UK asylum seekers expected to be flown to Rwanda
Discussion
Crippo said:
PH seems to be pretty left wing these days. Admittedly when I joined everyone was a fat, Company Director driving a Range River and running cyclists off the road but these days it’s solid Guardian reading territory with anyone who might vote Reform being listed as an extremist.
This section of the forum would suggest otherwise. There’s always a couple of popular threads at the top where people try to outdo each other with their right wing version of the Four Yorkshiremen. Crippo said:
LF5335 said:
272BHP said:
Nonsense.
Reform are currently second place in the 2024 election poll on PH. Do you think many of your fellow posters are 'off the scale' extreme right wingers?
On a scale of 1 to durrrrrrrrrrr that rates very highly to the right as well. If you think a website full of angry middle aged men, who hide behind anonymous usernames whilst trying to do outdo each other on who’s the most right wing and who can make the most offensive comment about something that they’ve decided is left wing, socialist, woke, multi-cultural something or other is somehow representative of the real world then you’re going to be a bit upset come election day. Reform are currently second place in the 2024 election poll on PH. Do you think many of your fellow posters are 'off the scale' extreme right wingers?
t that that the conservatives have pedalled since 2016. And the farce that is the current government. Those that can see through it, then call out the nonsense from the loons.
blueg33 said:
Just had a quick look at the reform parties website. I can only conclude they are deluded.
Net zero immigration - insane
No waiting lists - very expensive
Lower taxes - contradicting the above
And that’s just the first bit of the landing page
May be look a little deeper... the net zero is for non-essential immigration. The controlled immigration everybody apart from a few loons at each end of the spectrum are calling for.Net zero immigration - insane
No waiting lists - very expensive
Lower taxes - contradicting the above
And that’s just the first bit of the landing page
No waiting lists seems entirely sensible most other countries do it along with the private sector. It might be expensive initially but once it is done would be no more expensive than presently.
Lower personal taxes does not contradict either of the above.
LF5335 said:
On a scale of 1 to durrrrrrrrrrr that rates very highly to the right as well. If you think a website full of angry middle aged men, who hide behind anonymous usernames whilst trying to do outdo each other on who’s the most right wing and who can make the most offensive comment about something that they’ve decided is left wing, socialist, woke, multi-cultural something or other is somehow representative of the real world then you’re going to be a bit upset come election day.
Pretty much this.Lots of views that would see you in front of HR if you so much as uttered them in the modern workplace.
Are there any constituencies where Reform are expected to gain seats?
Costing the Conservatives seats isn't the same as Reform winning them.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Lots of views that would see you in front of HR if you so much as uttered them in the modern workplace.
I would the say the majority of the comments that would get someone in front of HR are the insults and accusations of racism that falls so easily from some on here.The rudeness nearly always comes from the left leaning posters.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:LF5335 said:
On a scale of 1 to durrrrrrrrrrr that rates very highly to the right as well. If you think a website full of angry middle aged men, who hide behind anonymous usernames whilst trying to do outdo each other on who’s the most right wing and who can make the most offensive comment about something that they’ve decided is left wing, socialist, woke, multi-cultural something or other is somehow representative of the real world then you’re going to be a bit upset come election day.
Pretty much this.Lots of views that would see you in front of HR if you so much as uttered them in the modern workplace.
Are there any constituencies where Reform are expected to gain seats?
Costing the Conservatives seats isn't the same as Reform winning them.
As for the rest, I think Reform will accomplish little to nothing aside from splitting the more conservative (note that's with a small 'c') votes and assist in the savaging the Tories in the next election.
Most conservatives would welcome the utter destruction of the Tories, even some Tories it seems. I personally would welcome it.
They occasionally talk the conservative talk but have utterly failed to walk the conservative walk.
They have done far worse than waste their nearly 14 years in government.
The only thing that has got the Tories elected, time after time, is a quite rational fear of two to three terms of a Labour government.
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
As for Starmer, he may be able to get Labour elected, but it will be a vote against the Tories for the most part, not a vote for Labour itself (or Starmer).
I predict, with some caution, that the knives will be out for him within the first two years, if not sooner, to see him replaced by someone far more 'radical'.
Vanden Saab said:
blueg33 said:
Just had a quick look at the reform parties website. I can only conclude they are deluded.
Net zero immigration - insane
No waiting lists - very expensive
Lower taxes - contradicting the above
And that’s just the first bit of the landing page
May be look a little deeper... the net zero is for non-essential immigration. The controlled immigration everybody apart from a few loons at each end of the spectrum are calling for.Net zero immigration - insane
No waiting lists - very expensive
Lower taxes - contradicting the above
And that’s just the first bit of the landing page
No waiting lists seems entirely sensible most other countries do it along with the private sector. It might be expensive initially but once it is done would be no more expensive than presently.
