General Election/UK Politics

[pete0]

On 19/02/2020 at 14:41, Bailey said:

You're so naive. There are so many people who don't give enough of shit, no matter how well you train them. I work with a lot of aspiring young men and women who want a career in law and I can assure you that it has nothing to do with education and opportunity. To a lot of people work pays the bills and it's an inconvenience. 

I am not saying that education and upbringing don't have a large part to play in getting someone into that position, but when in that position, it's clear that some people care and some people don't. 

Really don't get what point you're making here. You've accepted education and opportunity aren't fair. If anything you've strengthened my argument as the some of the bpeople you know aren't really trying out giving a fuck. 

[pete0]

19 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Personally I would rather people working here who are from the EU than South America, purely because I fear South American’s come from more lawless societies, and live by different rules of what’s acceptable and what isn’t, which to be honest scares me for our children, who could fall fowl of this lawlessness on a night out in the town centres pub’s  and club's.

I'm guessing you've not been to Dublin in a while. They've embraced the Brazilians migrants Ali g style aaaaigh!

 

 

[pete0]

1 hour ago, RPG said:

No, But fruit pickers salaries will go up, making the job more attractive to those currently on benefits and the 8,000,000 figure is pure fantasy. It's just a few thousand who will be positively affected by this new tory policy.

So we're cutting off millions of Europeans and enforcing austerity on millions of our own just to get a few thousand to pick some fruit. 

[MikeO]

 

[Palfy]

2 hours ago, MikeO said:

 

I watched that last night, and what an ignorant mouthy bigot that fake blonde was, god help anyone married to that, unless it’s RPG and TallPaul of course that would be a marriage made in heaven

[pete0]

2 hours ago, MikeO said:

 

Owen Jones opinion on it. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/21/normalise-bbc-racism-hate-crimes-question-time?fbclid=IwAR3pTeRJqml4LpXqZPWDtjR6D_4Ur6191ag2VAFEpUCylzAfoFVknGgp8X8

[Palfy]

14 minutes ago, pete0 said:

Owen Jones opinion on it. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/21/normalise-bbc-racism-hate-crimes-question-time?fbclid=IwAR3pTeRJqml4LpXqZPWDtjR6D_4Ur6191ag2VAFEpUCylzAfoFVknGgp8X8

It was word for word the same rant we get from some on here. 

[pete0]

6 minutes ago, Palfy said:

It was word for word the same rant we get from some on here. 

I just can't fathom them, it's racism at its finest.

Migrants are net contributors. The current gov campaigned on the back of us having 'scroungers' (stats show that is less than half a percent of the population) yet are now kicking out net contributors to entice the scroungers in to work by booting of the foreigners as apparently they are lowering wages and stealing jobs. It's a joke, more so when wages have only been impacted negatively by half a percent too. Which just shows the whole argument is bull shit and people trying to justify their nazi side. 

[pete0]

56 minutes ago, RPG said:

Not at all Pete and I think you know it.

A reduction in the supply of labour whilst demand remains the same can only result in one thing - higher salaries for UK people, more UK people in work, less demand on unemployment based welfare and more welfare available for other areas.

As far as cutting low paid European transient labour is concerned - Yes, absolutely. That is one of the reasons why we voted for brexit. Europeans are just as welcome as any other nationality, provided they first pass the universally applied criteria. I suspect that seasonal fruit pickers would not accumulate the 70 points necessary.

Whether there can be seasonal, temporary visas in future for fruit pickers is something that I suppose might be considered later. Australia has a version of it and I see no reason not to copy it. But I think you need to put some realism into your numbers. Try deleting the millions and inserting a few thousands into your posts on the subject.

Wages have been adversely affected by 0.5%. That is very minimal considering their net contributions into the country. 

Getting rid won't make wages high enough to offset their net contributions. It will also leave a massive hole of vacancies to be filled. 

It's not like the Australian system though. Our one is purely a fascist dream. 

[Palfy]

21 minutes ago, pete0 said:

Wages have been adversely affected by 0.5%. That is very minimal considering their net contributions into the country. 

Getting rid won't make wages high enough to offset their net contributions. It will also leave a massive hole of vacancies to be filled. 

It's not like the Australian system though. Our one is purely a fascist dream. 

And the largest form of employment in this country is from small businesses, who can’t afford to be held over a barrel over wages, we attract a lot of migrant workers because our wages are some of the best in the world for unskilled jobs. 
So let’s get rid of the immigrants and say to these businesses now you have to pay Brits who aren’t there and those that are aren’t interested, you now have to pay a lot more per hour, the up shot of that is these businesses will go bust due not being able to complete in the world market, and that means less income for the government and more austerity and a dying economy. 

