Off Topic JULY 4th 2024 6 months JAN 2025 ..chaos+ more fibs +roughshod attitudes+backtracking +++ C R A S H++

so why are you connecting farage to riots? whats all that post about riots about?

eh????? if your saying this You and others keep referencing that Farage represents how the country feels, that means the thread will be full of posts saying Farage represents how the country feels, and it isn't.

 

We have a first past the post system, we have for ever, there are advantages of PR , but it’s not the system we use in this country, so yours is a pointless argument. Political parties use tactics to win a GE under the rules that apply at the time. If we used PR the tactics would be different, it’s not difficult to understand.

 

I realise that and respect your views, honestly I do. I have my views which are different to yours, that’s fine too.

 

PLEASE explain the tactics, I am sure many on here would like to know for future reference what they are so that they do fall foul to any skulduggery! in the future...

ps What tactics were employed in 2024 GE? You should be able to give a very clear concise answer to this as you are are VERY aware that tactics are employed!

 

boat arrivals ... dont include those that sneak in and leave the dingy on the beach or arrive by other boat means.... on 18th and 19th 228 known arrived another £8,000,000 [ next 12 months, thats wages for 200 nhs nursing staff! ] next 12 months since july 4th arrivals = circa £200,000,000, thats around 5000 nursing staff or 3500 train drivers!

 

The system has been in place since the 1950's.

 

Both Labour and Lib Dem’s did it, they targeted resources at a limited number of seats that they felt they had the best chance of winning, so mostly seats they were second in the previous election. There was no official pact, but obviously the seats each party targeted would be different. So seats Lib Dem’s selected where they came second it would then be a straight fight between themselves and the Tories, Likewise seats Labour selected it would be a straight fight between themselves and Tories. The result maybe both Labour and Lib Dem’s wouldn’t necessarily increase their overall numbers in terms of votes cast, but would, and did result in more seats won. It helped the Tories were so unpopular most people tactically voted to get rid of them. It was a perfect storm. It will be impossible to replicate id imagine as Tories aren’t going to be as unpopular next time.

is that clear enough for you??

 

How many nhs nursing staff, or train drivers could you get for the £380m wasted on the pointless Rwanda scheme by the previous gov. Now THAT would be a useful stat.

 

Refugees pour into Ireland as Dublin blames Britain’s Rwanda policy (telegraph.co.uk)

According to the Irish Government the Rwanda policy was having an impact = It could not be pointless.

The answer to that Nursing question is none. Why none? Because the numbers of nurses we train is capped. Its cheaper to train x amount of nurses and import x amount than train the number of nurses the NHS needs from our own population. The same occurs with Doctors, but also its not in the Doctors interests for the numbers of Doctors to rise significantly as it lowers salaries.

 

For me that’s forever as I was born 1961

 

I wasn’t aware we made policy decisions based on whether or not they had an impact on Ireland.
I bow to your superior knowledge, however
even if we don’t train more nurses the money wasted on Rwanda could at least be diverted to paying for the nurses we do train, which means we could redirect that money towards something else.

 

If the Rwandan policy was deterring people from coming to the UK that would be an impact on the UK.

 

It wasn’t deterring them from coming to the UK, some went on to Ireland but not many, and nowhere near enough to have an impact. That’s not really an argument to continuing the Rwanda plan.

 

They also frig the electoral boundaries. This mostly benefits Tories but it’s been used by Labour too.
For example, you set the boundaries for a large city like Liverpool, where the demographics would suggest that most would vote Labour and you ‘pen in’ as many Labour voters as you can so that they will only be able to get one MP for, say 100,000 people.
Then, you set the countryside boundaries so that small villages with large geographical areas but small number of voters will vote Tory and get multiple MPs.
They also squeeze in the LiDem voters to ensure that they come second in as many constituencies as possible.
1 Labour MP representing 100,000 people and 4 Tory MPs representing 20,000 people.
LibDems coming second in all so they get ZERO MPs.
That’s British democracy at its best.

 

I did not make a point about the effectiveness of the Rwanda plan, I answered your post where you stated that the Rwanda policy was pointless. The point of the bill, law change and its implementation was that persons who arrive in the United Kingdom could be removed to Rwanda, and this would be an active deterrent. If as the Irish government state the deterrent was deterring people from coming to the UK, the plan could not be pointless.

 

thats severn estuary mud!!!!
ALL the parties concentrate on seats they might win!

BCRW
That is not how it works at all, it is simply based on expansion new areas of population. In our area Whitchurch/Stockwood / Knowle / AREAS SURROUNDING there has been massive housing projects over the past few years, AND POPULATION HAS SOARED! [ building makes lack of house building under tory .gov look rather cynical ] over 5,000 residences! last 5 years... will need some boundary changes soon ........ also look at North Bristol a few 000's there as well!

 

Well, again you pluck something out of the air without actually knowing what it is you have ! to you it RWANDA + £380M + WHAT YOU COULD SPEND THAT MONEY ON!

Well, first off you have to look at the longer term and weigh up boat people arriving v cost of say first year to keep them and then look at the consequences
£380,000,000 = OVER 600 DRIVERS or around 900 NHS STAFF. BUT IF was the case it deterred some 5000 +? from actually crossing lets say for 6 month's that decreases by £100m till they do.
the number sent which had it worked out say was 100 per week [ very low number ] but just a instance it mean in a year the first 100 would save about £3,400,000 2nd week £3,350,000 3rd week £ 3,300,000 4th week 3,250,000 so for a month thats around £13, 300,000 a month, each week it goes down by £50,000- £60,000 [ I simplified it to £50k ] cost of fuel! etc so in 1 year, around £90,000,000 for the whole year saved on existing, ... but still have crossings likely a lot less just 8000 crossings saved would wipe out £380m! and please bear in mind ........... LABOUR BEEN IN POWER FOR 47 DAYS and crossings are currently just 5720, only an average of 121 per day just another £560,000 a week to find ...known about, that is but how many on the empty dingies found on isolated beach's made it as well !

note to pay for the 5720 known so far, 10 month's is £54,000,000 or all the tax paid by over 3900 ASLEF train drivers!
heaven help they dont suss out their pay rise means they will all be paying 40% tax band rate..............

 

The point is £380m was wasted, the costs that you have identified are additional because it was spent on a scheme il thought through, and which was never going to work.

Let’s give them a chance
https://apple.news/A_nCnGuw3QbeMWafhE_sIag

 

no no no it was only a waste when it became cancelled...

example...
and it is like saying "if we had taken all 3 chances we could have won it easy" WELL at any given point in time what follows is reality of the moments. In the example given if the first chance had of gone in the the other 2 as "witnessed " would never have happened! The same applies to the other 2 as well if the chance /chances had gone in ... what followed/s was the reality!
If say chance 1 had gone in then it could have meant the opposition scored 1 or more and you lost! ..no one will ever know the result of a "what if" .............

it was cancelled so no one will ever know the result work /not work ...just opinion as to whether!