Westminster Politics

Because they're popular with the morons in this country/make it harder for the right-wing press to vilify him.

This seems to be a bit circular. The point is the policies he is proposing are popular with the people he needs to vote Labour in order to win the next GE. The same therefore will almost certainly be true over the next 5 years and into the following GE.

Logic suggests therefore that whatever he's proposing in order to win in 2024 is likely to be what he tries to enact whilst in government and also what he campaigns on for success in 2029.

It would be a very strange tactic in terms of re-election for him to covet and ultimately win dozens of (currently Tory) seats based on a strict immigration policy, fiscal conservatism, no EU single market / CU and a modest green agenda; but then for him to liberalise the immigration system, join the customs union and go on a green spending spree once elected (and then be booted out in 2029).
 
This seems to be a bit circular. The point is the policies he is proposing are popular with the people he needs to vote Labour in order to win the next GE. The same therefore will almost certainly be true over the next 5 years and into the following GE.

Logic suggests therefore that whatever he's proposing in order to win in 2024 is likely to be what he tries to enact whilst in government and also what he campaigns on for success in 2029.

It would be a very strange tactic in terms of re-election for him to covet and ultimately win dozens of (currently Tory) seats based on a strict immigration policy, fiscal conservatism, no EU single market / CU and a modest green agenda; but then for him to liberalise the immigration system, join the customs union and go on a green spending spree once elected (and then be booted out in 2029).
So he just keeps enacting policies that don't work to appease the public, to be reelected, so he can enact more policies that don't work?

That's circular mate.

You get elected, you impact lives in a positive way. People will be too busy being happy at not waiting 8 weeks for a GP appointment, or two years for a hip operation to be annoyed you didn't do some random policy point you said you would, in an interview, five years ago.

I also think you can create so much good stuff while in government that it would be too much work to dismantle it and it becomes the new status quo. Remember for example the Tories disagreed with minimum wage, yet when they got in, they didn't repeal it, it's still here.

You honestly think if you put in policies that make the NHS work like it did in 08, the Tories are going to campaign to make it......worse? That makes zero sense.
 
This seems to be a bit circular. The point is the policies he is proposing are popular with the people he needs to vote Labour in order to win the next GE. The same therefore will almost certainly be true over the next 5 years and into the following GE.

Agree with this. Also, the policies shape the electorate just as much as the electorate shape the policies.

For example, for years the oil industry and the automotive industries have lobbied governments to ensure car is first, and that has brought an induced demand of high car ownership, even in central London, where you virtually don't need a car, with few exceptions.
Now that green policies are more prominent, you can see that Sunak eyes car owners as one of the last bastions of voter groups he can win over. This wouldn't have been a thing if the british government didn't force a managed decline in public transport for decades.
 
So, there are 91,047 asylum seekers in the UK. They have brought a barge at great expense to house 500 of them. Tell me how it isn't an overpriced 'Offal Tube'?
 
So he just keeps enacting policies that don't work to appease the public, to be reelected, so he can enact more policies that don't work?

That's circular mate.

You get elected, you impact lives in a positive way. People will be too busy being happy at not waiting 8 weeks for a GP appointment, or two years for a hip operation to be annoyed you didn't do some random policy point you said you would, in an interview, five years ago.

I also think you can create so much good stuff while in government that it would be too much work to dismantle it and it becomes the new status quo. Remember for example the Tories disagreed with minimum wage, yet when they got in, they didn't repeal it, it's still here.

You honestly think if you put in policies that make the NHS work like it did in 08, the Tories are going to campaign to make it......worse? That makes zero sense.

My view is he'll enact policies that are seen as tough on immigration and he will be fiscally coversative in order to keep the voters he will win next year on side in order to win again in 2029.

I don't think he'll: re-nationalise industries, abolish Universal credit, open legal asylum routes, re-enter the Single Market, abolish tuition fee's etc.

