money going? Year on year there has been an increase? Why do the services we pay for feel even worse though they are getting more money now Friends and neighbours of the government took a large chunk of the for their PPE start ups in 2020/2021. Since then, who knows. 2020 and 2021 were down on the tax take so that doesn't answer the question. I'm going to assume that although the tax take is up in the last 2 years, so is the cost of borrowing and spending so probably a net loss. This is a guess, I haven't looked into it. You'll notice I didn't claim to answer the question. If you weren't attempting to answer the question then your post was nonsense. The OP asked a question. You replied directly to the OP. I was joining the discussion. Anyway, this feels like it's going to descend into the standard personal jabs. So I will leave you all to it. You keep going on about 'personal insults', if you think I insulted you then I genuinely don't think this forum is a good place for you to be." You misquoted me there. Have fun.  | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. Why does anyone think Britain is a "global leader" and why is that important? Do people in Monaco or Liechtenstein sit around worrying about whether they are "global leaders"? Do people in Mexico or Zimbabwe wake up every day and think "ooh I wonder what the UK is doing today, let me look so I can follow it's lead"? It's total nonsense. The three main priorities for people consistently politically at the moment are the economy healthy and immigration. I'm not really convinced that people highlighting immigration as an issue are doing so because they want more of it. If you are concerned about housing then it's simply a numbers issue. Look at the growth in the population and the number of houses being built. There is an obvious mismatch. Much of population growth is driven my immigration. That simply cannot be ignored. If you want mass immigration at current levels, fine, but you are going to have to build hundreds of thousands of extra houses a year to accommodate it, and there simply isn't the appetite to do that. House pricing is simply supply and demand. Do the maths. We haven’t built social housing at the required levels since post-WW2. It’s not an immigration problem, it’s a policy problem. And I do want immigration- because we *need* immigration in order to keep our economy afloat. Well I think it's a matter of opinion as to whether our economy "needs" so much immigration, or whether it has simply become reliant on cheap foreign labour as it's the easy option. If you want to build hundreds of thousands of extra social homes every year to house immigrants that's fine, but you need to explain which public services you are going to cut to fund it. We face a pension and healthcare crisis and need working immigrants to plug the many gaps and pay for it. You want your pension, right? Want healthcare as you get older? You want immigrants, believe me. What is a "pensions crisis" and how are immigrants going to help? In terms of healthcare the entire system needs overhauling. "Our NHS" simply isn't working. The only reason we continue with it is purely ideological. In terms of staffing both in the NHS and generally the economy needs to wean itself off cheap foreign labour, instead of having millions of people in the UK living on benefits and importing foreigners to do the work. The Left's view on foreign workers is quite odd I find. 150 years ago if cheap labour was brought in from the neighbouring village workers would have called them scabs. Now cheap labour is brought in from overseas and the Left thinks it's marvellous. One of the many reasons why the Left has lost its way. Immigrants help the pension crisis by working and paying tax. The current generation of workers pay the pensions of the previous generation - that’s how the system works. You want to reduce immigration, slow the economy - that financial knock on effect has to go somewhere. You sound suspiciously like Jeremy Hunt. Are you sure you aren't a Conservative voter? Because I understand how pensions work? " Don't worry I understand exactly how pensions work....my financial adviser explains it all to me very regularly. No because the views you are expressing are exactly those that Jeremy Hunt expresses, and it's exactly how the country has been run under the Conservatives. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". At no point as the government said small boat crossings are causing all the problems. Both main parties acknowledge it is a problem that needs to be resolved. People in the UK are saying that they do not want an influx of economic migrants being allowed to enter the country illegally. Can you see how that is now something the government are expected to deal with? Illegal entrants by definition aren’t economic migrants, because illegal entrants are unable to work. But they will get benefits until granted asylum and work permits. Either that or disappear and work underground. Do you know what benefits they get, out of interest? Google can help you. I'm sure that's how this works
Oh, I know the answer already.
Then why ask? Are you going to tell me its pittance?
Another poster said they get benefits while their asylum is processed. I’m gauging his knowledge of what benefits they get.
That wasn't another poster, that was me. Are you denying they get benefits or was I being factual?
Did I deny they get benefits? I asked what benefits they get.
You claim to already know? Was it a genuine question?
Yes it was. There’s some bizarre thought out there that asylum seekers benefits are sizeable when they’re actually slim pickings. Im always keen to dispel the myth."No one claimed they were sizeable. The statement was factual. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". At no point as the government said small boat crossings are causing all the problems. Both main parties acknowledge it is a problem that needs to be resolved. People in the UK are saying that they do not want an influx of economic migrants being allowed to enter the country illegally. Can you see how that is now something the government are expected to deal with? Illegal entrants by definition aren’t economic migrants, because illegal entrants are unable to work. But they will get benefits until granted asylum and work permits. Either that or disappear and work underground. Do you know what benefits they get, out of interest? Google can help you. I'm sure that's how this works
Oh, I know the answer already.
Then why ask? Are you going to tell me its pittance?
Another poster said they get benefits while their asylum is processed. I’m gauging his knowledge of what benefits they get.
That wasn't another poster, that was me. Are you denying they get benefits or was I being factual?
Did I deny they get benefits? I asked what benefits they get.
You claim to already know? Was it a genuine question?
Yes it was. There’s some bizarre thought out there that asylum seekers benefits are sizeable when they’re actually slim pickings. Im always keen to dispel the myth.
No one claimed they were sizeable. The statement was factual."*sigh* That’s why I said that there’s a thought out there that they are. I’m glad you realise they’re not, some aren’t so switched on to the facts | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". At no point as the government said small boat crossings are causing all the problems. Both main parties acknowledge it is a problem that needs to be resolved. People in the UK are saying that they do not want an influx of economic migrants being allowed to enter the country illegally. Can you see how that is now something the government are expected to deal with? Illegal entrants by definition aren’t economic migrants, because illegal entrants are unable to work. But they will get benefits until granted asylum and work permits. Either that or disappear and work underground. Do you know what benefits they get, out of interest? Google can help you. I'm sure that's how this works
Oh, I know the answer already.
Then why ask? Are you going to tell me its pittance?
Another poster said they get benefits while their asylum is processed. I’m gauging his knowledge of what benefits they get.
That wasn't another poster, that was me. Are you denying they get benefits or was I being factual?
Did I deny they get benefits? I asked what benefits they get.
You claim to already know? Was it a genuine question?
Yes it was. There’s some bizarre thought out there that asylum seekers benefits are sizeable when they’re actually slim pickings. Im always keen to dispel the myth.
No one claimed they were sizeable. The statement was factual.
*sigh*
That’s why I said that there’s a thought out there that they are. I’m glad you realise they’re not, some aren’t so switched on to the facts "Not sure why your sighing bud. You're the one who's wasted the time. I made a factual statement, there needn't have been this merry go round. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. Why does anyone think Britain is a "global leader" and why is that important? Do people in Monaco or Liechtenstein sit around worrying about whether they are "global leaders"? Do people in Mexico or Zimbabwe wake up every day and think "ooh I wonder what the UK is doing today, let me look so I can follow it's lead"? It's total nonsense. The three main priorities for people consistently politically at the moment are the economy healthy and immigration. I'm not really convinced that people highlighting immigration as an issue are doing so because they want more of it. If you are concerned about housing then it's simply a numbers issue. Look at the growth in the population and the number of houses being built. There is an obvious mismatch. Much of population growth is driven my immigration. That simply cannot be ignored. If you want mass immigration at current levels, fine, but you are going to have to build hundreds of thousands of extra houses a year to accommodate it, and there simply isn't the appetite to do that. House pricing is simply supply and demand. Do the maths. We haven’t built social housing at the required levels since post-WW2. It’s not an immigration problem, it’s a policy problem. And I do want immigration- because we *need* immigration in order to keep our economy afloat. Well I think it's a matter of opinion as to whether our economy "needs" so much immigration, or whether it has simply become reliant on cheap foreign labour as it's the easy option. If you want to build hundreds of thousands of extra social homes every year to house immigrants that's fine, but you need to explain which public services you are going to cut to fund it. We face a pension and healthcare crisis and need working immigrants to plug the many gaps and pay for it. You want your pension, right? Want healthcare as you get older? You want immigrants, believe me. What is a "pensions crisis" and how are immigrants going to help? In terms of healthcare the entire system needs overhauling. "Our NHS" simply isn't working. The only reason we continue with it is purely ideological. In terms of staffing both in the NHS and generally the economy needs to wean itself off cheap foreign labour, instead of having millions of people in the UK living on benefits and importing foreigners to do the work. The Left's view on foreign workers is quite odd I find. 150 years ago if cheap labour was brought in from the neighbouring village workers would have called them scabs. Now cheap labour is brought in from overseas and the Left thinks it's marvellous. One of the many reasons why the Left has lost its way. Immigrants help the pension crisis by working and paying tax. The current generation of workers pay the pensions of the previous generation - that’s how the system works. You want to reduce immigration, slow the economy - that financial knock on effect has to go somewhere. You sound suspiciously like Jeremy Hunt. Are you sure you aren't a Conservative voter? Because I understand how pensions work? Don't worry I understand exactly how pensions work....my financial adviser explains it all to me very regularly. No because the views you are expressing are exactly those that Jeremy Hunt expresses, and it's exactly how the country has been run under the Conservatives." Funny, I don’t recall the tories lobbying for a massive uptake in social housing | |||
"The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". It’s a time-tested trick. And people fall for it again and again. " To quote South Park: "They're takin' our joooobbbbbssss" | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. Why does anyone think Britain is a "global leader" and why is that important? Do people in Monaco or Liechtenstein sit around worrying about whether they are "global leaders"? Do people in Mexico or Zimbabwe wake up every day and think "ooh I wonder what the UK is doing today, let me look so I can follow it's lead"? It's total nonsense. The three main priorities for people consistently politically at the moment are the economy healthy and immigration. I'm not really convinced that people highlighting immigration as an issue are doing so because they want more of it. If you are concerned about housing then it's simply a numbers issue. Look at the growth in the population and the number of houses being built. There is an obvious mismatch. Much of population growth is driven my immigration. That simply cannot be ignored. If you want mass immigration at current levels, fine, but you are going to have to build hundreds of thousands of extra houses a year to accommodate it, and there simply isn't the appetite to do that. House pricing is simply supply and demand. Do the maths. We haven’t built social housing at the required levels since post-WW2. It’s not an immigration problem, it’s a policy problem. And I do want immigration- because we *need* immigration in order to keep our economy afloat. Well I think it's a matter of opinion as to whether our economy "needs" so much immigration, or whether it has simply become reliant on cheap foreign labour as it's the easy option. If you want to build hundreds of thousands of extra social homes every year to house immigrants that's fine, but you need to explain which public services you are going to cut to fund it. We face a pension and healthcare crisis and need working immigrants to plug the many gaps and pay for it. You want your pension, right? Want healthcare as you get older? You want immigrants, believe me. What is a "pensions crisis" and how are immigrants going to help? In terms of healthcare the entire system needs overhauling. "Our NHS" simply isn't working. The only reason we continue with it is purely ideological. In terms of staffing both in the NHS and generally the economy needs to wean itself off cheap foreign labour, instead of having millions of people in the UK living on benefits and importing foreigners to do the work. The Left's view on foreign workers is quite odd I find. 150 years ago if cheap labour was brought in from the neighbouring village workers would have called them scabs. Now cheap labour is brought in from overseas and the Left thinks it's marvellous. One of the many reasons why the Left has lost its way. Immigrants help the pension crisis by working and paying tax. The current generation of workers pay the pensions of the previous generation - that’s how the system works. You want to reduce immigration, slow the economy - that financial knock on effect has to go somewhere. You sound suspiciously like Jeremy Hunt. Are you sure you aren't a Conservative voter? Because I understand how pensions work? Don't worry I understand exactly how pensions work....my financial adviser explains it all to me very regularly. No because the views you are expressing are exactly those that Jeremy Hunt expresses, and it's exactly how the country has been run under the Conservatives. Funny, I don’t recall the tories lobbying for a massive uptake in social housing" Well Hunt would certainly think that immigration increases GDP, and though he may say that we should train British people to do work rather than import cheap labour he has in fact overseen the continuation of the mass importation of cheap labour. As you know immigration is now at its highest level in decades, which you would no doubt support. Maybe you should consider voting Conservative, you have a lot in common with them. Anyway, let us know when you have decided which public services you are going to cut to fund this massive increase in social housing. | |||
| |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. Why does anyone think Britain is a "global leader" and why is that important? Do people in Monaco or Liechtenstein sit around worrying about whether they are "global leaders"? Do people in Mexico or Zimbabwe wake up every day and think "ooh I wonder what the UK is doing today, let me look so I can follow it's lead"? It's total nonsense. The three main priorities for people consistently politically at the moment are the economy healthy and immigration. I'm not really convinced that people highlighting immigration as an issue are doing so because they want more of it. If you are concerned about housing then it's simply a numbers issue. Look at the growth in the population and the number of houses being built. There is an obvious mismatch. Much of population growth is driven my immigration. That simply cannot be ignored. If you want mass immigration at current levels, fine, but you are going to have to build hundreds of thousands of extra houses a year to accommodate it, and there simply isn't the appetite to do that. House pricing is simply supply and demand. Do the maths. We haven’t built social housing at the required levels since post-WW2. It’s not an immigration problem, it’s a policy problem. And I do want immigration- because we *need* immigration in order to keep our economy afloat. Well I think it's a matter of opinion as to whether our economy "needs" so much immigration, or whether it has simply become reliant on cheap foreign labour as it's the easy option. If you want to build hundreds of thousands of extra social homes every year to house immigrants that's fine, but you need to explain which public services you are going to cut to fund it. We face a pension and healthcare crisis and need working immigrants to plug the many gaps and pay for it. You want your pension, right? Want healthcare as you get older? You want immigrants, believe me. What is a "pensions crisis" and how are immigrants going to help? In terms of healthcare the entire system needs overhauling. "Our NHS" simply isn't working. The only reason we continue with it is purely ideological. In terms of staffing both in the NHS and generally the economy needs to wean itself off cheap foreign labour, instead of having millions of people in the UK living on benefits and importing foreigners to do the work. The Left's view on foreign workers is quite odd I find. 150 years ago if cheap labour was brought in from the neighbouring village workers would have called them scabs. Now cheap labour is brought in from overseas and the Left thinks it's marvellous. One of the many reasons why the Left has lost its way. Immigrants help the pension crisis by working and paying tax. The current generation of workers pay the pensions of the previous generation - that’s how the system works. You want to reduce immigration, slow the economy - that financial knock on effect has to go somewhere. You sound suspiciously like Jeremy Hunt. Are you sure you aren't a Conservative voter? Because I understand how pensions work? Don't worry I understand exactly how pensions work....my financial adviser explains it all to me very regularly. No because the views you are expressing are exactly those that Jeremy Hunt expresses, and it's exactly how the country has been run under the Conservatives. Funny, I don’t recall the tories lobbying for a massive uptake in social housing Well Hunt would certainly think that immigration increases GDP, and though he may say that we should train British people to do work rather than import cheap labour he has in fact overseen the continuation of the mass importation of cheap labour. As you know immigration is now at its highest level in decades, which you would no doubt support. Maybe you should consider voting Conservative, you have a lot in common with them. Anyway, let us know when you have decided which public services you are going to cut to fund this massive increase in social housing." We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. | |||