[pete0]

On 20/02/2020 at 09:48, RPG said:

If you really believe that to be the case can you please explain why the government is so unhappy with the BBC and is actively considering scrapping the licence fee and making the BBC a subscription based service?

If the BBC were so helpful towards this government (as you suggest) then surely the government would be doing everything it could to help the BBC wouldn't it?

Why is that not the case?

Just noticed this one. 

They've said the same for 10 years. Empty threats to keep them as a mouthpiece. Pretty much like how Thatcher kept peados in power to use. 

[pete0]

24 minutes ago, Palfy said:

And the largest form of employment in this country is from small businesses, who can’t afford to be held over a barrel over wages, we attract a lot of migrant workers because our wages are some of the best in the world for unskilled jobs. 
So let’s get rid of the immigrants and say to these businesses now you have to pay Brits who aren’t there and those that are aren’t interested, you now have to pay a lot more per hour, the up shot of that is these businesses will go bust due not being able to complete in the world market, and that means less income for the government and more austerity and a dying economy. 

Don't agree with the first half, most people at the bottom are paid the same regardless of race thanks to the government's minimum wage which was intended as a safety net but companies abused it thanks to union power being diminished.

Do completely agree with the second. Scary world is little Britain. 

[pete0]

10 hours ago, TallPaul1878 said:

Claiming that migrants are net contributors is a red herring. Did they bring that money with them? They are doing a job and paying taxes, if a native Briton had taken that job and paid the same taxes then the contribution would still be the same.

1 in 10 nurses and 1 in 4 doctors are foreigners. Bear in mind both these positions are well below the necessary quotas. We don't have enough people to do the work. People are getting shafted with shorter breaks or shorter hours so they don't even get breaks. Companies should be hiring more and lowering the stress on the workforce. 

Years ago if someone was sick there was enough staff to cover it. Companies now run on the minimum amount of employees and use agencies and what not to fill the gaps. Employees are under a lot more stress than those 40 years ago. 

10 hours ago, TallPaul1878 said:

We have allowed our economy to become dependant on cheap foreign labour. It isn't something that happened overnight and it isn't something that can be fixed overnight. But carrying on this way will only ever make the value of human labour close to zero.

What cheap foreign labour? Stats show wages were only affected by a drop of 0.5%. Is that figure enough to justify this new regime? 

Nevermind human labour, this government values people at zero. 

10 hours ago, TallPaul1878 said:

Again, as soon as I have a break I notice you're comparing myself and RPG to the blonde on QT and labelling us as fascists again. What a way to stifle any argument and criticism of your precious globalist mindset.

Did I? I can't remember and you're not worth my time to go check. 

Any how why you getting the hump. You called me a commie and you're tone throughout is aggressive. You might be one rule for you and one for everyone else but I don't know you I don't have to tolerate your hypocrisy. 

10 hours ago, TallPaul1878 said:

Time will tell whether these new policies will work but the working class have decided that enough is enough and that open border immigration policies are hurting their chances of getting a meaningful job, hurting their chances of getting an affordable home and hurting their chances of finding a place in the local school for their children.

Need some evidence on this as most migrants come already educated and those that don't tend to be placed in comprehensives. 

10 hours ago, TallPaul1878 said:

So whilst we are on the subject of mocking the QT woman, the question still stands. How much immigration is enough immigration? Should we double it? Triple or quadruple? After all, you believe that my opinion of cutting migration is not just wrong but borderline fascist so then surely immigration needs to go up in your books. The more the merrier right?

Mocking? She's a piece of shit and makes me embarrassed to be born in England. People like that is why I refer to myself as British or European or Earthling before saying English. On the same note, and this might blow your mind, it's not a decision of upping or lowering it's a case of abolishing it. 

[Palfy]

32 minutes ago, pete0 said:

1 in 10 nurses and 1 in 4 doctors are foreigners. Bear in mind both these positions are well below the necessary quotas. We don't have enough people to do the work. People are getting shafted with shorter breaks or shorter hours so they don't even get breaks. Companies should be hiring more and lowering the stress on the workforce. 

Years ago if someone was sick there was enough staff to cover it. Companies now run on the minimum amount of employees and use agencies and what not to fill the gaps. Employees are under a lot more stress than those 40 years ago. 

What cheap foreign labour? Stats show wages were only affected by a drop of 0.5%. Is that figure enough to justify this new regime? 

Nevermind human labour, this government values people at zero. 

Did I? I can't remember and you're not worth my time to go check. 

Any how why you getting the hump. You called me a commie and you're tone throughout is aggressive. You might be one rule for you and one for everyone else but I don't know you I don't have to tolerate your hypocrisy. 