On that point let's try to be a bit more specific, rather than talking in generalaties. Which of the below do you believe Starmer will action?
  • Do you believe that he will apply to re-enter the EU Custom's Union or Single Market in his first term?
  • Do you believe that he will reintroduce free movement of people across the EU?
  • Do you believe that he will spend £28b extra on Green policies in his first full financial year in office, or indeed by the end of his first term?
  • Do you believe that he will set up legal routes for asylum seekers across Africa, Asia and/or South America?
  • Do you believe that he will enact policies reflecting his previous views on self-ID?
  • Do you believe that he will abolish the two-child limit benefits cap in his first term?
  • Do you believe that he will abolish the benefit's cap?
  • Do you believe that he will re-nationalise Energy, Rail, Water and/or Royal Mail?
  • Do you believe that he will roll back private involvement in the NHS?
  • Do you believe that he will abolish Universal Credit?
  • Do you believe that he will abolish University tuition fee's?
  • Do you believe that he will ensure full childcare provision until primary school age?
  • Do you believe that he will introduce a tax on tech companies?
  • Do you believe that he will roll back on the oil exploration licences granted by Sunak?
  • Do you believe that he will increase income tax on the top 5% of earners?
 
My view is he'll enact policies that are seen as tough on immigration and he will be fiscally coversative in order to keep the voters he will win next year on side in order to win again in 2029.

I don't think he'll: re-nationalise industries, abolish Universal credit, open legal asylum routes, re-enter the Single Market, abolish tuition fee's etc.

On that point let's try to be a bit more specific, rather than talking in generalaties. Which of the below do you believe Starmer will action?
  • Do you believe that he will apply to re-enter the EU Custom's Union or Single Market in his first term? Unfortunately not, this is too bold a policy but it would be my first policy enacted, big bump to GDP and you can spend on more things.
  • Do you believe that he will reintroduce free movement of people across the EU? This isn't something Labour can do? This is the EU.
  • Do you believe that he will spend £28b extra on Green policies in his first full financial year in office, or indeed by the end of his first term? Potentially over 5 years, but not in year one, as that would most likely be wasted by spending it on projects that wouldn't benefit but would make a good splash to people who want to see green policies.
  • Do you believe that he will set up legal routes for asylum seekers across Africa, Asia, and/or South America? I think he will fund and open asylum channels to clear the backlog of claims and remove the boat crossings, but not necessarily grant a level of asylum people want to see. I think Aslyum will increase but that is not difficult given the low levels.
  • Do you believe that he will enact policies reflecting his previous views on self-ID? Don't know his previous or current views on this, so cannot answer.
  • Do you believe that he will abolish the two-child limit benefits cap in his first term? I think they will set out to rework the benefits system and lifting of this cap at some point through the first term.
  • Do you believe that he will abolish the benefit's cap? Increase to align with inflation/cost of living.
  • Do you believe that he will re-nationalise Energy, Rail, Water and/or Royal Mail? They will attempt it first with water, energy and rail I can see being a bridge too far inside of 5 years. Again, if I was PM, this would be second on my agenda.
  • Do you believe that he will roll back private involvement in the NHS? No, I think they will increase funding in conjunction with finding a way to use private providers to complement the NHS in non-emergency/elective areas.
  • Do you believe that he will abolish Universal Credit? No, this will be a reorganizing/increase in levels to align with inflation.
  • Do you believe that he will abolish University tuition fee's? No, I think they will stay the same/ be capped/stop further increase. This would be third on my personal agenda.
  • Do you believe that he will ensure full childcare provision until primary school age? I think this is being proposed now under the Tories, so imagine these trials will continue under labour.
  • Do you believe that he will introduce a tax on tech companies? I think he will increase CGT by a few % points but not specifically target tech companies.
  • Do you believe that he will roll back on the oil exploration licences granted by Sunak? No, I think he will keep them but not put forward anymore.
  • Do you believe that he will increase income tax on the top 5% of earners? I don't think he will raise taxes on people on £75k, no.

Answered in bold.
 
Any politican telling you people arriving are 'illegal' is lying.
I made the point that genuine asylum seekers are not 'illegals'; however, when they arrive via criminal people trafficker routes, who also traffic many who are not genuine asylum seekers, then they are taking part in an illegal and unsafe activity.
The fact that there is no alternative, should receive sympathetic consideration, but still it does not make the act of people trafficking in small boats either safe or legal and any government has to solve that problem first, if only because the media and the vast majority of the public demand it. Further more the likelihood of a 'proper' search for alternatives being found, will not receive any urgent consideration until the arrival of people, asylum seekers or whoever, on small boats is stopped.

If there was a method for them to contact the authorities before they got into a boat,
There are methods and those with full identity paperwork and proof of the dangers they face and the persecution they fear that makes them legitimate asylum seekers, should use these methods, but we all know these methods are cumbersome and take too long and so people head to the people traffickers and illegal transportation.
Any government in the UK will have to stop the boats before they get public support to look for alternatives.

