Before the 1832 Reform Act was their golden age, Rotten Boros, No oiks or women voting Tory Heaven, Huzzah!
Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Careful - you will get Jacob Rees-Mogg all flustered
Like or hate Farage, he’s right that the person that threw concrete at him should have seen a harsher sentence. Feels like more two tier justice.
This is indefensible…
Analysing three years of financial records, the IFS found the Home Office had told parliament at the start of each year it needed an average £110m to cover the UK’s asylum, border, visa and passport operations. However, it ended up spending vastly more: an average of £2.6bn a year
Analysing three years of financial records, the IFS found the Home Office had told parliament at the start of each year it needed an average £110m to cover the UK’s asylum, border, visa and passport operations. However, it ended up spending vastly more: an average of £2.6bn a year
Totally indefensible. Be good if there was a breakdown of figures to see where the money got spent. I would suggest £110m for all that is rather low, but maybe it was correct.
Id also suggest it would be good to revisit in a year to see how it fares after a good 12 months of labour, considering the spending cuts planned that should be £2.5bn of the black hole sorted right away.
And I’m not taking the piss btw, genuinely interested.
Not sure how quickly they can reduce a £2.6b actual spend by anything like that, they’ve got to sort out a shut show and process vast numbers of applications, but at least the Rwanda spend should have stopped and the money should get spent on something tangible like processing approvals and rejections and closing the Bibby
Yeah I agree it will take time, and indirect spend will like increase as a result of some of this, eg where do we now place the asylum seekers to stay that may add to that part of the bill etc.
I do feel that Labour have a lot to prove in a short space of time, and someone I think said it recently on here that the Tories get more grace, that may be so, but if they do make some great strides then the change of government may have been a good thing.
I do wonder though with some stuff like the winter fuel and whatever comes in the budget they are at risk of pissing off some of their electorate, and I think they have decided to hit the ground sprinting so to do so early in the tenure as people tend to forget stuff in 4 years time, or maybe not forget but the impact lessens slightly.
I think the woman who threw a milkshake at him should have got a medal tbh.
Btw, does anyone still take that horrible gurning berk seriously?
Well isn’t that double standards then?
It doesn’t matter who the victim is, the crime is the crime. That is what the law is there for.
Doesn’t surprise me. Lefties always seem to be able to justify their appalling actions somehow
On the topic of Rwanda, did anyone else see that David Cameron, as Foreign Secretary, was concerned about war breaking out there, as a result of insurgents?
This was after or at the time that the Tories were overriding the ruling about Rwanda being unsafe.
Rwanda sham
GOVERNMENT officials in the Tory era secretly preparing contingency plans for war in Rwanda should be the final nail in the coffin of an unworkable, nasty gimmick.
Briefings for then-Foreign Secretary David Cameron and deputy Andrew Mitchell expose the lie behind Tory claims the African nation was a safe country to dump a relatively small number of asylum seekers and migrants.
Not sure what the middle para means
Change of gov necessary, but new gov need to prove themselves?
If so, true, actions speak louder than words
yes that is basically what I worded perhaps clumsily.
I think we did need a change and that Labour don’t usually get time to prove themselves and are in danger of alienating some of the ones who voted for them
True, but the milkshake makes it funny and it’s not ABH, it may be wrong but it’s hard not to laugh
I'm thinking of starting an online petition, to have her recognised in the New Year honours list. I'll let you know where to sign, in case you change your minds
It isnt ABH, it is legally classed as ‘Battery’. Is still a criminal offence, and I think the point is about double standards of how things are policed/prosecuted.
A crime is a crime.
I'm thinking of starting an online petition, to have her recognised in the New Year honours list. I'll let you know where to sign, in case you change your minds
Classy, next you’ll be letting on that you’re a secret socialist at heart.
Good luck with the petition, if that doesn’t work, you could always go on strike
Possibly. I think the issue is the Tories under Cameron basically became Blairites so, while there's the question of competence and complacency to consider, ultimately there isn't a huge difference between what the two parties want to to do. If you believe the reports about what Reeves is planning you could actually argue Labour are going to be more conservative economically than the Tories were, in that they're trying to have a more balanced budget. But tax rises won't be popular among those on the right and spending cuts won't be popular among those on the left.
And of course this time Labour have the added problem that they have a large majority built on a fairly small vote share so it doesn't take much for them to get pretty bad poll ratings: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...r-cronyism-claims_uk_66cef252e4b0bdccdb1874e0
I think the pearl clutching over the milkshake is that Jo Brand made a really bad “joke” about battery acid related to garage. And these people who worship farage like some kind of messiah say things like “what if it had been battery acid”.
And trying to comment on whether something is funny or not with right wing people? Usually a waste of breath. As they’ve become more polarised they’ve increasingly lost their sense of humour. Remember half of the angst about BBC bias is because all the political comedy shows were full of very left wing comedians. Because right wing comedy isn’t really funny (just look at Rogan’s attempts. He needed to buy his own comedy club to get a regular platform and to be able to platform all the people not funny enough for other venues)
Never mind that the actual politics has always been biased the other way on the BBC - it’s a problem when people laugh at the expense of right wingers it seems
This also links into how badly stung Trump and Vance were by being called “weird”. Because it meant people laughed at them and didn’t take them as seriously as they wanted to be. Remember Trump only really decided to go down the route of the presidency because Obama made fun of him at the White House Correspondents Dinner. His face is like thunder. No sense of humour. He mocks Kamala Harris as having the laugh of a crazy person. But it’s much crazier when you never actually laugh…