"The whole rotten WM system must go. Lords and Commons? Fuck right off. The Union must go. Either Ireland or Scotland will make this happen. Then England can properly reform. " I’m all for Indyref2, despite traditionally being a unionist. I believe the union is stronger, as I believed the European Union was stronger with us in it (and us stronger for being in it). The day we left the EU against the explicit wishes of the Scottish people, a second Indyref and Irish border poll both became more likely. If Scotland goes indy and rejoins the EU, I’ll be applying for the Scottish passport I’ll be entitled to  | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. Why does anyone think Britain is a "global leader" and why is that important? Do people in Monaco or Liechtenstein sit around worrying about whether they are "global leaders"? Do people in Mexico or Zimbabwe wake up every day and think "ooh I wonder what the UK is doing today, let me look so I can follow it's lead"? It's total nonsense. The three main priorities for people consistently politically at the moment are the economy healthy and immigration. I'm not really convinced that people highlighting immigration as an issue are doing so because they want more of it. If you are concerned about housing then it's simply a numbers issue. Look at the growth in the population and the number of houses being built. There is an obvious mismatch. Much of population growth is driven my immigration. That simply cannot be ignored. If you want mass immigration at current levels, fine, but you are going to have to build hundreds of thousands of extra houses a year to accommodate it, and there simply isn't the appetite to do that. House pricing is simply supply and demand. Do the maths. We haven’t built social housing at the required levels since post-WW2. It’s not an immigration problem, it’s a policy problem. And I do want immigration- because we *need* immigration in order to keep our economy afloat. Well I think it's a matter of opinion as to whether our economy "needs" so much immigration, or whether it has simply become reliant on cheap foreign labour as it's the easy option. If you want to build hundreds of thousands of extra social homes every year to house immigrants that's fine, but you need to explain which public services you are going to cut to fund it. We face a pension and healthcare crisis and need working immigrants to plug the many gaps and pay for it. You want your pension, right? Want healthcare as you get older? You want immigrants, believe me. What is a "pensions crisis" and how are immigrants going to help? In terms of healthcare the entire system needs overhauling. "Our NHS" simply isn't working. The only reason we continue with it is purely ideological. In terms of staffing both in the NHS and generally the economy needs to wean itself off cheap foreign labour, instead of having millions of people in the UK living on benefits and importing foreigners to do the work. The Left's view on foreign workers is quite odd I find. 150 years ago if cheap labour was brought in from the neighbouring village workers would have called them scabs. Now cheap labour is brought in from overseas and the Left thinks it's marvellous. One of the many reasons why the Left has lost its way. Immigrants help the pension crisis by working and paying tax. The current generation of workers pay the pensions of the previous generation - that’s how the system works. You want to reduce immigration, slow the economy - that financial knock on effect has to go somewhere. You sound suspiciously like Jeremy Hunt. Are you sure you aren't a Conservative voter? Because I understand how pensions work? Don't worry I understand exactly how pensions work....my financial adviser explains it all to me very regularly. No because the views you are expressing are exactly those that Jeremy Hunt expresses, and it's exactly how the country has been run under the Conservatives. Funny, I don’t recall the tories lobbying for a massive uptake in social housing Well Hunt would certainly think that immigration increases GDP, and though he may say that we should train British people to do work rather than import cheap labour he has in fact overseen the continuation of the mass importation of cheap labour. As you know immigration is now at its highest level in decades, which you would no doubt support. Maybe you should consider voting Conservative, you have a lot in common with them. Anyway, let us know when you have decided which public services you are going to cut to fund this massive increase in social housing." The military Nuclear arms | |||
| |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement." Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips | |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips " Gosh - that's a big ask! I very much doubt if anyone could lay their hands on those figures! | |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips " What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? | |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips Gosh - that's a big ask! I very much doubt if anyone could lay their hands on those figures!" So what is the actual ask? | |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? " I hear what you are saying but building houses costs a fortune and I suspect how you are thinking about it, probably 100's of billions, and the ongoing upkeep would be astronomical. Building houses is one step in this, the cost of such a project would dwarf HS2 and anything else that went before it.... The cost of maintaining it would not be achievable or wanted by the public because it would need a rise taxes and cuts in other services to achieve. | |||
"No definitely no value I mean look at hs2 what a folly but it divides south might say different to the north but labour are no different." HS2 is expensive, very expensive - and they started building from the wrong end. The original plan should have been seen out because it helps create extra rail capacity and takes strain off of the existing network. Modernisation of rail is investment, not waste. | |||
| |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? I hear what you are saying but building houses costs a fortune and I suspect how you are thinking about it, probably 100's of billions, and the ongoing upkeep would be astronomical. Building houses is one step in this, the cost of such a project would dwarf HS2 and anything else that went before it.... The cost of maintaining it would not be achievable or wanted by the public because it would need a rise taxes and cuts in other services to achieve. " Your final paragraph is correct - a good chunk of the home owning public don’t give a toss about social housing because they’re comfortable and (in property terms) wealthy. But the housing crisis is stepping up, and is now the main divide between the haves and have nots. Virtually anyone under 40 will *never* own their own home, at least until they inherit one left from parents. | |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? I hear what you are saying but building houses costs a fortune and I suspect how you are thinking about it, probably 100's of billions, and the ongoing upkeep would be astronomical. Building houses is one step in this, the cost of such a project would dwarf HS2 and anything else that went before it.... The cost of maintaining it would not be achievable or wanted by the public because it would need a rise taxes and cuts in other services to achieve. Your final paragraph is correct - a good chunk of the home owning public don’t give a toss about social housing because they’re comfortable and (in property terms) wealthy. But the housing crisis is stepping up, and is now the main divide between the haves and have nots. Virtually anyone under 40 will *never* own their own home, at least until they inherit one left from parents." More than half of the people I know own their own homes. | |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? I hear what you are saying but building houses costs a fortune and I suspect how you are thinking about it, probably 100's of billions, and the ongoing upkeep would be astronomical. Building houses is one step in this, the cost of such a project would dwarf HS2 and anything else that went before it.... The cost of maintaining it would not be achievable or wanted by the public because it would need a rise taxes and cuts in other services to achieve. Your final paragraph is correct - a good chunk of the home owning public don’t give a toss about social housing because they’re comfortable and (in property terms) wealthy. But the housing crisis is stepping up, and is now the main divide between the haves and have nots. Virtually anyone under 40 will *never* own their own home, at least until they inherit one left from parents." Rubbish... We are all funding affordable housing through government grants that go on new build AH builds. There are thousands of houses being built on sites all over the country, you want more but you don't have a clue how much they cost to maintain. Having an idea is great, talking about it to get an understanding of acceptance and need is also great. What is not so great is plucking wish lists out of the sky and saying the government are crap because they are not doing the things in your head. You have socially strong ideas but fail to grasp the fundamentals that would allow you to see what the blockers are. | |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? I hear what you are saying but building houses costs a fortune and I suspect how you are thinking about it, probably 100's of billions, and the ongoing upkeep would be astronomical. Building houses is one step in this, the cost of such a project would dwarf HS2 and anything else that went before it.... The cost of maintaining it would not be achievable or wanted by the public because it would need a rise taxes and cuts in other services to achieve. Your final paragraph is correct - a good chunk of the home owning public don’t give a toss about social housing because they’re comfortable and (in property terms) wealthy. But the housing crisis is stepping up, and is now the main divide between the haves and have nots. Virtually anyone under 40 will *never* own their own home, at least until they inherit one left from parents. Rubbish... We are all funding affordable housing through government grants that go on new build AH builds. There are thousands of houses being built on sites all over the country, you want more but you don't have a clue how much they cost to maintain. Having an idea is great, talking about it to get an understanding of acceptance and need is also great. What is not so great is plucking wish lists out of the sky and saying the government are crap because they are not doing the things in your head. You have socially strong ideas but fail to grasp the fundamentals that would allow you to see what the blockers are." I just don't get the thought process of what more can the government do for me instead of taking individual responsability. | |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? I hear what you are saying but building houses costs a fortune and I suspect how you are thinking about it, probably 100's of billions, and the ongoing upkeep would be astronomical. Building houses is one step in this, the cost of such a project would dwarf HS2 and anything else that went before it.... The cost of maintaining it would not be achievable or wanted by the public because it would need a rise taxes and cuts in other services to achieve. Your final paragraph is correct - a good chunk of the home owning public don’t give a toss about social housing because they’re comfortable and (in property terms) wealthy. But the housing crisis is stepping up, and is now the main divide between the haves and have nots. Virtually anyone under 40 will *never* own their own home, at least until they inherit one left from parents. Rubbish... We are all funding affordable housing through government grants that go on new build AH builds. There are thousands of houses being built on sites all over the country, you want more but you don't have a clue how much they cost to maintain. Having an idea is great, talking about it to get an understanding of acceptance and need is also great. What is not so great is plucking wish lists out of the sky and saying the government are crap because they are not doing the things in your head. You have socially strong ideas but fail to grasp the fundamentals that would allow you to see what the blockers are. I just don't get the thought process of what more can the government do for me instead of taking individual responsability." It goes deeper than that, the theme here is not their individual circumstances they are vocal about, it is strangers that they know nothing about that they say the government should be doing more for. Inevitably as a cost to the tax payer, but not any old tax payer, they will have singled out those that should be paying and still not know if that would actually fund their requirements. | |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? I hear what you are saying but building houses costs a fortune and I suspect how you are thinking about it, probably 100's of billions, and the ongoing upkeep would be astronomical. Building houses is one step in this, the cost of such a project would dwarf HS2 and anything else that went before it.... The cost of maintaining it would not be achievable or wanted by the public because it would need a rise taxes and cuts in other services to achieve. Your final paragraph is correct - a good chunk of the home owning public don’t give a toss about social housing because they’re comfortable and (in property terms) wealthy. But the housing crisis is stepping up, and is now the main divide between the haves and have nots. Virtually anyone under 40 will *never* own their own home, at least until they inherit one left from parents. Rubbish... We are all funding affordable housing through government grants that go on new build AH builds. There are thousands of houses being built on sites all over the country, you want more but you don't have a clue how much they cost to maintain. Having an idea is great, talking about it to get an understanding of acceptance and need is also great. What is not so great is plucking wish lists out of the sky and saying the government are crap because they are not doing the things in your head. You have socially strong ideas but fail to grasp the fundamentals that would allow you to see what the blockers are. I just don't get the thought process of what more can the government do for me instead of taking individual responsability. It goes deeper than that, the theme here is not their individual circumstances they are vocal about, it is strangers that they know nothing about that they say the government should be doing more for. Inevitably as a cost to the tax payer, but not any old tax payer, they will have singled out those that should be paying and still not know if that would actually fund their requirements. " its beginning to be the same here. Hopefully we get less government in the future. | |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? I hear what you are saying but building houses costs a fortune and I suspect how you are thinking about it, probably 100's of billions, and the ongoing upkeep would be astronomical. Building houses is one step in this, the cost of such a project would dwarf HS2 and anything else that went before it.... The cost of maintaining it would not be achievable or wanted by the public because it would need a rise taxes and cuts in other services to achieve. Your final paragraph is correct - a good chunk of the home owning public don’t give a toss about social housing because they’re comfortable and (in property terms) wealthy. But the housing crisis is stepping up, and is now the main divide between the haves and have nots. Virtually anyone under 40 will *never* own their own home, at least until they inherit one left from parents. Rubbish... We are all funding affordable housing through government grants that go on new build AH builds. There are thousands of houses being built on sites all over the country, you want more but you don't have a clue how much they cost to maintain. Having an idea is great, talking about it to get an understanding of acceptance and need is also great. What is not so great is plucking wish lists out of the sky and saying the government are crap because they are not doing the things in your head. You have socially strong ideas but fail to grasp the fundamentals that would allow you to see what the blockers are. I just don't get the thought process of what more can the government do for me instead of taking individual responsability." How can individuals take responsibility for maintaining roads, social housing, infrastructure, deciding on foreign policy and laws etc? | |||