There is only one way to stop these boats and that's to let them onto ships and process them in the UK. I can't see either happening in a very long time.
I agree, there are better solutions, safer and quicker, but the government, any government cannot undertake such alternatives until the issue of criminal gangs illegally trafficking 'legal asylum seekers' along with others who have no such claim, is ended.
I do believe the present government is making this a bigger issue than it should be, for political purposes, but anyone who thinks a change of government will see the small boats issue accepted, is living in dream land. End the small boats issue then there is a way forward to be found


That is where the gaslighting has happened though, as people who are trafficked across the Channel aren’t arriving illegally, in the exact same way that women trafficked across borders for sex gangs don’t arrive illegally.

Any trafficking of people across borders, without due process is, illegal. Asylum seekers are not illegal because of who they are, but how they have chosen to arrive, by paying criminal gangs to take them. Similarly women who have chosen/agreed to be trafficked over borders and who are paying for this are taking part in an illegal activity, if they are forced into illegal trafficking routes, then they have been kidnapped victims and have not chosen that route of their own free will.
 
I made the point that genuine asylum seekers are not 'illegals'; however, when they arrive via criminal people trafficker routes, who also traffic many who are not genuine asylum seekers, then they are taking part in an illegal and unsafe activity.
The fact that there is no alternative, should receive sympathetic consideration, but still it does not make the act of people trafficking in small boats either safe or legal and any government has to solve that problem first, if only because the media and the vast majority of the public demand it. Further more the likelihood of a 'proper' search for alternatives being found, will not receive any urgent consideration until the arrival of people, asylum seekers or whoever, on small boats is stopped.


There are methods and those with full identity paperwork and proof of the dangers they face and the persecution they fear that makes them legitimate asylum seekers, should use these methods, but we all know these methods are cumbersome and take too long and so people head to the people traffickers and illegal transportation.
Any government in the UK will have to stop the boats before they get public support to look for alternatives.


I agree, there are better solutions, safer and quicker, but the government, any government cannot undertake such alternatives until the issue of criminal gangs illegally trafficking 'legal asylum seekers' along with others who have no such claim, is ended.
I do believe the present government is making this a bigger issue than it should be, for political purposes, but anyone who thinks a change of government will see the small boats issue accepted, is living in dream land. End the small boats issue then there is a way forward to be found




Any trafficking of people across borders, without due process is, illegal. Asylum seekers are not illegal because of who they are, but how they have chosen to arrive, by paying criminal gangs to take them. Similarly women who have chosen/agreed to be trafficked over borders and who are paying for this are taking part in an illegal activity, if they are forced into illegal trafficking routes, then they have been kidnapped victims and have not chosen that route of their own free will.

Braverman has even admitted that there are very few legal routes available, for 3 countries I believe. Even the relatives of British citizens trying to flee Sudan were refused.

It's a game and the public have fallen for it, yet again, they always do because the government know what triggers them.

The small boats are not going to stop. The illegal trafficking gangs are not going to disappear. Putting an asylum seeker in a barge or to some distant land is not a deterrent to a trafficker. What do they care? How are the government or Labour or any other idiots going to stop them?

Legal accessible routes is the only way.
You are still insisting on the legal ID, do you think Ukrainians whose homes were bombed had all their ID. You don't know, I don't know. It's yet more government propaganda. Would anyone believe what the government say. Obviously many do because it's what they want to hear.
 
Could let them on passenger trains through the chunnel too I guess. British politicians set themselves up to fail when they said the boats need to stop.

It's yet another prime example of their stupidity and inability to think things through in the bigger picture. They saw a dinghy or two and thought to themselves that's an easy promise, we rule the waves. All while knowing feck all about fecking anything, true Tory style.

They’ve literally handed the opposition a baseball bat to beat them with. The opposition has looked at it as if it’s a spoon.

They have a massive mission critical pledge to STOP THE BOATS. They’ve literally bought a Fcuking boat.

There are no means to satire there. Short of buying Fire stations a bunch of flamethrowers, they’re surely got no lower to sink.
 
I made the point that genuine asylum seekers are not 'illegals'; however, when they arrive via criminal people trafficker routes,

Go and Look at the actual data on the number of asylum seekers arriving via criminal gangs. It’s vanishingly small.

You’re basing your point of position on eating a shit sandwich, presented to you by a lying chef.
 
The majority of those answers would be similar of Sunak, no?