Need some evidence on this as most migrants come already educated and those that don't tend to be placed in comprehensives. 

Mocking? She's a piece of shit and makes me embarrassed to be born in England. People like that is why I refer to myself as British or European or Earthling before saying English. On the same note, and this might blow your mind, it's not a decision of upping or lowering it's a case of abolishing it. 

Spot on except the English bit, you shouldn’t let the facist and racist in this country strip you of your right to be proud that you’re English, carry on condemning them and showing you are against their far right politics, and you can walk with your head held high.  

[pete0]

6 hours ago, Palfy said:

Spot on except the English bit, you shouldn’t let the facist and racist in this country strip you of your right to be proud that you’re English, carry on condemning them and showing you are against their far right politics, and you can walk with your head held high.  

Not to be a bellend. But I'm very much in the scouse not English mentality. Just look at the polls, the country hates us. Well those that have never been. We have an absolutely corrupt system and it's astonishing that we judge North Korea. We're no better. 

[Palfy]

Nurses in this country are more unhappy with the conditions they have to work in than the money they earn, they do not blame migrants for that they blame successive governments for underfunding, and this last 10 years the NHS has seen the worst funding ever imposed on it, due to the Tories austerity measures. 
Also they will tell you that without migrant nurses their conditions would be a whole lot worse and the system would have collapsed years ago. 
 

Maybe stopping migrant nurses in the NHS is away for the Tories to finally consign it to the scrap heap, they’ve been trying for years and this could work for them. 

[pete0]

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/uk-immigration-points-system-low-skilled-work-1887284?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=ijp&fbclid=IwAR1uJJ6t9EAmyAWQn6k167ABGb8F7R3nC2VBTaAjOgOgjl-WX0aTROmoPL0

[pete0]

Energy minister with a bigger number blunder than Diane Abbott. Let's see if Lord Duncan goes viral... 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-minister-overheats-how-much-21580163?fbclid=IwAR0kslDVQHeePoOHOBC2dFSISWUVNskfTImXznk8PBsxFLtgFHYfjmOCZ30

[MikeO]

'

The Salvation Army are not known for their radical views.

But they are the latest organisation to warn that the forced movement of claimants from ESA to UC is a disaster waiting to happen.

Researchers for the Salvation Army found that 85% of their users struggled to complete a UC claim.

42% said that mental health issues were the main reason they had problems claiming UC.

The Salvation Army is warning that there is now overwhelming evidence that unless the government provide more support for people to apply, vulnerable people will struggle to access their benefits.

The charity says that millions could be left unable to buy food, pay their rent, and take care of their children.

One claimant interviewed by the Salvation Army was a 36 year old father who told them:

“I suffer from anxiety and depression and have been coming to The Salvation Army’s foodbank since I was put on Universal Credit two years ago. It’s really tough and I’ve been sanctioned for missing appointments when I was ill. I’ve also been sanctioned for not looking online for work, but I don’t have access to the internet now because I had to pawn my laptop and my phone to get money to look after my kids.”'

[Palfy]

6 hours ago, MikeO said:

'

The Salvation Army are not known for their radical views.

But they are the latest organisation to warn that the forced movement of claimants from ESA to UC is a disaster waiting to happen.

Researchers for the Salvation Army found that 85% of their users struggled to complete a UC claim.

42% said that mental health issues were the main reason they had problems claiming UC.

The Salvation Army is warning that there is now overwhelming evidence that unless the government provide more support for people to apply, vulnerable people will struggle to access their benefits.

The charity says that millions could be left unable to buy food, pay their rent, and take care of their children.

One claimant interviewed by the Salvation Army was a 36 year old father who told them:

“I suffer from anxiety and depression and have been coming to The Salvation Army’s foodbank since I was put on Universal Credit two years ago. It’s really tough and I’ve been sanctioned for missing appointments when I was ill. I’ve also been sanctioned for not looking online for work, but I don’t have access to the internet now because I had to pawn my laptop and my phone to get money to look after my kids.”'

Shocking. 

[MikeO]

53 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Shocking. 

On a human level yes but no surprise to me given the people running the country.

[pete0]

 

[Matt]

3 hours ago, RPG said:

That really could not be more wrong Pete.

By taking control of immigration and consequently reducing the total welfare burden there is more money per capita in the welfare budget to help British people. That has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with mathematics.

Except we had control of immigration already!!! Reducing border and immigration control by 20k employees was the biggest part of the issue, because the remaining staff couldn’t then do their jobs properly. 
 

and as if the Conservatives are going to put any of the supposed money saved back into the budget. They’ll see it as a savings to reinvest for sure, but it won’t be in welfare or social aid. 

[pete0]

5 hours ago, RPG said:

That really could not be more wrong Pete.

By taking control of immigration and consequently reducing the total welfare burden there is more money per capita in the welfare budget to help British people. That has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with mathematics.

Immigrants put very little burden on the NHS, for the most part we can claim back the costs of their treatment from their home country. The initial 'burden' is offset. Efficiencies lossed through outsourcing and under staffing are the major problems and both are easily addressed. However it is clear the tories don't want to address, they are doing the opposite, they are managing a decline to ultimately sell it off. Meanwhile people are needlessly dying, and life expectancies are down. I don't think tories take responsibility for this, they should clearly be informing voters that this is the consequence of their policy. 

1 in 8 NHS staff are migrants (1 in 4 if you just look at doctors). Without immigrants the NHS will struggle even more. Even more people will die needlessly. 

Fact check :

there’s no correlation between the proportion of immigrants in an area and the performance of local A&E departments.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/high-immigration-nhs-crisis

[Matt]

12 minutes ago, RPG said:

Same budget but less recipients equals more funding per capita.

Like I said, nothing to do with politics and everything to do with mathematics.

Ok, if you insist it’s all about mathematics, how about equations? That’s where multiple variables are calculated together to get an answer. You can’t discount politics from the equation, unless you’re insisting it’s basic maths. It’s not add and subtract levels we’re talking about here, so no, you cannot discount politics especially when politicians allocate the budget as they see fit. 

[Matt]

20 minutes ago, RPG said:

Any equation can be made unnecessarily complicated in an insincere attempt to deliver a false, but desired, answer.

But that is quite simply not the case here. Welfare budget remains the same. Number of claimants reduces. Quite simply that means more welfare per capita. What's not to like about that?

And politicians do not just allocate the budget as they see fit. The budget is agreed a year (or more) in advance, has to be approved by Parliament (all sides) and is subject to continuous scrutiny. And rightly so.

I do think there is an attempt in certain quarters to try to spin good news as bad news - presumably because they don't like the people delivering the good news. But that is personalities, not politics.

So, since you rightly say, you recognise that budgets change annually. Politicians prepare the budget that parliament has to approve. You recognise that politics does have an impact but speculate that welfare won’t change, even though it does every year, rarely for the better over the last decade as it’s been on a steady decline. So, can you provide your source to back up your speculation? My assumption and general facts says no. 

[Matt]

23 minutes ago, RPG said:

The fact of the matter is that the fewer people there are to claim welfare, the more there is per capita.

It really is that simple. You are trying, I think, to muddy the waters in an attempt to discredit what is a good thing.

There is no evidence whatsover to suggest that the welfare budget will be reduced and, going by current spending plans, (NHS, Police, HS2 etc) it is highly likely to be increased I would suggest.

The trend under the Tory’s over the last 10 years is evidence. It’s not a massive decline since they took over, but it is gradually declining. No water muddying here, just pointing out facts.

[Palfy]

12 hours ago, RPG said:

The fact of the matter is that the fewer people there are to claim welfare, the more there is per capita.

It really is that simple. You are trying, I think, to muddy the waters in an attempt to discredit what is a good thing.

There is no evidence whatsover to suggest that the welfare budget will be reduced and, going by current spending plans, (NHS, Police, HS2 etc) it is highly likely to be increased I would suggest.

Do your homework please successive Tory governments have fallen well short of their budget and manifesto claims, the worst this century I believe being Cameron and Osborne, and they promised that the NHS was in safe hands under them, but what they did was to break budget promises and to bring it to it’s knees. 
The Tories have nearly broken every spending plan promised, that’s why there’s evidence that the welfare budget won’t be met, like I say do your homework and look at there history of constantly breaking budget promises. 

[holystove]

15 hours ago, RPG said:

There is no evidence whatsover to suggest that the welfare budget will be reduced and, going by current spending plans, (NHS, Police, HS2 etc) it is highly likely to be increased I would suggest.

Whether or not the Tories decide to increase spending or not will only have a marginal effect.  Only a healthy, growing economy can sustain the UK social model.  With an aging domestic population, one necessary element is high immigration numbers, especially in a country with such a low unemployment rate.  

The big fault in your argument is you see the size of the welfare budget as a fixed parameter in your equation.  In reality, less immigration = smaller economy = smaller tax intake = smaller welfare budget. 

Not even taking into account immigrants are over-represented in the social sector providing the services foreseen in the welfare budget.

(and not even taking into account how much smaller the UK economy is, and will be, because of brexit).

[pete0]

21 hours ago, RPG said:

Well, the truth (or otherwise) of your bold claims will be put to the test in the next year or so.

I just call it an extension of project fear.

What bold claims? I'm lost to what you're on about sorry, I just started some facts. Project fear?