| |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? I hear what you are saying but building houses costs a fortune and I suspect how you are thinking about it, probably 100's of billions, and the ongoing upkeep would be astronomical. Building houses is one step in this, the cost of such a project would dwarf HS2 and anything else that went before it.... The cost of maintaining it would not be achievable or wanted by the public because it would need a rise taxes and cuts in other services to achieve. Your final paragraph is correct - a good chunk of the home owning public don’t give a toss about social housing because they’re comfortable and (in property terms) wealthy. But the housing crisis is stepping up, and is now the main divide between the haves and have nots. Virtually anyone under 40 will *never* own their own home, at least until they inherit one left from parents. Rubbish... We are all funding affordable housing through government grants that go on new build AH builds. There are thousands of houses being built on sites all over the country, you want more but you don't have a clue how much they cost to maintain. Having an idea is great, talking about it to get an understanding of acceptance and need is also great. What is not so great is plucking wish lists out of the sky and saying the government are crap because they are not doing the things in your head. You have socially strong ideas but fail to grasp the fundamentals that would allow you to see what the blockers are. I just don't get the thought process of what more can the government do for me instead of taking individual responsability. How can individuals take responsibility for maintaining roads, social housing, infrastructure, deciding on foreign policy and laws etc?" I’m not understanding the question? I will guess… Individuals can’t and won’t unless employed to do so, and that is the issue…building houses is the headline, infrastructure and support to maintain social housing schemes the size of what is being floated about on here, for any person entering our shores without a home and anyone already resident in need of a house would generate many councils and towns. This is not pocket money we are talking about, and the thought that we have all these people housed they will be paying back the hundreds of thousands it cost for each person, is ridiculous. Just adding thousands of people into the society doesn’t generate thousands of jobs, which doesn’t get our investment back. People tend to forget as tax payers we have a vested interest in where and what our money is being spent on | |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? I hear what you are saying but building houses costs a fortune and I suspect how you are thinking about it, probably 100's of billions, and the ongoing upkeep would be astronomical. Building houses is one step in this, the cost of such a project would dwarf HS2 and anything else that went before it.... The cost of maintaining it would not be achievable or wanted by the public because it would need a rise taxes and cuts in other services to achieve. Your final paragraph is correct - a good chunk of the home owning public don’t give a toss about social housing because they’re comfortable and (in property terms) wealthy. But the housing crisis is stepping up, and is now the main divide between the haves and have nots. Virtually anyone under 40 will *never* own their own home, at least until they inherit one left from parents. Rubbish... We are all funding affordable housing through government grants that go on new build AH builds. There are thousands of houses being built on sites all over the country, you want more but you don't have a clue how much they cost to maintain. Having an idea is great, talking about it to get an understanding of acceptance and need is also great. What is not so great is plucking wish lists out of the sky and saying the government are crap because they are not doing the things in your head. You have socially strong ideas but fail to grasp the fundamentals that would allow you to see what the blockers are. I just don't get the thought process of what more can the government do for me instead of taking individual responsability. How can individuals take responsibility for maintaining roads, social housing, infrastructure, deciding on foreign policy and laws etc? I’m not understanding the question? I will guess… Individuals can’t and won’t unless employed to do so, and that is the issue…building houses is the headline, infrastructure and support to maintain social housing schemes the size of what is being floated about on here, for any person entering our shores without a home and anyone already resident in need of a house would generate many councils and towns. This is not pocket money we are talking about, and the thought that we have all these people housed they will be paying back the hundreds of thousands it cost for each person, is ridiculous. Just adding thousands of people into the society doesn’t generate thousands of jobs, which doesn’t get our investment back. People tend to forget as tax payers we have a vested interest in where and what our money is being spent on" That wasn't my question. I was asking how individuals are supposed to take responsibility for things the government should be doing. As for people forgetting tax. They do when it's billions being handed to pals of the government for PPE start ups, but they don't when a human being needs shelter while they apply for asylum. | |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? I hear what you are saying but building houses costs a fortune and I suspect how you are thinking about it, probably 100's of billions, and the ongoing upkeep would be astronomical. Building houses is one step in this, the cost of such a project would dwarf HS2 and anything else that went before it.... The cost of maintaining it would not be achievable or wanted by the public because it would need a rise taxes and cuts in other services to achieve. Your final paragraph is correct - a good chunk of the home owning public don’t give a toss about social housing because they’re comfortable and (in property terms) wealthy. But the housing crisis is stepping up, and is now the main divide between the haves and have nots. Virtually anyone under 40 will *never* own their own home, at least until they inherit one left from parents. Rubbish... We are all funding affordable housing through government grants that go on new build AH builds. There are thousands of houses being built on sites all over the country, you want more but you don't have a clue how much they cost to maintain. Having an idea is great, talking about it to get an understanding of acceptance and need is also great. What is not so great is plucking wish lists out of the sky and saying the government are crap because they are not doing the things in your head. You have socially strong ideas but fail to grasp the fundamentals that would allow you to see what the blockers are. I just don't get the thought process of what more can the government do for me instead of taking individual responsability. How can individuals take responsibility for maintaining roads, social housing, infrastructure, deciding on foreign policy and laws etc? I’m not understanding the question? I will guess… Individuals can’t and won’t unless employed to do so, and that is the issue…building houses is the headline, infrastructure and support to maintain social housing schemes the size of what is being floated about on here, for any person entering our shores without a home and anyone already resident in need of a house would generate many councils and towns. This is not pocket money we are talking about, and the thought that we have all these people housed they will be paying back the hundreds of thousands it cost for each person, is ridiculous. Just adding thousands of people into the society doesn’t generate thousands of jobs, which doesn’t get our investment back. People tend to forget as tax payers we have a vested interest in where and what our money is being spent on That wasn't my question. I was asking how individuals are supposed to take responsibility for things the government should be doing. As for people forgetting tax. They do when it's billions being handed to pals of the government for PPE start ups, but they don't when a human being needs shelter while they apply for asylum. " I’m not following you on this…. You seem to have gone left field | |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? I hear what you are saying but building houses costs a fortune and I suspect how you are thinking about it, probably 100's of billions, and the ongoing upkeep would be astronomical. Building houses is one step in this, the cost of such a project would dwarf HS2 and anything else that went before it.... The cost of maintaining it would not be achievable or wanted by the public because it would need a rise taxes and cuts in other services to achieve. Your final paragraph is correct - a good chunk of the home owning public don’t give a toss about social housing because they’re comfortable and (in property terms) wealthy. But the housing crisis is stepping up, and is now the main divide between the haves and have nots. Virtually anyone under 40 will *never* own their own home, at least until they inherit one left from parents. Rubbish... We are all funding affordable housing through government grants that go on new build AH builds. There are thousands of houses being built on sites all over the country, you want more but you don't have a clue how much they cost to maintain. Having an idea is great, talking about it to get an understanding of acceptance and need is also great. What is not so great is plucking wish lists out of the sky and saying the government are crap because they are not doing the things in your head. You have socially strong ideas but fail to grasp the fundamentals that would allow you to see what the blockers are. I just don't get the thought process of what more can the government do for me instead of taking individual responsability. How can individuals take responsibility for maintaining roads, social housing, infrastructure, deciding on foreign policy and laws etc? I’m not understanding the question? I will guess… Individuals can’t and won’t unless employed to do so, and that is the issue…building houses is the headline, infrastructure and support to maintain social housing schemes the size of what is being floated about on here, for any person entering our shores without a home and anyone already resident in need of a house would generate many councils and towns. This is not pocket money we are talking about, and the thought that we have all these people housed they will be paying back the hundreds of thousands it cost for each person, is ridiculous. Just adding thousands of people into the society doesn’t generate thousands of jobs, which doesn’t get our investment back. People tend to forget as tax payers we have a vested interest in where and what our money is being spent on That wasn't my question. I was asking how individuals are supposed to take responsibility for things the government should be doing. As for people forgetting tax. They do when it's billions being handed to pals of the government for PPE start ups, but they don't when a human being needs shelter while they apply for asylum. I’m not following you on this…. You seem to have gone left field " | |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? I hear what you are saying but building houses costs a fortune and I suspect how you are thinking about it, probably 100's of billions, and the ongoing upkeep would be astronomical. Building houses is one step in this, the cost of such a project would dwarf HS2 and anything else that went before it.... The cost of maintaining it would not be achievable or wanted by the public because it would need a rise taxes and cuts in other services to achieve. Your final paragraph is correct - a good chunk of the home owning public don’t give a toss about social housing because they’re comfortable and (in property terms) wealthy. But the housing crisis is stepping up, and is now the main divide between the haves and have nots. Virtually anyone under 40 will *never* own their own home, at least until they inherit one left from parents. More than half of the people I know own their own homes." Ok. Not sure what you think that reveals. | |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? I hear what you are saying but building houses costs a fortune and I suspect how you are thinking about it, probably 100's of billions, and the ongoing upkeep would be astronomical. Building houses is one step in this, the cost of such a project would dwarf HS2 and anything else that went before it.... The cost of maintaining it would not be achievable or wanted by the public because it would need a rise taxes and cuts in other services to achieve. Your final paragraph is correct - a good chunk of the home owning public don’t give a toss about social housing because they’re comfortable and (in property terms) wealthy. But the housing crisis is stepping up, and is now the main divide between the haves and have nots. Virtually anyone under 40 will *never* own their own home, at least until they inherit one left from parents. Rubbish... We are all funding affordable housing through government grants that go on new build AH builds. There are thousands of houses being built on sites all over the country, you want more but you don't have a clue how much they cost to maintain. Having an idea is great, talking about it to get an understanding of acceptance and need is also great. What is not so great is plucking wish lists out of the sky and saying the government are crap because they are not doing the things in your head. You have socially strong ideas but fail to grasp the fundamentals that would allow you to see what the blockers are. I just don't get the thought process of what more can the government do for me instead of taking individual responsability. It goes deeper than that, the theme here is not their individual circumstances they are vocal about, it is strangers that they know nothing about that they say the government should be doing more for. Inevitably as a cost to the tax payer, but not any old tax payer, they will have singled out those that should be paying and still not know if that would actually fund their requirements. " I’m a higher rate tax payer. I can shoulder more burden and would be more than willing to do so given the correct schemes for it to be spent on (i.e the improvement of public services, social housing etc) | |||
| |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? I hear what you are saying but building houses costs a fortune and I suspect how you are thinking about it, probably 100's of billions, and the ongoing upkeep would be astronomical. Building houses is one step in this, the cost of such a project would dwarf HS2 and anything else that went before it.... The cost of maintaining it would not be achievable or wanted by the public because it would need a rise taxes and cuts in other services to achieve. Your final paragraph is correct - a good chunk of the home owning public don’t give a toss about social housing because they’re comfortable and (in property terms) wealthy. But the housing crisis is stepping up, and is now the main divide between the haves and have nots. Virtually anyone under 40 will *never* own their own home, at least until they inherit one left from parents. Rubbish... We are all funding affordable housing through government grants that go on new build AH builds. There are thousands of houses being built on sites all over the country, you want more but you don't have a clue how much they cost to maintain. Having an idea is great, talking about it to get an understanding of acceptance and need is also great. What is not so great is plucking wish lists out of the sky and saying the government are crap because they are not doing the things in your head. You have socially strong ideas but fail to grasp the fundamentals that would allow you to see what the blockers are. I just don't get the thought process of what more can the government do for me instead of taking individual responsability. It goes deeper than that, the theme here is not their individual circumstances they are vocal about, it is strangers that they know nothing about that they say the government should be doing more for. Inevitably as a cost to the tax payer, but not any old tax payer, they will have singled out those that should be paying and still not know if that would actually fund their requirements. I’m a higher rate tax payer. I can shoulder more burden and would be more than willing to do so given the correct schemes for it to be spent on (i.e the improvement of public services, social housing etc)" That’s not how it works, you get to decide what your tax gets spent on  | |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? I hear what you are saying but building houses costs a fortune and I suspect how you are thinking about it, probably 100's of billions, and the ongoing upkeep would be astronomical. Building houses is one step in this, the cost of such a project would dwarf HS2 and anything else that went before it.... The cost of maintaining it would not be achievable or wanted by the public because it would need a rise taxes and cuts in other services to achieve. Your final paragraph is correct - a good chunk of the home owning public don’t give a toss about social housing because they’re comfortable and (in property terms) wealthy. But the housing crisis is stepping up, and is now the main divide between the haves and have nots. Virtually anyone under 40 will *never* own their own home, at least until they inherit one left from parents. Rubbish... We are all funding affordable housing through government grants that go on new build AH builds. There are thousands of houses being built on sites all over the country, you want more but you don't have a clue how much they cost to maintain. Having an idea is great, talking about it to get an understanding of acceptance and need is also great. What is not so great is plucking wish lists out of the sky and saying the government are crap because they are not doing the things in your head. You have socially strong ideas but fail to grasp the fundamentals that would allow you to see what the blockers are. I just don't get the thought process of what more can the government do for me instead of taking individual responsability. It goes deeper than that, the theme here is not their individual circumstances they are vocal about, it is strangers that they know nothing about that they say the government should be doing more for. Inevitably as a cost to the tax payer, but not any old tax payer, they will have singled out those that should be paying and still not know if that would actually fund their requirements. I’m a higher rate tax payer. I can shoulder more burden and would be more than willing to do so given the correct schemes for it to be spent on (i.e the improvement of public services, social housing etc) That’s not how it works, you get to decide what your tax gets spent on "The point being you seem to think that nobody is willing to pay more tax. I suspect that most would be, if they saw a positive outcome as a result. | |||
"I see several posts about what migrants get in terms of benefits but all I could see is yes they do get benefits but not what they actually get" They get a card loaded with £40 per week. If they have accommodation that provides food, they get £9-10 | |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? I hear what you are saying but building houses costs a fortune and I suspect how you are thinking about it, probably 100's of billions, and the ongoing upkeep would be astronomical. Building houses is one step in this, the cost of such a project would dwarf HS2 and anything else that went before it.... The cost of maintaining it would not be achievable or wanted by the public because it would need a rise taxes and cuts in other services to achieve. Your final paragraph is correct - a good chunk of the home owning public don’t give a toss about social housing because they’re comfortable and (in property terms) wealthy. But the housing crisis is stepping up, and is now the main divide between the haves and have nots. Virtually anyone under 40 will *never* own their own home, at least until they inherit one left from parents. Rubbish... We are all funding affordable housing through government grants that go on new build AH builds. There are thousands of houses being built on sites all over the country, you want more but you don't have a clue how much they cost to maintain. Having an idea is great, talking about it to get an understanding of acceptance and need is also great. What is not so great is plucking wish lists out of the sky and saying the government are crap because they are not doing the things in your head. You have socially strong ideas but fail to grasp the fundamentals that would allow you to see what the blockers are. I just don't get the thought process of what more can the government do for me instead of taking individual responsability. It goes deeper than that, the theme here is not their individual circumstances they are vocal about, it is strangers that they know nothing about that they say the government should be doing more for. Inevitably as a cost to the tax payer, but not any old tax payer, they will have singled out those that should be paying and still not know if that would actually fund their requirements. I’m a higher rate tax payer. I can shoulder more burden and would be more than willing to do so given the correct schemes for it to be spent on (i.e the improvement of public services, social housing etc) That’s not how it works, you get to decide what your tax gets spent on
The point being you seem to think that nobody is willing to pay more tax. I suspect that most would be, if they saw a positive outcome as a result.
"You can’t accept with a majority vote didn’t go your way, how are you going to agree on the many things that tax will be spent on? | |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? I hear what you are saying but building houses costs a fortune and I suspect how you are thinking about it, probably 100's of billions, and the ongoing upkeep would be astronomical. Building houses is one step in this, the cost of such a project would dwarf HS2 and anything else that went before it.... The cost of maintaining it would not be achievable or wanted by the public because it would need a rise taxes and cuts in other services to achieve. Your final paragraph is correct - a good chunk of the home owning public don’t give a toss about social housing because they’re comfortable and (in property terms) wealthy. But the housing crisis is stepping up, and is now the main divide between the haves and have nots. Virtually anyone under 40 will *never* own their own home, at least until they inherit one left from parents. Rubbish... We are all funding affordable housing through government grants that go on new build AH builds. There are thousands of houses being built on sites all over the country, you want more but you don't have a clue how much they cost to maintain. Having an idea is great, talking about it to get an understanding of acceptance and need is also great. What is not so great is plucking wish lists out of the sky and saying the government are crap because they are not doing the things in your head. You have socially strong ideas but fail to grasp the fundamentals that would allow you to see what the blockers are. I just don't get the thought process of what more can the government do for me instead of taking individual responsability. It goes deeper than that, the theme here is not their individual circumstances they are vocal about, it is strangers that they know nothing about that they say the government should be doing more for. Inevitably as a cost to the tax payer, but not any old tax payer, they will have singled out those that should be paying and still not know if that would actually fund their requirements. I’m a higher rate tax payer. I can shoulder more burden and would be more than willing to do so given the correct schemes for it to be spent on (i.e the improvement of public services, social housing etc) That’s not how it works, you get to decide what your tax gets spent on
The point being you seem to think that nobody is willing to pay more tax. I suspect that most would be, if they saw a positive outcome as a result.
You can’t accept with a majority vote didn’t go your way, how are you going to agree on the many things that tax will be spent on?
"Oh I agree that a majority (not THE majority) voted leave. I accept that we’ve left. What I don’t accept is that it was the right thing to do. As I’m sure you’re smart enough to understand. | |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? I hear what you are saying but building houses costs a fortune and I suspect how you are thinking about it, probably 100's of billions, and the ongoing upkeep would be astronomical. Building houses is one step in this, the cost of such a project would dwarf HS2 and anything else that went before it.... The cost of maintaining it would not be achievable or wanted by the public because it would need a rise taxes and cuts in other services to achieve. Your final paragraph is correct - a good chunk of the home owning public don’t give a toss about social housing because they’re comfortable and (in property terms) wealthy. But the housing crisis is stepping up, and is now the main divide between the haves and have nots. Virtually anyone under 40 will *never* own their own home, at least until they inherit one left from parents. Rubbish... We are all funding affordable housing through government grants that go on new build AH builds. There are thousands of houses being built on sites all over the country, you want more but you don't have a clue how much they cost to maintain. Having an idea is great, talking about it to get an understanding of acceptance and need is also great. What is not so great is plucking wish lists out of the sky and saying the government are crap because they are not doing the things in your head. You have socially strong ideas but fail to grasp the fundamentals that would allow you to see what the blockers are. I just don't get the thought process of what more can the government do for me instead of taking individual responsability. It goes deeper than that, the theme here is not their individual circumstances they are vocal about, it is strangers that they know nothing about that they say the government should be doing more for. Inevitably as a cost to the tax payer, but not any old tax payer, they will have singled out those that should be paying and still not know if that would actually fund their requirements. I’m a higher rate tax payer. I can shoulder more burden and would be more than willing to do so given the correct schemes for it to be spent on (i.e the improvement of public services, social housing etc) That’s not how it works, you get to decide what your tax gets spent on
The point being you seem to think that nobody is willing to pay more tax. I suspect that most would be, if they saw a positive outcome as a result.
You can’t accept with a majority vote didn’t go your way, how are you going to agree on the many things that tax will be spent on?
Oh I agree that a majority (not THE majority) voted leave. I accept that we’ve left.
What I don’t accept is that it was the right thing to do. As I’m sure you’re smart enough to understand.
"Exactly, change requires negotiation, compromise and acceptance, without those things you’re in an internal loop… | |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? I hear what you are saying but building houses costs a fortune and I suspect how you are thinking about it, probably 100's of billions, and the ongoing upkeep would be astronomical. Building houses is one step in this, the cost of such a project would dwarf HS2 and anything else that went before it.... The cost of maintaining it would not be achievable or wanted by the public because it would need a rise taxes and cuts in other services to achieve. Your final paragraph is correct - a good chunk of the home owning public don’t give a toss about social housing because they’re comfortable and (in property terms) wealthy. But the housing crisis is stepping up, and is now the main divide between the haves and have nots. Virtually anyone under 40 will *never* own their own home, at least until they inherit one left from parents. More than half of the people I know own their own homes. Ok. Not sure what you think that reveals." It reveals your statement want factual. Let's try use facts. | |||
"I see several posts about what migrants get in terms of benefits but all I could see is yes they do get benefits but not what they actually get They get a card loaded with £40 per week. If they have accommodation that provides food, they get £9-10 " Wrong | |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? I hear what you are saying but building houses costs a fortune and I suspect how you are thinking about it, probably 100's of billions, and the ongoing upkeep would be astronomical. Building houses is one step in this, the cost of such a project would dwarf HS2 and anything else that went before it.... The cost of maintaining it would not be achievable or wanted by the public because it would need a rise taxes and cuts in other services to achieve. Your final paragraph is correct - a good chunk of the home owning public don’t give a toss about social housing because they’re comfortable and (in property terms) wealthy. But the housing crisis is stepping up, and is now the main divide between the haves and have nots. Virtually anyone under 40 will *never* own their own home, at least until they inherit one left from parents. More than half of the people I know own their own homes. Ok. Not sure what you think that reveals. It reveals your statement want factual. Let's try use facts." It does no such thing. Your personal friend group isn’t the population at large. | |||
"I see several posts about what migrants get in terms of benefits but all I could see is yes they do get benefits but not what they actually get They get a card loaded with £40 per week. If they have accommodation that provides food, they get £9-10 Wrong" Taken from gov.uk | |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? I hear what you are saying but building houses costs a fortune and I suspect how you are thinking about it, probably 100's of billions, and the ongoing upkeep would be astronomical. Building houses is one step in this, the cost of such a project would dwarf HS2 and anything else that went before it.... The cost of maintaining it would not be achievable or wanted by the public because it would need a rise taxes and cuts in other services to achieve. Your final paragraph is correct - a good chunk of the home owning public don’t give a toss about social housing because they’re comfortable and (in property terms) wealthy. But the housing crisis is stepping up, and is now the main divide between the haves and have nots. Virtually anyone under 40 will *never* own their own home, at least until they inherit one left from parents. More than half of the people I know own their own homes. Ok. Not sure what you think that reveals. It reveals your statement want factual. Let's try use facts. It does no such thing. Your personal friend group isn’t the population at large." 'Virtually anyone'. My friendship group are almost exclusively under 40. I'll take what I know first hand rather than a guess thanks. | |||
"I see several posts about what migrants get in terms of benefits but all I could see is yes they do get benefits but not what they actually get They get a card loaded with £40 per week. If they have accommodation that provides food, they get £9-10 Wrong Taken from gov.uk" You should go re-read it | |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? I hear what you are saying but building houses costs a fortune and I suspect how you are thinking about it, probably 100's of billions, and the ongoing upkeep would be astronomical. Building houses is one step in this, the cost of such a project would dwarf HS2 and anything else that went before it.... The cost of maintaining it would not be achievable or wanted by the public because it would need a rise taxes and cuts in other services to achieve. Your final paragraph is correct - a good chunk of the home owning public don’t give a toss about social housing because they’re comfortable and (in property terms) wealthy. But the housing crisis is stepping up, and is now the main divide between the haves and have nots. Virtually anyone under 40 will *never* own their own home, at least until they inherit one left from parents. More than half of the people I know own their own homes. Ok. Not sure what you think that reveals. It reveals your statement want factual. Let's try use facts. It does no such thing. Your personal friend group isn’t the population at large. 'Virtually anyone'. My friendship group are almost exclusively under 40. I'll take what I know first hand rather than a guess thanks." Anecdote isn’t data. Soz. | |||
"We’re one of the richest economies on the planet. The fact that you think we can’t have social housing *and* public services is testament to how accepting you are of government mismanagement. Tell me how many houses, time frames and how much money it will cost to get to a place you would say job done, because you can't leave anyone behind.It would be good if you could also provide the maintenance costs, the administration to include enforcement, legal, HR, liaison and every other department that will be needed for this project. You have all the wants so I expect you have the answers to the above at your finger tips What about the tax take, job creation, supply chain demand etc? I hear what you are saying but building houses costs a fortune and I suspect how you are thinking about it, probably 100's of billions, and the ongoing upkeep would be astronomical. Building houses is one step in this, the cost of such a project would dwarf HS2 and anything else that went before it.... The cost of maintaining it would not be achievable or wanted by the public because it would need a rise taxes and cuts in other services to achieve. Your final paragraph is correct - a good chunk of the home owning public don’t give a toss about social housing because they’re comfortable and (in property terms) wealthy. But the housing crisis is stepping up, and is now the main divide between the haves and have nots. Virtually anyone under 40 will *never* own their own home, at least until they inherit one left from parents. More than half of the people I know own their own homes. Ok. Not sure what you think that reveals. It reveals your statement want factual. Let's try use facts. It does no such thing. Your personal friend group isn’t the population at large. 'Virtually anyone'. My friendship group are almost exclusively under 40. I'll take what I know first hand rather than a guess thanks. Anecdote isn’t data. Soz." Neither is a wild guess mate. Soz | |||
"I see several posts about what migrants get in terms of benefits but all I could see is yes they do get benefits but not what they actually get They get a card loaded with £40 per week. If they have accommodation that provides food, they get £9-10 Wrong Taken from gov.uk You should go re-read it" £45, then. And just £9.10 if their accommodation provides food. | |||
"I see several posts about what migrants get in terms of benefits but all I could see is yes they do get benefits but not what they actually get They get a card loaded with £40 per week. If they have accommodation that provides food, they get £9-10 Wrong Taken from gov.uk You should go re-read it £45, then. And just £9.10 if their accommodation provides food. " And? | |||
"I see several posts about what migrants get in terms of benefits but all I could see is yes they do get benefits but not what they actually get They get a card loaded with £40 per week. If they have accommodation that provides food, they get £9-10 Wrong Taken from gov.uk You should go re-read it £45, then. And just £9.10 if their accommodation provides food. And?" And someone asked what benefits asylum seekers get. They’ve been provided with an answer. Not everything is an argument. | |||
"I see several posts about what migrants get in terms of benefits but all I could see is yes they do get benefits but not what they actually get They get a card loaded with £40 per week. If they have accommodation that provides food, they get £9-10 Wrong Taken from gov.uk You should go re-read it £45, then. And just £9.10 if their accommodation provides food. And? And someone asked what benefits asylum seekers get. They’ve been provided with an answer. Not everything is an argument. " You've forgotten quite a few. You also started with the wrong information. You're right, not everything has to be an argument, facts would be nice when speaking about these things though | |||
"I see several posts about what migrants get in terms of benefits but all I could see is yes they do get benefits but not what they actually get They get a card loaded with £40 per week. If they have accommodation that provides food, they get £9-10 Wrong Taken from gov.uk You should go re-read it £45, then. And just £9.10 if their accommodation provides food. And? And someone asked what benefits asylum seekers get. They’ve been provided with an answer. Not everything is an argument. You've forgotten quite a few. You also started with the wrong information. You're right, not everything has to be an argument, facts would be nice when speaking about these things though" Less attitude would also be nice. You could have said ‘actually it’s £45, not £40’ - but you chose attitude. Chill out. It’s better for you. | |||
"I see several posts about what migrants get in terms of benefits but all I could see is yes they do get benefits but not what they actually get They get a card loaded with £40 per week. If they have accommodation that provides food, they get £9-10 Wrong Taken from gov.uk You should go re-read it £45, then. And just £9.10 if their accommodation provides food. And? And someone asked what benefits asylum seekers get. They’ve been provided with an answer. Not everything is an argument. You've forgotten quite a few. You also started with the wrong information. You're right, not everything has to be an argument, facts would be nice when speaking about these things though Less attitude would also be nice. You could have said ‘actually it’s £45, not £40’ - but you chose attitude. Chill out. It’s better for you. " You think this is attitude?
I could've said that but you previously you told me you knew what benefits asylum seekers get. You even tried to get me to tell you (not sure why) and now you're giving wrong information, and missing quite a few out. | |||
"I see several posts about what migrants get in terms of benefits but all I could see is yes they do get benefits but not what they actually get They get a card loaded with £40 per week. If they have accommodation that provides food, they get £9-10 Wrong Taken from gov.uk You should go re-read it £45, then. And just £9.10 if their accommodation provides food. And? And someone asked what benefits asylum seekers get. They’ve been provided with an answer. Not everything is an argument. You've forgotten quite a few. You also started with the wrong information. You're right, not everything has to be an argument, facts would be nice when speaking about these things though Less attitude would also be nice. You could have said ‘actually it’s £45, not £40’ - but you chose attitude. Chill out. It’s better for you. You think this is attitude?
I could've said that but you previously you told me you knew what benefits asylum seekers get. You even tried to get me to tell you (not sure why) and now you're giving wrong information, and missing quite a few out."I can’t think why you and Morley get into so many arguments on here. I just can’t work it out. | |||
| |||
"I see several posts about what migrants get in terms of benefits but all I could see is yes they do get benefits but not what they actually get They get a card loaded with £40 per week. If they have accommodation that provides food, they get £9-10 Wrong Taken from gov.uk You should go re-read it £45, then. And just £9.10 if their accommodation provides food. And? And someone asked what benefits asylum seekers get. They’ve been provided with an answer. Not everything is an argument. You've forgotten quite a few. You also started with the wrong information. You're right, not everything has to be an argument, facts would be nice when speaking about these things though Less attitude would also be nice. You could have said ‘actually it’s £45, not £40’ - but you chose attitude. Chill out. It’s better for you. You think this is attitude?
I could've said that but you previously you told me you knew what benefits asylum seekers get. You even tried to get me to tell you (not sure why) and now you're giving wrong information, and missing quite a few out.
I can’t think why you and Morley get into so many arguments on here. I just can’t work it out. "Can you spot the irony in that statement? All I'd like is facts, or state that it's guesswork, I don't think that's much to ask. | |||
"I see several posts about what migrants get in terms of benefits but all I could see is yes they do get benefits but not what they actually get They get a card loaded with £40 per week. If they have accommodation that provides food, they get £9-10 Wrong Taken from gov.uk You should go re-read it £45, then. And just £9.10 if their accommodation provides food. And? And someone asked what benefits asylum seekers get. They’ve been provided with an answer. Not everything is an argument. You've forgotten quite a few. You also started with the wrong information. You're right, not everything has to be an argument, facts would be nice when speaking about these things though Less attitude would also be nice. You could have said ‘actually it’s £45, not £40’ - but you chose attitude. Chill out. It’s better for you. You think this is attitude?
I could've said that but you previously you told me you knew what benefits asylum seekers get. You even tried to get me to tell you (not sure why) and now you're giving wrong information, and missing quite a few out.
I can’t think why you and Morley get into so many arguments on here. I just can’t work it out.
Can you spot the irony in that statement?
All I'd like is facts, or state that it's guesswork, I don't think that's much to ask." | |||
"I see several posts about what migrants get in terms of benefits but all I could see is yes they do get benefits but not what they actually get They get a card loaded with £40 per week. If they have accommodation that provides food, they get £9-10 " so money on a card each week and then accommodation, electric, water ect. I guess it all adds up to quite a bill. Incidentally when the process is finished and for those that are allowed to stay, do they get kicked out of the accommodation straight away and loose the money card | |||
| |||
"I’ve been giving this topic some thought, it got side tracked by the usual poor understanding of economics, with a lack of understanding towards the political temperature of the nation and that generally the UK public are not as stupid as the left of centre left forum members think they are. This government and the next will offer next to no value to the tax payer, however to those that don’t pay taxes the UK government is an amazingly generous thing and the value add to a person not paying tax is outstanding value for money…" I doubt whether most people will notice any difference under a Labour government. It will be almost identical to what we have now. Starmer won't be strong enough to undertake any public sector reform so he will just be left with spending more borrowed, taxed, or printed cash and pretending that's achieving something. | |||
"I’ve been giving this topic some thought, it got side tracked by the usual poor understanding of economics, with a lack of understanding towards the political temperature of the nation and that generally the UK public are not as stupid as the left of centre left forum members think they are. This government and the next will offer next to no value to the tax payer, however to those that don’t pay taxes the UK government is an amazingly generous thing and the value add to a person not paying tax is outstanding value for money…" Huh? It's the right leaning people who are constantly saying that the British public are stupid. Not the left. IE. "People voted for brexit because they didn't like being told voting for brexit would be a poor choice and would make them poorer". As a paraphrased example. But I agree. This government serves those who use tax avoidance schemes well. Brexit being an excellent example of this. | |||
"I’ve been giving this topic some thought, it got side tracked by the usual poor understanding of economics, with a lack of understanding towards the political temperature of the nation and that generally the UK public are not as stupid as the left of centre left forum members think they are. This government and the next will offer next to no value to the tax payer, however to those that don’t pay taxes the UK government is an amazingly generous thing and the value add to a person not paying tax is outstanding value for money… I doubt whether most people will notice any difference under a Labour government. It will be almost identical to what we have now. Starmer won't be strong enough to undertake any public sector reform so he will just be left with spending more borrowed, taxed, or printed cash and pretending that's achieving something." Starmer doesn't offer much of an alternative. I agree. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. " They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. Then they encounter the shambolic uk governments attempt to home and process them | |||
"I’ve been giving this topic some thought, it got side tracked by the usual poor understanding of economics, with a lack of understanding towards the political temperature of the nation and that generally the UK public are not as stupid as the left of centre left forum members think they are. This government and the next will offer next to no value to the tax payer, however to those that don’t pay taxes the UK government is an amazingly generous thing and the value add to a person not paying tax is outstanding value for money… Huh? It's the right leaning people who are constantly saying that the British public are stupid. Not the left. IE. "People voted for brexit because they didn't like being told voting for brexit would be a poor choice and would make them poorer". As a paraphrased example. But I agree. This government serves those who use tax avoidance schemes well. Brexit being an excellent example of this. " It is a rather extreme to call out those that do Not have a job or are illegal economic migrants as tax avoidance schemes, what kind of accountant have you got | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. " The vast majority do. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. " What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK?" That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. | |||
"Simply put do you think they are? Are we getting any value from it? Is taxpayers money being wasted? What do you think the government should prioritise? With our money?"  is my response to the title  | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries." So what does that mean? | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So what does that mean?" I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So what does that mean? I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you "Give it a go, if you can explain it | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries." So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion?" Official figures show the UK has a much higher proportion of foreign-born inhabitants than the EU. Data published by the ONS as part of the 2021 census found 10 million residents were born outside England and Wales, representing 16.8% of all inhabitants. In comparison, 38 million people living within the EU were born outside it, representing 8.5% of the population, according to data published by the European Commission. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion?" My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. " So you think Somalis should be free to move to the UK, and UK citizens should be free to move to Somalia. Do you think the numbers will equate? How will this global free movement policy impact your housing crisis? I don't think you have thought this through. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. " What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. So you think Somalis should be free to move to the UK, and UK citizens should be free to move to Somalia. Do you think the numbers will equate? How will this global free movement policy impact your housing crisis? I don't think you have thought this through." Borders are political constructs. Nothing more, nothing less. The ultimate goal for humanity should be a borderless world. Pie in the sky? Probably, but that’s better than being insular and deciding who you are or are not willing to share resources with. Remember that a peaceful, borderless Europe would have been unthinkable less than a century ago. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe " They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. " We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. So you think Somalis should be free to move to the UK, and UK citizens should be free to move to Somalia. Do you think the numbers will equate? How will this global free movement policy impact your housing crisis? I don't think you have thought this through. Borders are political constructs. Nothing more, nothing less. The ultimate goal for humanity should be a borderless world. Pie in the sky? Probably, but that’s better than being insular and deciding who you are or are not willing to share resources with. Remember that a peaceful, borderless Europe would have been unthinkable less than a century ago. " If the EU is so wonderful, why hasn't it shared its resources with countries outside the EU? Why is the EU set up to prevent suppliers of products and services from outside the EU selling into the EU? Surely if it is such an altruistic project it should welcome suppliers and people from all nations, not impose tariffs on external suppliers to benfit inefficient EU producers. | |||
"I’ve been giving this topic some thought, it got side tracked by the usual poor understanding of economics, with a lack of understanding towards the political temperature of the nation and that generally the UK public are not as stupid as the left of centre left forum members think they are. This government and the next will offer next to no value to the tax payer, however to those that don’t pay taxes the UK government is an amazingly generous thing and the value add to a person not paying tax is outstanding value for money… Huh? It's the right leaning people who are constantly saying that the British public are stupid. Not the left. IE. "People voted for brexit because they didn't like being told voting for brexit would be a poor choice and would make them poorer". As a paraphrased example. But I agree. This government serves those who use tax avoidance schemes well. Brexit being an excellent example of this. It is a rather extreme to call out those that do Not have a job or are illegal economic migrants as tax avoidance schemes, what kind of accountant have you got "Oh I see, you're going after poor people, and ignoring millionaires and billionaires who use tax avoidance schemes. Fair play to you. | |||
"I’ve been giving this topic some thought, it got side tracked by the usual poor understanding of economics, with a lack of understanding towards the political temperature of the nation and that generally the UK public are not as stupid as the left of centre left forum members think they are. This government and the next will offer next to no value to the tax payer, however to those that don’t pay taxes the UK government is an amazingly generous thing and the value add to a person not paying tax is outstanding value for money… Huh? It's the right leaning people who are constantly saying that the British public are stupid. Not the left. IE. "People voted for brexit because they didn't like being told voting for brexit would be a poor choice and would make them poorer". As a paraphrased example. But I agree. This government serves those who use tax avoidance schemes well. Brexit being an excellent example of this. It is a rather extreme to call out those that do Not have a job or are illegal economic migrants as tax avoidance schemes, what kind of accountant have you got
Oh I see, you're going after poor people, and ignoring millionaires and billionaires who use tax avoidance schemes. Fair play to you."Not at all, I was pointing out it isn’t only the billionaires who are avoiding tax, but that doesn’t really sit within your narrative does it. | |||
"I’ve been giving this topic some thought, it got side tracked by the usual poor understanding of economics, with a lack of understanding towards the political temperature of the nation and that generally the UK public are not as stupid as the left of centre left forum members think they are. This government and the next will offer next to no value to the tax payer, however to those that don’t pay taxes the UK government is an amazingly generous thing and the value add to a person not paying tax is outstanding value for money… Huh? It's the right leaning people who are constantly saying that the British public are stupid. Not the left. IE. "People voted for brexit because they didn't like being told voting for brexit would be a poor choice and would make them poorer". As a paraphrased example. But I agree. This government serves those who use tax avoidance schemes well. Brexit being an excellent example of this. It is a rather extreme to call out those that do Not have a job or are illegal economic migrants as tax avoidance schemes, what kind of accountant have you got
Oh I see, you're going after poor people, and ignoring millionaires and billionaires who use tax avoidance schemes. Fair play to you.
Not at all, I was pointing out it isn’t only the billionaires who are avoiding tax, but that doesn’t really sit within your narrative does it."Not my "narrative". But sure if you want to focus on someone claiming benefits when they shouldn't over the vast sums of tax being avoided by people and corporations who use off shore avoidance schemes. Fair play to you. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? " “We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers” Demonstrable nonsense. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. So you think Somalis should be free to move to the UK, and UK citizens should be free to move to Somalia. Do you think the numbers will equate? How will this global free movement policy impact your housing crisis? I don't think you have thought this through. Borders are political constructs. Nothing more, nothing less. The ultimate goal for humanity should be a borderless world. Pie in the sky? Probably, but that’s better than being insular and deciding who you are or are not willing to share resources with. Remember that a peaceful, borderless Europe would have been unthinkable less than a century ago. If the EU is so wonderful, why hasn't it shared its resources with countries outside the EU? Why is the EU set up to prevent suppliers of products and services from outside the EU selling into the EU? Surely if it is such an altruistic project it should welcome suppliers and people from all nations, not impose tariffs on external suppliers to benfit inefficient EU producers." I don’t recall saying the EU was an altruistic project. Why do you read things that aren’t there? | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion?" An amount relative to how many homes we could place them in maybe. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? “We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers” Demonstrable nonsense. " Again you swerve the question completely! What should we be doing more of? | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? “We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers” Demonstrable nonsense. Again you swerve the question completely! What should we be doing more of?" I thought that was quite obvious. We could shoulder more of the continent’s burden of asylum seekers and refugees. We could easily afford it if we taxed people correctly and didn’t have the most corrupt government in British living history. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? “We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers” Demonstrable nonsense. Again you swerve the question completely! What should we be doing more of? I thought that was quite obvious. We could shoulder more of the continent’s burden of asylum seekers and refugees. We could easily afford it if we taxed people correctly and didn’t have the most corrupt government in British living history. " How do we 'shoulder more of the responsibility'? Refugees are free to go wherever they would like. Are you saying we should force them to come to the UK just so we can accept more? | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? “We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers” Demonstrable nonsense. Again you swerve the question completely! What should we be doing more of? I thought that was quite obvious. We could shoulder more of the continent’s burden of asylum seekers and refugees. We could easily afford it if we taxed people correctly and didn’t have the most corrupt government in British living history. How do we 'shoulder more of the responsibility'? Refugees are free to go wherever they would like. Are you saying we should force them to come to the UK just so we can accept more?" Force? No. Present a more welcoming image to them, yes. Maybe stop talking about throwing everyone out and sending them to Rwanda. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? “We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers” Demonstrable nonsense. Again you swerve the question completely! What should we be doing more of? I thought that was quite obvious. We could shoulder more of the continent’s burden of asylum seekers and refugees. We could easily afford it if we taxed people correctly and didn’t have the most corrupt government in British living history. How do we 'shoulder more of the responsibility'? Refugees are free to go wherever they would like. Are you saying we should force them to come to the UK just so we can accept more? Force? No. Present a more welcoming image to them, yes. Maybe stop talking about throwing everyone out and sending them to Rwanda." I'll ask again how do we shoulder more if the responsibility? | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? “We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers” Demonstrable nonsense. Again you swerve the question completely! What should we be doing more of? I thought that was quite obvious. We could shoulder more of the continent’s burden of asylum seekers and refugees. We could easily afford it if we taxed people correctly and didn’t have the most corrupt government in British living history. How do we 'shoulder more of the responsibility'? Refugees are free to go wherever they would like. Are you saying we should force them to come to the UK just so we can accept more? Force? No. Present a more welcoming image to them, yes. Maybe stop talking about throwing everyone out and sending them to Rwanda. I'll ask again how do we shoulder more if the responsibility?" I’m not doing this with you today, mucker. Have a good day. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? “We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers” Demonstrable nonsense. Again you swerve the question completely! What should we be doing more of? I thought that was quite obvious. We could shoulder more of the continent’s burden of asylum seekers and refugees. We could easily afford it if we taxed people correctly and didn’t have the most corrupt government in British living history. How do we 'shoulder more of the responsibility'? Refugees are free to go wherever they would like. Are you saying we should force them to come to the UK just so we can accept more? Force? No. Present a more welcoming image to them, yes. Maybe stop talking about throwing everyone out and sending them to Rwanda. I'll ask again how do we shoulder more if the responsibility? I’m not doing this with you today, mucker. Have a good day." It's a simple question, it really is. Although, I don't think the answer is simple, hence you can't give a viable one | |||
| |||
"So If I am getting this right, we are not getting value for money because we are giving £45 quid a week to asylum seekers? That is £540 a year per seeker Are those who are talking about this then saying what, we ban asylum seekers and save a few quid? Is being a humanitarian costly then and therefore something we should stop? Sounds like giving Asylum seekers £45 a week is a drop in the ocean. Considering that weekly in London for those on universal credit get the following. Couples 442.31 Single adult households 296.35 Or outside London Couples 384.62 Single adult households 257.69 Are the above more deserving? I think there is a bit of demonisation in here, blame foreigners for the lack of competence in our government. Where is the value in that? So again are we getting any VFM, and where the hell is the money going if taxes receipts are high and we have nothing to show for it?" You're focusing on the £45 like that's the only benefit asylum seekers get. | |||
"So If I am getting this right, we are not getting value for money because we are giving £45 quid a week to asylum seekers? That is £540 a year per seeker Are those who are talking about this then saying what, we ban asylum seekers and save a few quid? Is being a humanitarian costly then and therefore something we should stop? Sounds like giving Asylum seekers £45 a week is a drop in the ocean. Considering that weekly in London for those on universal credit get the following. Couples 442.31 Single adult households 296.35 Or outside London Couples 384.62 Single adult households 257.69 Are the above more deserving? I think there is a bit of demonisation in here, blame foreigners for the lack of competence in our government. Where is the value in that? So again are we getting any VFM, and where the hell is the money going if taxes receipts are high and we have nothing to show for it?" £2,340 a year . Wonder how much the interest alone is on the national debt ? Maybe the government could consolidate all it owes and get an easy fixed payment loan ? | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? “We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers” Demonstrable nonsense. Again you swerve the question completely! What should we be doing more of? I thought that was quite obvious. We could shoulder more of the continent’s burden of asylum seekers and refugees. We could easily afford it if we taxed people correctly and didn’t have the most corrupt government in British living history. " I have summarised your views, if something is not right let me know.. You want to advertise the UK as a great place to come to for all, ensuring we go further by approaching illegal economic migrants in mainland Europe to not stop there, but to come here so we can shoulder more of the responsibility. We will build homes to house them, lots of homes, we will create new towns and new jobs will be generated to support our new arrivals. We will pay for this by taxing everyone correctly and removing the sitting government. After that is complete we will open our borders welcoming all. Is that a reasonable summary of what you would like to see happen? | |||
"So If I am getting this right, we are not getting value for money because we are giving £45 quid a week to asylum seekers? That is £540 a year per seeker Are those who are talking about this then saying what, we ban asylum seekers and save a few quid? Is being a humanitarian costly then and therefore something we should stop? Sounds like giving Asylum seekers £45 a week is a drop in the ocean. Considering that weekly in London for those on universal credit get the following. Couples 442.31 Single adult households 296.35 Or outside London Couples 384.62 Single adult households 257.69 Are the above more deserving? I think there is a bit of demonisation in here, blame foreigners for the lack of competence in our government. Where is the value in that? So again are we getting any VFM, and where the hell is the money going if taxes receipts are high and we have nothing to show for it?" Try £billions. It costs billions per year in expenditure, you know this but focused on the low hanging fruit in terms of costs. | |||
"So If I am getting this right, we are not getting value for money because we are giving £45 quid a week to asylum seekers? That is £540 a year per seeker Are those who are talking about this then saying what, we ban asylum seekers and save a few quid? Is being a humanitarian costly then and therefore something we should stop? Sounds like giving Asylum seekers £45 a week is a drop in the ocean. Considering that weekly in London for those on universal credit get the following. Couples 442.31 Single adult households 296.35 Or outside London Couples 384.62 Single adult households 257.69 Are the above more deserving? I think there is a bit of demonisation in here, blame foreigners for the lack of competence in our government. Where is the value in that? So again are we getting any VFM, and where the hell is the money going if taxes receipts are high and we have nothing to show for it? Try £billions. It costs billions per year in expenditure, you know this but focused on the low hanging fruit in terms of costs. " I am giving examples, everything adds up, what about inefficiency? Administration, we have all this technology which is supposed to “drive down” costs, where is the payback for that surely that would have saved some money from that? | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? “We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers” Demonstrable nonsense. Again you swerve the question completely! What should we be doing more of? I thought that was quite obvious. We could shoulder more of the continent’s burden of asylum seekers and refugees. We could easily afford it if we taxed people correctly and didn’t have the most corrupt government in British living history. I have summarised your views, if something is not right let me know.. You want to advertise the UK as a great place to come to for all, ensuring we go further by approaching illegal economic migrants in mainland Europe to not stop there, but to come here so we can shoulder more of the responsibility. We will build homes to house them, lots of homes, we will create new towns and new jobs will be generated to support our new arrivals. We will pay for this by taxing everyone correctly and removing the sitting government. After that is complete we will open our borders welcoming all. Is that a reasonable summary of what you would like to see happen? " I thought Twitter was the worst place to debate politics, but it seems I was wrong. I make a statement that ‘the ultimate goal of humanity should be a world without borders’ and you’ve decided that equates to ‘we immediately open our borders and welcome all’ Yea I believe in lots of social housing. So should everyone. Yes I believe in helping asylum seekers and refugees. So should everyone. Yes I believe we should tax people fairly, including billionaires. So should everyone. And yes I believe we should remove the most corrupt government in living British memory. So should everyone. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? “We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers” Demonstrable nonsense. Again you swerve the question completely! What should we be doing more of? I thought that was quite obvious. We could shoulder more of the continent’s burden of asylum seekers and refugees. We could easily afford it if we taxed people correctly and didn’t have the most corrupt government in British living history. How do we 'shoulder more of the responsibility'? Refugees are free to go wherever they would like. Are you saying we should force them to come to the UK just so we can accept more? Force? No. Present a more welcoming image to them, yes. Maybe stop talking about throwing everyone out and sending them to Rwanda. I'll ask again how do we shoulder more if the responsibility? I’m not doing this with you today, mucker. Have a good day. It's a simple question, it really is. Although, I don't think the answer is simple, hence you can't give a viable one" No, I’ve answered. We should do more to help asylum seekers and refugees. We can take more, we can be more welcoming. We can stop the Rwanda idiocy. I’m just not going round in another circle of your nonsense. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? “We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers” Demonstrable nonsense. Again you swerve the question completely! What should we be doing more of? I thought that was quite obvious. We could shoulder more of the continent’s burden of asylum seekers and refugees. We could easily afford it if we taxed people correctly and didn’t have the most corrupt government in British living history. How do we 'shoulder more of the responsibility'? Refugees are free to go wherever they would like. Are you saying we should force them to come to the UK just so we can accept more? Force? No. Present a more welcoming image to them, yes. Maybe stop talking about throwing everyone out and sending them to Rwanda. I'll ask again how do we shoulder more if the responsibility? I’m not doing this with you today, mucker. Have a good day. It's a simple question, it really is. Although, I don't think the answer is simple, hence you can't give a viable one No, I’ve answered. We should do more to help asylum seekers and refugees. We can take more, we can be more welcoming. We can stop the Rwanda idiocy. I’m just not going round in another circle of your nonsense. " I can't say I'm any clearer in how we 'shoulder more of the responsibility' by that answer. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-65929360.amp Maybe you should tell this lady that your answer. I wonder what she would make of it. | |||
| |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? “We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers” Demonstrable nonsense. Again you swerve the question completely! What should we be doing more of? I thought that was quite obvious. We could shoulder more of the continent’s burden of asylum seekers and refugees. We could easily afford it if we taxed people correctly and didn’t have the most corrupt government in British living history. How do we 'shoulder more of the responsibility'? Refugees are free to go wherever they would like. Are you saying we should force them to come to the UK just so we can accept more? Force? No. Present a more welcoming image to them, yes. Maybe stop talking about throwing everyone out and sending them to Rwanda. I'll ask again how do we shoulder more if the responsibility? I’m not doing this with you today, mucker. Have a good day. It's a simple question, it really is. Although, I don't think the answer is simple, hence you can't give a viable one No, I’ve answered. We should do more to help asylum seekers and refugees. We can take more, we can be more welcoming. We can stop the Rwanda idiocy. I’m just not going round in another circle of your nonsense. I can't say I'm any clearer in how we 'shoulder more of the responsibility' by that answer. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-65929360.amp Maybe you should tell this lady that your answer. I wonder what she would make of it." She should probably take that up with the home office. Bad government doing bad government things. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? “We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers” Demonstrable nonsense. Again you swerve the question completely! What should we be doing more of? I thought that was quite obvious. We could shoulder more of the continent’s burden of asylum seekers and refugees. We could easily afford it if we taxed people correctly and didn’t have the most corrupt government in British living history. How do we 'shoulder more of the responsibility'? Refugees are free to go wherever they would like. Are you saying we should force them to come to the UK just so we can accept more? Force? No. Present a more welcoming image to them, yes. Maybe stop talking about throwing everyone out and sending them to Rwanda. I'll ask again how do we shoulder more if the responsibility? I’m not doing this with you today, mucker. Have a good day. It's a simple question, it really is. Although, I don't think the answer is simple, hence you can't give a viable one No, I’ve answered. We should do more to help asylum seekers and refugees. We can take more, we can be more welcoming. We can stop the Rwanda idiocy. I’m just not going round in another circle of your nonsense. I can't say I'm any clearer in how we 'shoulder more of the responsibility' by that answer. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-65929360.amp Maybe you should tell this lady that your answer. I wonder what she would make of it. She should probably take that up with the home office. Bad government doing bad government things. " The council have been taking it up with the home office for months. They don't care. How would you feel if that was you or a close family member? We're talking 2 days notice here, that lady could lose everything so that other people with nothing can gain. This is the whole point, it's really not that simple to just say 'we can help'. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? “We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers” Demonstrable nonsense. Again you swerve the question completely! What should we be doing more of? I thought that was quite obvious. We could shoulder more of the continent’s burden of asylum seekers and refugees. We could easily afford it if we taxed people correctly and didn’t have the most corrupt government in British living history. How do we 'shoulder more of the responsibility'? Refugees are free to go wherever they would like. Are you saying we should force them to come to the UK just so we can accept more? Force? No. Present a more welcoming image to them, yes. Maybe stop talking about throwing everyone out and sending them to Rwanda. I'll ask again how do we shoulder more if the responsibility? I’m not doing this with you today, mucker. Have a good day. It's a simple question, it really is. Although, I don't think the answer is simple, hence you can't give a viable one No, I’ve answered. We should do more to help asylum seekers and refugees. We can take more, we can be more welcoming. We can stop the Rwanda idiocy. I’m just not going round in another circle of your nonsense. I can't say I'm any clearer in how we 'shoulder more of the responsibility' by that answer. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-65929360.amp Maybe you should tell this lady that your answer. I wonder what she would make of it. She should probably take that up with the home office. Bad government doing bad government things. The council have been taking it up with the home office for months. They don't care. How would you feel if that was you or a close family member? We're talking 2 days notice here, that lady could lose everything so that other people with nothing can gain. This is the whole point, it's really not that simple to just say 'we can help'." ‘They don’t care’ - again, that’s bad government, not a sign that we can’t/shouldn’t help asylum seekers. How quick did nightingale hospitals get built? That’s the sort of outside the box thinking that could be utilised. Probably cheaper too. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? “We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers” Demonstrable nonsense. Again you swerve the question completely! What should we be doing more of? I thought that was quite obvious. We could shoulder more of the continent’s burden of asylum seekers and refugees. We could easily afford it if we taxed people correctly and didn’t have the most corrupt government in British living history. How do we 'shoulder more of the responsibility'? Refugees are free to go wherever they would like. Are you saying we should force them to come to the UK just so we can accept more? Force? No. Present a more welcoming image to them, yes. Maybe stop talking about throwing everyone out and sending them to Rwanda. I'll ask again how do we shoulder more if the responsibility? I’m not doing this with you today, mucker. Have a good day. It's a simple question, it really is. Although, I don't think the answer is simple, hence you can't give a viable one No, I’ve answered. We should do more to help asylum seekers and refugees. We can take more, we can be more welcoming. We can stop the Rwanda idiocy. I’m just not going round in another circle of your nonsense. I can't say I'm any clearer in how we 'shoulder more of the responsibility' by that answer. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-65929360.amp Maybe you should tell this lady that your answer. I wonder what she would make of it. She should probably take that up with the home office. Bad government doing bad government things. The council have been taking it up with the home office for months. They don't care. How would you feel if that was you or a close family member? We're talking 2 days notice here, that lady could lose everything so that other people with nothing can gain. This is the whole point, it's really not that simple to just say 'we can help'. ‘They don’t care’ - again, that’s bad government, not a sign that we can’t/shouldn’t help asylum seekers. How quick did nightingale hospitals get built? That’s the sort of outside the box thinking that could be utilised. Probably cheaper too. " I haven't blamed the asylum seekers, never have. As I said, the point is that it isn't as simple as you seem to think. Then again, I'm not sure you really care. Your answer to that poor woman and many others out there is 'blame the governement'. How does that actually help? | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? “We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers” Demonstrable nonsense. Again you swerve the question completely! What should we be doing more of? I thought that was quite obvious. We could shoulder more of the continent’s burden of asylum seekers and refugees. We could easily afford it if we taxed people correctly and didn’t have the most corrupt government in British living history. I have summarised your views, if something is not right let me know.. You want to advertise the UK as a great place to come to for all, ensuring we go further by approaching illegal economic migrants in mainland Europe to not stop there, but to come here so we can shoulder more of the responsibility. We will build homes to house them, lots of homes, we will create new towns and new jobs will be generated to support our new arrivals. We will pay for this by taxing everyone correctly and removing the sitting government. After that is complete we will open our borders welcoming all. Is that a reasonable summary of what you would like to see happen? I thought Twitter was the worst place to debate politics, but it seems I was wrong. I make a statement that ‘the ultimate goal of humanity should be a world without borders’ and you’ve decided that equates to ‘we immediately open our borders and welcome all’ Yea I believe in lots of social housing. So should everyone. Yes I believe in helping asylum seekers and refugees. So should everyone. Yes I believe we should tax people fairly, including billionaires. So should everyone. And yes I believe we should remove the most corrupt government in living British memory. So should everyone." You have a saccharin view of the world focusing on your socialist ideals and wanting to champion any one considered an underdog to the cost of everyone else. Idealistic notions of happiness, success, and harmony and totally ignoring any negative aspects, conflicts, or challenges. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? “We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers” Demonstrable nonsense. Again you swerve the question completely! What should we be doing more of? I thought that was quite obvious. We could shoulder more of the continent’s burden of asylum seekers and refugees. We could easily afford it if we taxed people correctly and didn’t have the most corrupt government in British living history. How do we 'shoulder more of the responsibility'? Refugees are free to go wherever they would like. Are you saying we should force them to come to the UK just so we can accept more? Force? No. Present a more welcoming image to them, yes. Maybe stop talking about throwing everyone out and sending them to Rwanda. I'll ask again how do we shoulder more if the responsibility? I’m not doing this with you today, mucker. Have a good day. It's a simple question, it really is. Although, I don't think the answer is simple, hence you can't give a viable one No, I’ve answered. We should do more to help asylum seekers and refugees. We can take more, we can be more welcoming. We can stop the Rwanda idiocy. I’m just not going round in another circle of your nonsense. I can't say I'm any clearer in how we 'shoulder more of the responsibility' by that answer. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-65929360.amp Maybe you should tell this lady that your answer. I wonder what she would make of it. She should probably take that up with the home office. Bad government doing bad government things. The council have been taking it up with the home office for months. They don't care. How would you feel if that was you or a close family member? We're talking 2 days notice here, that lady could lose everything so that other people with nothing can gain. This is the whole point, it's really not that simple to just say 'we can help'. ‘They don’t care’ - again, that’s bad government, not a sign that we can’t/shouldn’t help asylum seekers. How quick did nightingale hospitals get built? That’s the sort of outside the box thinking that could be utilised. Probably cheaper too. I haven't blamed the asylum seekers, never have. As I said, the point is that it isn't as simple as you seem to think. Then again, I'm not sure you really care. Your answer to that poor woman and many others out there is 'blame the governement'. How does that actually help?" Reading things that aren’t there again? I didn’t accuse you of blaming asylum seekers. I said we can and should do more to help them, and that we don’t is a failing of Government. You used this story, presumably to explain why we can’t do more to help asylum seekers - when in actual fact all it does is point out more bad government. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? “We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers” Demonstrable nonsense. Again you swerve the question completely! What should we be doing more of? I thought that was quite obvious. We could shoulder more of the continent’s burden of asylum seekers and refugees. We could easily afford it if we taxed people correctly and didn’t have the most corrupt government in British living history. I have summarised your views, if something is not right let me know.. You want to advertise the UK as a great place to come to for all, ensuring we go further by approaching illegal economic migrants in mainland Europe to not stop there, but to come here so we can shoulder more of the responsibility. We will build homes to house them, lots of homes, we will create new towns and new jobs will be generated to support our new arrivals. We will pay for this by taxing everyone correctly and removing the sitting government. After that is complete we will open our borders welcoming all. Is that a reasonable summary of what you would like to see happen? I thought Twitter was the worst place to debate politics, but it seems I was wrong. I make a statement that ‘the ultimate goal of humanity should be a world without borders’ and you’ve decided that equates to ‘we immediately open our borders and welcome all’ Yea I believe in lots of social housing. So should everyone. Yes I believe in helping asylum seekers and refugees. So should everyone. Yes I believe we should tax people fairly, including billionaires. So should everyone. And yes I believe we should remove the most corrupt government in living British memory. So should everyone. You have a saccharin view of the world focusing on your socialist ideals and wanting to champion any one considered an underdog to the cost of everyone else. Idealistic notions of happiness, success, and harmony and totally ignoring any negative aspects, conflicts, or challenges. " No, I don’t believe that the ultimate goal of society being a borderless peaceful world will be without conflict or challenges - that’s your interpretation once again (a common theme). However just because something is a challenge, I don’t believe we shouldn’t strive to achieve it, right? | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? “We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers” Demonstrable nonsense. Again you swerve the question completely! What should we be doing more of? I thought that was quite obvious. We could shoulder more of the continent’s burden of asylum seekers and refugees. We could easily afford it if we taxed people correctly and didn’t have the most corrupt government in British living history. How do we 'shoulder more of the responsibility'? Refugees are free to go wherever they would like. Are you saying we should force them to come to the UK just so we can accept more? Force? No. Present a more welcoming image to them, yes. Maybe stop talking about throwing everyone out and sending them to Rwanda. I'll ask again how do we shoulder more if the responsibility? I’m not doing this with you today, mucker. Have a good day. It's a simple question, it really is. Although, I don't think the answer is simple, hence you can't give a viable one No, I’ve answered. We should do more to help asylum seekers and refugees. We can take more, we can be more welcoming. We can stop the Rwanda idiocy. I’m just not going round in another circle of your nonsense. I can't say I'm any clearer in how we 'shoulder more of the responsibility' by that answer. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-65929360.amp Maybe you should tell this lady that your answer. I wonder what she would make of it. She should probably take that up with the home office. Bad government doing bad government things. The council have been taking it up with the home office for months. They don't care. How would you feel if that was you or a close family member? We're talking 2 days notice here, that lady could lose everything so that other people with nothing can gain. This is the whole point, it's really not that simple to just say 'we can help'. ‘They don’t care’ - again, that’s bad government, not a sign that we can’t/shouldn’t help asylum seekers. How quick did nightingale hospitals get built? That’s the sort of outside the box thinking that could be utilised. Probably cheaper too. I haven't blamed the asylum seekers, never have. As I said, the point is that it isn't as simple as you seem to think. Then again, I'm not sure you really care. Your answer to that poor woman and many others out there is 'blame the governement'. How does that actually help? Reading things that aren’t there again? I didn’t accuse you of blaming asylum seekers. I said we can and should do more to help them, and that we don’t is a failing of Government. You used this story, presumably to explain why we can’t do more to help asylum seekers - when in actual fact all it does is point out more bad government." Did you accuse me of reading something that isn't there and go on to do the exact same thing??
I'm using this story to highlight that it isn't as simple and easy as you'd like to think it is. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? “We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers” Demonstrable nonsense. Again you swerve the question completely! What should we be doing more of? I thought that was quite obvious. We could shoulder more of the continent’s burden of asylum seekers and refugees. We could easily afford it if we taxed people correctly and didn’t have the most corrupt government in British living history. I have summarised your views, if something is not right let me know.. You want to advertise the UK as a great place to come to for all, ensuring we go further by approaching illegal economic migrants in mainland Europe to not stop there, but to come here so we can shoulder more of the responsibility. We will build homes to house them, lots of homes, we will create new towns and new jobs will be generated to support our new arrivals. We will pay for this by taxing everyone correctly and removing the sitting government. After that is complete we will open our borders welcoming all. Is that a reasonable summary of what you would like to see happen? I thought Twitter was the worst place to debate politics, but it seems I was wrong. I make a statement that ‘the ultimate goal of humanity should be a world without borders’ and you’ve decided that equates to ‘we immediately open our borders and welcome all’ Yea I believe in lots of social housing. So should everyone. Yes I believe in helping asylum seekers and refugees. So should everyone. Yes I believe we should tax people fairly, including billionaires. So should everyone. And yes I believe we should remove the most corrupt government in living British memory. So should everyone. You have a saccharin view of the world focusing on your socialist ideals and wanting to champion any one considered an underdog to the cost of everyone else. Idealistic notions of happiness, success, and harmony and totally ignoring any negative aspects, conflicts, or challenges. " What some folk, perhaps you as well, fail to understand, is that socialists (and indeed soc-dems like myself) actually want to help everyone. Because that’s what society is - it’s all of us. Just because I want to see and end to rough sleeping (something essentially achieved under New Labour), it doesn’t mean we want the middle classes to put up a spare room. Just because we want kids to have nutritious and cheap/free school meals, we’re not looking to take the burger from the rich kid’s plate. Just because we want to help asylum seekers, it doesn’t mean we want to destroy the economy m (we’ve already got Brexit and the tories to do that ) | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? “We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers” Demonstrable nonsense. Again you swerve the question completely! What should we be doing more of? I thought that was quite obvious. We could shoulder more of the continent’s burden of asylum seekers and refugees. We could easily afford it if we taxed people correctly and didn’t have the most corrupt government in British living history. I have summarised your views, if something is not right let me know.. You want to advertise the UK as a great place to come to for all, ensuring we go further by approaching illegal economic migrants in mainland Europe to not stop there, but to come here so we can shoulder more of the responsibility. We will build homes to house them, lots of homes, we will create new towns and new jobs will be generated to support our new arrivals. We will pay for this by taxing everyone correctly and removing the sitting government. After that is complete we will open our borders welcoming all. Is that a reasonable summary of what you would like to see happen? I thought Twitter was the worst place to debate politics, but it seems I was wrong. I make a statement that ‘the ultimate goal of humanity should be a world without borders’ and you’ve decided that equates to ‘we immediately open our borders and welcome all’ Yea I believe in lots of social housing. So should everyone. Yes I believe in helping asylum seekers and refugees. So should everyone. Yes I believe we should tax people fairly, including billionaires. So should everyone. And yes I believe we should remove the most corrupt government in living British memory. So should everyone. You have a saccharin view of the world focusing on your socialist ideals and wanting to champion any one considered an underdog to the cost of everyone else. Idealistic notions of happiness, success, and harmony and totally ignoring any negative aspects, conflicts, or challenges. No, I don’t believe that the ultimate goal of society being a borderless peaceful world will be without conflict or challenges - that’s your interpretation once again (a common theme). However just because something is a challenge, I don’t believe we shouldn’t strive to achieve it, right? " You might not think that but you appear as you do not take onboard the problems that your ideas would generate, until it is mentioned.... Take open borders as an example, you say borders are a political construct, not real. That is a great strap line but it isn't addressing issues of open borders, such as. If open borders existed, what would happen to 3rd world countries if their younger generations left on mass. How would taxation work, planning, infrastructure such as hospitals, police, fire etc on a sliding scale of population? Would open borders create a top 10 of places to live and the rest of the world would go into decline? Different Languages would this become a blocker to growth, should there be 1 language, what would be the new language? Will there be criteria for travel or can anyone travel anywhere being borderless, example criminals, gangs etc. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? “We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers” Demonstrable nonsense. Again you swerve the question completely! What should we be doing more of? I thought that was quite obvious. We could shoulder more of the continent’s burden of asylum seekers and refugees. We could easily afford it if we taxed people correctly and didn’t have the most corrupt government in British living history. I have summarised your views, if something is not right let me know.. You want to advertise the UK as a great place to come to for all, ensuring we go further by approaching illegal economic migrants in mainland Europe to not stop there, but to come here so we can shoulder more of the responsibility. We will build homes to house them, lots of homes, we will create new towns and new jobs will be generated to support our new arrivals. We will pay for this by taxing everyone correctly and removing the sitting government. After that is complete we will open our borders welcoming all. Is that a reasonable summary of what you would like to see happen? I thought Twitter was the worst place to debate politics, but it seems I was wrong. I make a statement that ‘the ultimate goal of humanity should be a world without borders’ and you’ve decided that equates to ‘we immediately open our borders and welcome all’ Yea I believe in lots of social housing. So should everyone. Yes I believe in helping asylum seekers and refugees. So should everyone. Yes I believe we should tax people fairly, including billionaires. So should everyone. And yes I believe we should remove the most corrupt government in living British memory. So should everyone. You have a saccharin view of the world focusing on your socialist ideals and wanting to champion any one considered an underdog to the cost of everyone else. Idealistic notions of happiness, success, and harmony and totally ignoring any negative aspects, conflicts, or challenges. No, I don’t believe that the ultimate goal of society being a borderless peaceful world will be without conflict or challenges - that’s your interpretation once again (a common theme). However just because something is a challenge, I don’t believe we shouldn’t strive to achieve it, right? You might not think that but you appear as you do not take onboard the problems that your ideas would generate, until it is mentioned.... Take open borders as an example, you say borders are a political construct, not real. That is a great strap line but it isn't addressing issues of open borders, such as. If open borders existed, what would happen to 3rd world countries if their younger generations left on mass. How would taxation work, planning, infrastructure such as hospitals, police, fire etc on a sliding scale of population? Would open borders create a top 10 of places to live and the rest of the world would go into decline? Different Languages would this become a blocker to growth, should there be 1 language, what would be the new language? Will there be criteria for travel or can anyone travel anywhere being borderless, example criminals, gangs etc. " All of these questions would have been aimed at the EU, no? Poland was a very poor country prior to joining. Many poles sought work elsewhere, but as Poland’s economy grew through trade - the Poles actually travelled less as their economy grew. A borderless world would not happen overnight - it would take decades or even centuries- growing and adding reciprocal countries and blocs gradually. Problems overcome, new ones encountered. You think it’s impossible? That’s understandable. But most would have thought the EU impossible just half a century ago. | |||
"We're not getting value for money. All they seem to do is focus on disaster capitalism by either taking advantage of disasters like Covid, or by creating disasters like Brexit. The rest of the time is spent distracting people. "Look over that at those people in that small boat, they're causing all your problems". The solution to the boat problem is very simple and one I am sure you can support. We acknowledge that our borders are open, and sack anyone involved in border control and the asylum process. That way we save the taxpayer a shitload of wasted money paying for public sector workers who aren't achieving anything, and the net result is the same. No need for state funded lawyers, hotel owners, or other parasites engaged in the "refugee" scam, anyone who wants to can move to Britain and get a job or starve. They say the empty can rattles the most. Sorry, don’t mind Me. Just singing some Metallica. So you want open borders AND you want to keep the state border infrastructure in place? We don’t have open borders. We didn’t even have open borders as an EU member. I’m all in favour of processing asylum seekers and taking in refugees. We’re meant to be a global leader - I’d rather we act like one. I’m far more concerned with the increasing wealth disparity, a government that acts with impunity, and failure to provide adequate housing and resources for our youth, rather than some poor souls arriving on dinghies. What we should be doing is providing a safe means of crossing the channel in order that asylum seekers can be processed correctly and don’t have to risk death. They could claim asylum in any given country they pass through to get here. The vast majority do. What’s that got to do with the numbers that travel over the to the UK? That we don’t take in as many migrants as comparable countries. So net migration into the UK in 2022 was 640,000. The government actually changed the methodology to reduce that number. And we are talking about net rather than gross migration, which is again deceptive. So which countries are you comparing us to, and what are their figures? Do you think 640k is too low, given your concern about housing? What would the right figure be in your opinion? My apologies - the debate was centred around refugees and asylum seekers, of which the U.K. take less than Germany, France, Italy (though some sources disagree on that one), Turkey. As far as legal migration goes, I’m comfortably on record as saying I support reciprocal freedom of movement, not only within the EU but beyond. What are the parameters for reciprocal freedom of movement, what’s in and what wouldn’t be? Or is this another haven’t a clue but sounds lovely? Ps. You have yet to explain why the numbers coming here mean something different to the numbers staying in mainland Europe They mean that we could, and should do more to help. We’re meant to be a global leader, a first world country, a top 5 (or 7, depending on source) economy. Yet we take in fewer refugees than Turkey. We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers. So what is it we should be doing more of? Why are you comparing the UK to Turkey, is Turkey a bad place for asylum seekers to reside? If people are settling in Turkey, who are you to say they have not made the right choice? “We are taking in the vast majority of economic migrants and definitely all the legitimate asylum seekers” Demonstrable nonsense. Again you swerve the question completely! What should we be doing more of? I thought that was quite obvious. We could shoulder more of the continent’s burden of asylum seekers and refugees. We could easily afford it if we taxed people correctly and didn’t have the most corrupt government in British living history. I have summarised your views, if something is not right let me know.. You want to advertise the UK as a great place to come to for all, ensuring we go further by approaching illegal economic migrants in mainland Europe to not stop there, but to come here so we can shoulder more of the responsibility. We will build homes to house them, lots of homes, we will create new towns and new jobs will be generated to support our new arrivals. We will pay for this by taxing everyone correctly and removing the sitting government. After that is complete we will open our borders welcoming all. Is that a reasonable summary of what you would like to see happen? I thought Twitter was the worst place to debate politics, but it seems I was wrong. I make a statement that ‘the ultimate goal of humanity should be a world without borders’ and you’ve decided that equates to ‘we immediately open our borders and welcome all’ Yea I believe in lots of social housing. So should everyone. Yes I believe in helping asylum seekers and refugees. So should everyone. Yes I believe we should tax people fairly, including billionaires. So should everyone. And yes I believe we should remove the most corrupt government in living British memory. So should everyone. You have a saccharin view of the world focusing on your socialist ideals and wanting to champion any one considered an underdog to the cost of everyone else. Idealistic notions of happiness, success, and harmony and totally ignoring any negative aspects, conflicts, or challenges. No, I don’t believe that the ultimate goal of society being a borderless peaceful world will be without conflict or challenges - that’s your interpretation once again (a common theme). However just because something is a challenge, I don’t believe we shouldn’t strive to achieve it, right? You might not think that but you appear as you do not take onboard the problems that your ideas would generate, until it is mentioned.... Take open borders as an example, you say borders are a political construct, not real. That is a great strap line but it isn't addressing issues of open borders, such as. If open borders existed, what would happen to 3rd world countries if their younger generations left on mass. How would taxation work, planning, infrastructure such as hospitals, police, fire etc on a sliding scale of population? Would open borders create a top 10 of places to live and the rest of the world would go into decline? Different Languages would this become a blocker to growth, should there be 1 language, what would be the new language? Will there be criteria for travel or can anyone travel anywhere being borderless, example criminals, gangs etc. All of these questions would have been aimed at the EU, no? Poland was a very poor country prior to joining. Many poles sought work elsewhere, but as Poland’s economy grew through trade - the Poles actually travelled less as their economy grew. A borderless world would not happen overnight - it would take decades or even centuries- growing and adding reciprocal countries and blocs gradually. Problems overcome, new ones encountered. You think it’s impossible? That’s understandable. But most would have thought the EU impossible just half a century ago. " No I don't think it is impossible, I have stated before that we are approx 100 years away from becoming a tier 1 civilisation. To get there I believe we will join, split and go to war until there is a world nation. That is sometime off and smatterings of people movement for economic reasons is potentially hindering the process not speeding it up. | |||
"To get there I believe we will join, split and go to war until there is a world nation. That is sometime off and smatterings of people movement for economic reasons is potentially hindering the process not speeding it up." Sadly it won't happen in my lifetime, but I do believe we will eventually move to a one-world nation at some point. People will be free to move where they wish, unhindered by bureaucratic restrictions. The only hinderance will be where work is available for them. However a one world nation will have immense resources at its disposal and can grant access to those resources to who it wishes. My hope that any such access granted is equitable and fair to all, with no cartels or monopolies hoarding it for themselves. | |||