Your answers certainly don't seem to be someone who's leaving behind a Tory-light manifesto in favour of great positive change as soon as he's elected.
Meh, I think the requests you put forward were utopian and naive. No one, not any government would be enable to enact some of those, let alone all of those in four to five years. I also don't believe Sunak would do any of the things I posted.

Some were random and niche, others seemed vague.
 
Meh, I think the requests you put forward were utopian and naive. No one, not any government would be enable to enact some of those, let alone all of those in four to five years. I also don't believe Sunak would do any of the things I posted.

Some were random and niche, others seemed vague.

The vast majority were Starmer's own positions over the last few years in truth.
 
Yes, and he's realised they're likely to not be elected if they keep spouting these unachievable and easily derided policies

I actually very much agree, but can completely understand people who would prefer to vote for policies they actually believe in, rather than a slight divergence from the current governance.
 
I actually very much agree, but can completely understand people who would prefer to vote for policies they actually believe in, rather than a slight divergence from the current governance.
I don't think it's that far apart, the first goal is getting elected. Without it, nothing can happen.
 

Whatever it takes, these scumbag c**ts have to be booted out of parliament.

Edit: at some point, you'll have elected politicians calling these migrants
"rag-heads" or "muzzers"
on Twitter, and the rest of the party machine will go on the morning round to defend it. I feel so deeply ashamed and angry at this country.
 

And yet if someone told one of them to feck off they would be up in arms with faux outrage demanding an apology. cnuts.
 
There was a time and place where comments like that would result in suspension and possible expulsion from the party. Just shows how much in the gutter the Conservative Party have brought British politics.
 
There was a time and place where comments like that would result in suspension and possible expulsion from the party. Just shows how much in the gutter the Conservative Party have brought British politics.

No matter what they do, they'll never have the press call them out for it.

Brown immediately apologized "profusely" on the radio show to Gillian Duffy, the woman he called bigoted.

Duffy questioned Brown on why so many "Eastern Europeans" were being allowed into Britain. Brown calmly explained that as many Brits had moved to Europe as Europeans had moved to Britain.

Brown's trip to Duffy's house became a major political spectacle in Britain. He was greeted by a frenzied crowd of journalists. "Has this ruined your campaign?" one journalist asked. "Mr. Brown, Mr. Brown do you regret your comments to Mrs Duffy?" others yelled.

"This is a disaster," BBC News' Political Editor Nick Robinson immediately claimed. "He insulted a member of the public and not just any member of the public....the very sort of voter Labour [Gordon Brown] needs in this election....white, working class people...the sort of people who vote."

"I do apologize if I've said anything that has been hurtful," Brown said on the air.

"He's an educated person, why has he come out with words like that?" Duffy asked. "He's calling an ordinary woman who's just come up and asked questions ... a bigot."

"I think Gordon Brown has apologized. Quite right, too, because if you are answering peoples' questions, you have got to answer those questions with a sense of respect, whatever you think of them, not insult them." Clegg told Sky News.

David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader has yet to comment but his number two, Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, said "That's the thing about general elections, they do reveal the truth about people."

Gary O'Donoghue, BBC political correspondent, was certain of the damage Brown had caused.

"People often talk about political gaffes in terms of car crashes. But this is no car crash, this is a multi-lane, multi-vehicle pile-up of enormous proportion," he wrote on the BBC news website.

If only the media were interested in creating a scandal when it came to actual Tory scandals...
 
The small boats are not going to stop

Of course they are, there is no other way forward for this or any other the government in resolving current or future border security, especially for an island nation . Along with climate change, migration, energy and water issues will all dominate the next two or may be three decades. Governments (of whatever hue) will have to 'get tough' in all these matters, those that don't will face political oblivion.

It is undoubtedly true the Tories are using this as a political 'means to and end', but if they succeed then Labour will have to do the same.

A government, any governments' first duty is the protection of its people, this is where the Tories/Right wing press are taking this matter and they will seek to escalate it and will probably try to establish the position before Rishi calls the next GE. If they are successful then Labour could struggle to gain a decent majority at the next GE, which is what the Tories now hope for, they know they cant win, but they can 'hobble' any new Labour Government taking office with a small majority, and the small boats issue is their 'Trojan horse', in doing just that.

Go and Look at the actual data on the number of asylum seekers arriving via criminal gangs. It’s vanishingly small.