Lower personal taxes does not contradict either of the above.
It's obviously going to be more expensive in cash terms to run a service with surplus capacity so that you can have no waiting lists. I'd probably agree that overall as a system and a country, it's almost certainly net cheaper to have people back to good health as quickly as possible, but I somehow doubt that's their point, and it won't exactly be cheap getting there.
So higher corporate taxes then? Or are they suggesting (I'm guessing not given it's basically just a mechanism for money to influence politics) taxing wealth like we should be?
Vanden Saab said:
blueg33 said:
Just had a quick look at the reform parties website. I can only conclude they are deluded.
Net zero immigration - insane
No waiting lists - very expensive
Lower taxes - contradicting the above
And that’s just the first bit of the landing page
May be look a little deeper... the net zero is for non-essential immigration. The controlled immigration everybody apart from a few loons at each end of the spectrum are calling for.Net zero immigration - insane
No waiting lists - very expensive
Lower taxes - contradicting the above
And that’s just the first bit of the landing page
No waiting lists seems entirely sensible most other countries do it along with the private sector. It might be expensive initially but once it is done would be no more expensive than presently.
Lower personal taxes does not contradict either of the above.
Let's start with immigration. I assume non essential will not include students or care workers. So what are the policies to deal with university funding or the lack of care him places.
As for waiting list where do you get the medical staff? It's also going to be massively expensive. Who going to pay. It's not going to be from income tax because that's being cut, or from small businesses paying corporation tax, because that's being cut. So who pays? Reform do not explain that.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
The bare idea that HR could or should become involved in political conversations/debates, especially concerning the policies of registered political parties, between colleagues in the workplace should be a chilling wakeup call.
As for the rest, I think Reform will accomplish little to nothing aside from splitting the more conservative (note that's with a small 'c') votes and assist in the savaging the Tories in the next election.
Most conservatives would welcome the utter destruction of the Tories, even some Tories it seems. I personally would welcome it.
They occasionally talk the conservative talk but have utterly failed to walk the conservative walk.
They have done far worse than waste their nearly 14 years in government.
The only thing that has got the Tories elected, time after time, is a quite rational fear of two to three terms of a Labour government.
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
As for Starmer, he may be able to get Labour elected, but it will be a vote against the Tories for the most part, not a vote for Labour itself (or Starmer).
I predict, with some caution, that the knives will be out for him within the first two years, if not sooner, to see him replaced by someone far more 'radical'.
Reform UK are as much of a registered a political as the National Front, or Britain First were. Before you get all huffy, I’m not saying they’re the same politics, just the same level of registration. Good luck arguing that you should be able to discuss their policies freely in front of work colleagues. There is nothing sinister about not discussing things that are designed to pander to those who enjoy being offensive. Reform are pandering to a specific set of people. They won’t capture any more votes than they already have. As for the rest, I think Reform will accomplish little to nothing aside from splitting the more conservative (note that's with a small 'c') votes and assist in the savaging the Tories in the next election.
Most conservatives would welcome the utter destruction of the Tories, even some Tories it seems. I personally would welcome it.
They occasionally talk the conservative talk but have utterly failed to walk the conservative walk.
They have done far worse than waste their nearly 14 years in government.
The only thing that has got the Tories elected, time after time, is a quite rational fear of two to three terms of a Labour government.
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
As for Starmer, he may be able to get Labour elected, but it will be a vote against the Tories for the most part, not a vote for Labour itself (or Starmer).
I predict, with some caution, that the knives will be out for him within the first two years, if not sooner, to see him replaced by someone far more 'radical'.
The argument of voting against the Tories by voting Labour is exactly the same as happened the last time round with the Red Wall voting against Labour.
Mrr T said:
Vanden Saab said:
blueg33 said:
Just had a quick look at the reform parties website. I can only conclude they are deluded.
Net zero immigration - insane
No waiting lists - very expensive
Lower taxes - contradicting the above
And that’s just the first bit of the landing page
May be look a little deeper... the net zero is for non-essential immigration. The controlled immigration everybody apart from a few loons at each end of the spectrum are calling for.Net zero immigration - insane
No waiting lists - very expensive
Lower taxes - contradicting the above
And that’s just the first bit of the landing page
No waiting lists seems entirely sensible most other countries do it along with the private sector. It might be expensive initially but once it is done would be no more expensive than presently.
Lower personal taxes does not contradict either of the above.
Let's start with immigration. I assume non essential will not include students or care workers. So what are the policies to deal with university funding or the lack of care him places.
As for waiting list where do you get the medical staff? It's also going to be massively expensive. Who going to pay. It's not going to be from income tax because that's being cut, or from small businesses paying corporation tax, because that's being cut. So who pays? Reform do not explain that.