The size of the matter will be irrelevant in political terms, they are using criminal activity to try to force their claims, which may well be justified, but this aspect will continue to get lost in the political mix, especially less than 2 years out from a GE where the present government is facing annihilation or close to it next time out.
 
Last edited:
Of course they are, there is no other way forward for this or any other the government in resolving current or future border security, especially for an island nation . Along with climate change, migration, energy and water issues will all dominate the next two or may be three decades. Governments (of whatever hue) will have to 'get tough' in all these matters, those that don't will face political oblivion.

It is undoubtedly true the Tories are using this as a political 'means to and end', but if they succeed then Labour will have to do the same.

A government, any governments' first duty is the protection of its people, this is where the Tories/Right wing press are taking this matter and they will seek to escalate it and will probably try to establish the position before Rishi calls the next GE. If they are successful then Labour could struggle to gain a decent majority at the next GE, which is what the Tories now hope for, they know they cant win, but they can 'hobble' any new Labour Government taking office with a small minority, and the small boats issue is their 'Trojan horse', in doing just that.



The size of the matter will be irrelevant in political terms, they are using criminal activity to try to force their claims, which may well be justified, but this aspect will continue get lost in the political mix, especially less than 2 years out from a GE where the present government is facing annihilation or close to it next time out.

Of course it's a political weapon but they don't want to solve it even if they could. The government have completely messed up the country in every way imaginable. The only thing they've got left are foreigners.
But you never hear of them arresting any traffickers in the UK, which is where some of them are as part of the network.

There is only one way of at least reducing it and that is the safe legal route method. They have no power outside of the UK. Brexit has meant they have no control outside the Dublin agreement.

If they carry on with the current programme which will probably break the ECHR and the UN regulations, they'll do even more damage to the country by possibly losing their trade deals.

None of this matters, only power.
 
Of course it's a political weapon but they don't want to solve it even if they could. The government have completely messed up the country in every way imaginable. The only thing they've got left are foreigners.
But you never hear of them arresting any traffickers in the UK, which is where some of them are as part of the network.

There is only one way of at least reducing it and that is the safe legal route method. They have no power outside of the UK. Brexit has meant they have no control outside the Dublin agreement.

If they carry on with the current programme which will probably break the ECHR and the UN regulations, they'll do even more damage to the country by possibly losing their trade deals.

None of this matters, only power.

At least not until after the next GE!

This is not really about a present day issue, there are solutions available; it is however about future issues. The storm clouds are gathering on a number of fronts and all governments will have to face up to the unpleasant decision making, that is looming. 'Playing it tough', especially if for the Tories they believe helps either retain power, or as is more likely to limit the losses for them and/or the majority for the opposition.... Power as you say. is what its all about, and in our FPTP system.... 'first is first, and seconds nowhere'.
 
Whatever it takes, these scumbag c**ts have to be booted out of parliament.

Edit: at some point, you'll have elected politicians calling these migrants
"rag-heads" or "muzzers"
on Twitter, and the rest of the party machine will go on the morning round to defend it. I feel so deeply ashamed and angry at this country.
Genuine question, do you not think the Tories are now using this sort of rhetoric because the Overton window has shifted so far to the right, partly down to the position Labour themselves are taking on immigration and asylum?
 


"Lee is expressing in salty terms that British people have warms hearts but we also want a secure front door." The English language is truly amazing. Being able to make such a statement whilst telling someone to feck off back to some other country is truly a pioneering feat in linguistics.
 
"I heard about asylum applicants playing the system through an over complex appeal system. So we've introduced a single tier of appeal, we've the limited the scope of legal aid, and we've weeded out cowboy immigration advisers."

Tony Blair in 2005.
Between 1997 and 2005 asylum granted was the highest it had ever been.

It comes from policy derived from the facts. These are the facts.

First, asylum. Asylum application numbers did rise after 1997, as they did in much of the rest of the EU, due to external pressures, but we have legislated to address the situation and the numbers have fallen rapidly. Asylum applications have fallen from over 8,000 a month at the peak in the autumn of 2002 to just over 2,000. The next set of statistics will show that monthly applications are back to their lowest level since March 1997, and have fallen twice as fast as in the rest of Europe.

Asylum applications are being dealt with far quicker than ten years ago. More than four in five asylum decisions are now made within two months. And far more of those whose claims are rejected are being removed - 12,430 removals in 2004, as against 4,820 in 1996. Now the facts on immigration. More people are entering the UK than was the case ten years ago to work or study. But that's precisely what one would want and expect with a strong and growing economy and world-class universities successful in attracting record numbers of international students, and helping to drive our knowledge-based economy.

Foreign students alone contribute £5bn to the UK economy, including a growing proportion of the funding for our universities. With unemployment half the rate it is in France or Germany and 600,000 vacancies, there are plenty of jobs that need doing.

But what Michael Howard doesn't point out is that net migration - the number of people entering the country, minus the number leaving - has actually been falling in recent years, and in 2003 was the lowest it has been since 1998.

Nor does he like to admit that, in international terms, we are not a high immigration country. Even today, we have lower levels of foreign-born nationals as a proportion of our total population than France or Germany and half the foreign born workforce proportion of the United States.

On illegal immigration, no-one, of course, knows precisely how many people are here illegally. Michael Howard himself admitted as much when he said in 1995: "There are no official estimates of the number of illegal immigrants into the United Kingdom. By its very nature, illegal immigration is difficult to measure and any estimates would be highly speculative".

So those are the facts. On asylum, there are continuing issues to be addressed to make the asylum system more efficient and effective - and on immigration, we have nothing to fear from legal immigration, and the issue is whether we are attracting as many of the highest value immigrants as we can, and what more we can do to crack down on illegal immigration.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/apr/22/election2005.immigrationandpublicservices

Full speech, which is in response to Michael Howard trying the same old schtick to usurp Blair by pushing the immigration narrative to try and unsettle and win the election. He doesn't shy away from it, he attacks it head on, agrees we need to tackle illegal immigration but makes the case migration as a net positive.

Blair's response is measured and, in my opinion, really strong.

Another key policy is to withdraw from the Geneva Convention on Refugees. But what would this unilateral treaty withdrawal mean? It would mean Britain standing alone, unable to work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to identify and manage within the rules those people who have a genuine claim to asylum and those who don't.

Then we come to the flagship Tory asylum policy: the fantasy island to process asylum claims quickly and cheaply without the applicants needing to stay in the UK while this is done. It is two years now since this unnamed offshore island or country was announced - and he still can't say where it would be.

Eighty per cent of asylum-seekers in Britain now claim in-country - ie not at a port but at an inland centre. Is he seriously saying there is some other country that is going to offer to take these people and process their claims for us?

His home affairs spokesman admitted yesterday they had made zero progress on finding anywhere. And Mr Howard's earlier claims of five countries that already had such centres was another fantasy, denounced by the United Nations High Commission on Refugees.

Again, discussing refugees and our obligations and the Geneva Convention - not exactly right wing.

I think most people know the huge contribution that immigrants have made to our country.

Not just historically - the million and a half Irish migrants to this country in the 19th century; the 120,000 Jewish people who came here before the first world war, largely fleeing persecution in Russia and eastern Europe; the 160,000 Poles who settled here after the second world war, soon followed by large numbers of Italians and then workers from the West Indies and South Asia and, more recently, significant migration from other European countries within the EU.

All these migrants are part of the rich fabric of our nation, every bit as British and valued as any other member of our society.

We also see the positive contribution of contemporary migrants all about us today. In the health service, a million people employed, nearly a third of them first or second generation immigrants. In 2003, one-third of all work permits issued were for health service workers. In financial services - a sector which now employs 300,000 and brings billions of pounds into our economy - migrants play a key role in some of the most skilled jobs in the world.

We will not turn our back on these or other migrants contributing so much to our economy and our society. Without them, London would not be the financial capital of Europe. Without them, how would the NHS actually work?

And when people are fleeing persecution, from Rwanda, Kosovo, Zimbabwe, British people extend their generosity.

I don't underestimate the essential generosity of British people.

When the Tsunami disaster hit South East Asia. Who gave the most? The British people. So let no-one say British people aren't decent, aren't generous.

Again, not exactly "following the Overton window"
 
Last edited:
There was a time and place where comments like that would result in suspension and possible expulsion from the party. Just shows how much in the gutter the Conservative Party have brought British politics.

If only someone would call them out on it. I'm seriously fuming about how far right we've drifted since 2019. The only party that can do anything about it have just downed tools and are letting it happen.
 
To put it into context immigrants already pay nearly 1,000 pounds per year for the immigration health surcharge. 99.9% of them will never use the NHS. The hostile nature of this country to immigrants makes my blood boil and brings back bad memories.
My Wife and I paid around 20000 pounds over the years (from education to Nationality). It boils my blood to this day.