They'll only employ immigration bods who 'believe' so they'll tackle to problem through pure faith alone. Apparently...
LF5335 said:
Reform UK are as much of a registered a political as the National Front, or Britain First were. Before you get all huffy, I’m not saying they’re the same politics, just the same level of registration. Good luck arguing that you should be able to discuss their policies freely in front of work colleagues. There is nothing sinister about not discussing things that are designed to pander to those who enjoy being offensive. Reform are pandering to a specific set of people. They won’t capture any more votes than they already have.
The argument of voting against the Tories by voting Labour is exactly the same as happened the last time round with the Red Wall voting against Labour.
Quite.The argument of voting against the Tories by voting Labour is exactly the same as happened the last time round with the Red Wall voting against Labour.
Go look on the Britain First website and try discussing half of their ideas in the workplace.
Let us know how that works out.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:LF5335 said:
Reform UK are as much of a registered a political as the National Front, or Britain First were. Before you get all huffy, I’m not saying they’re the same politics, just the same level of registration. Good luck arguing that you should be able to discuss their policies freely in front of work colleagues. There is nothing sinister about not discussing things that are designed to pander to those who enjoy being offensive. Reform are pandering to a specific set of people. They won’t capture any more votes than they already have.
The argument of voting against the Tories by voting Labour is exactly the same as happened the last time round with the Red Wall voting against Labour.
Quite.The argument of voting against the Tories by voting Labour is exactly the same as happened the last time round with the Red Wall voting against Labour.
Go look on the Britain First website and try discussing half of their ideas in the workplace.
Let us know how that works out.
I don't get huffy easily. I stay out of NP&E for a reason. I prefer dialectic to argument and here it often degrades to ad-hominem and point scoring so quickly it really isn't worth my time.
Of course there are many things best not discussed at work. The last office based assignment I worked in, Brexit was the hot topic. People expressed their views quite openly, and disagreed with each other quite openly as well.
There were no fights, hostility, reprimands or firings. Yet the organisation is considered overtly 'woke' by many. For lack of a better term, I would have agreed.
Overt 'Virtue signalling progressivism' rather than concentrating on the core purpose for their existence, is more how I would have described it. But this was at the top level management and had little to no affect on the average employee.
Colleagues continued to work together in a friendly, professional and courteous way regardless of opposing opinions. Some people even modified their views based upon discussions and often a better understanding of the reasons for other peoples' opinions seemed to be the result.
It's what happens when adults realise that other people think differently to themselves and assume that their differences aren't from some evil intent.
As for Reform having 'offensive' policies (not your exact words I accept, but implied or inferred, feel free to correct or clarify), I can't find any on their website.
That they would be unlikely to be able to achieve many of their promises I fully accept, (when did any party ever?)
That some members may have said things that some find offensive I have little doubt, but I am strongly of the belief that offense is most often (not always) taken rather than given.
As for Britain First, while I prefer not to judge based upon a name. it sounds dubious from the start. As they are of little to no consequence in the upcoming election I have never looked into them. The very fact that their web page has an opening banner "Britain First and 'Racism'" is less than reassuring to me.
rjfp1962 said:
The comments section of the BBC article must be pretty sobering reading for the Government, there isnt much support there for it! You have to get to the 10th "highest rated comment" to find anything even vaguely appreciative of the Government's efforts. And before the GB News watchers come along, the BBC is a pretty middle of the road broadcaster with a wide audience, it wouldn't be that far off to assume it contains a fairly mainstream political opinion of readers.
Looks like this is edging nearer to being passed.
"We are now hearing that the government has offered a concession to Lord Browne on the Rwanda bill.
Browne wants Afghan veterans who have served for the UK armed forces to be exempt.
Lord Sharpe says the MoD will reassess all eligibility decisions. Any veteran who has a positive decision will not be removed to Rwanda.
Now over to Des Browne..." (BBC News wbsite)
"We are now hearing that the government has offered a concession to Lord Browne on the Rwanda bill.
Browne wants Afghan veterans who have served for the UK armed forces to be exempt.
Lord Sharpe says the MoD will reassess all eligibility decisions. Any veteran who has a positive decision will not be removed to Rwanda.
Now over to Des Browne..." (BBC News wbsite)
Rwanda bill voted down for a fifth time by the hol.
https://news.sky.com/story/lords-push-back-on-rwan...
https://news.sky.com/story/lords-push-back-on-rwan...
Vanden Saab said:
It might be expensive initially but once it is done would be no more expensive than presently.
Lower personal taxes does not contradict either of the above.
How? Shake the magic doctor and nurse tree for more doctors while not paying them much because you lowered taxes?Lower personal taxes does not contradict either of the above.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff