torchomatic
Well-Known Member
.
And to prove the point chuck in a ridiculous comment for good measure.
And to prove the point chuck in a ridiculous comment for good measure.it worked well for germany in the mid 30s.
how are house prices going up if all the immigrants are here to take off the stateWell when you have 685,000 people arriving in the UK in 2023 (according to the net migration observatory) it's hardly surprising that the pressure on infrastructure becomes intolerable.
The NHS can't keep up, housing supply can't keep up, house prices escalate as demand rockets etc etc etc.
Farage isn't against immigration, but the numbers need to be managed to preserve our services.
I feel like we're in a never ending circle where the total is brought up, people then break it down into the smaller numbers of who is what and ask what can practically be done, and then get no answer.how are house prices going up if all the immigrants are here to take off the state
That's not unique to Reform, it's also been a topic for the Tory party.Let’s start with wanting to leave the ECHR
What do you consider to be a reasonable level of immigration?Let’s start with wanting to leave the ECHR
You might find this useful!That's not unique to Reform, it's also been a topic for the Tory party.
And should a democratic government in the UK be permanently over ruled by a court that isn't answerable to the British people?
If a non British court constantly seeks to step in the way of a British parliament and it's desire to carry out the wishes of the British people, then you have to ask if that Court should have jurisdiction over those people. We are not bound to be members, we are free to leave should we desire.
godwins lawit worked well for germany in the mid 30s.
If we decide not to adhere to international laws, we go down a very dangerous path. Winston Churchill’s legacy being spat on is not something I thought I’d see the right embracing but here we are.That's not unique to Reform, it's also been a topic for the Tory party.
And should a democratic government in the UK be permanently over ruled by a court that isn't answerable to the British people?
If a non British court constantly seeks to step in the way of a British parliament and it's desire to carry out the wishes of the British people, then you have to ask if that Court should have jurisdiction over those people. We are not bound to be members, we are free to leave should we desire.
It's astonishing really isn't it, that we see a campaign for *less* human rights. That's not an ideological position as far as I can see as righties can be concerned about such things as much as anybody else, it's a plain lack of morality.If we decide not to adhere to international laws, we go down a very dangerous path. Winston Churchill’s legacy being spat on is not something I thought I’d see the right embracing but here we are.
Really? Who's housing all these people?how are house prices going up if all the immigrants are here to take off the state
We are there though.If we decide not to adhere to international laws, we go down a very dangerous path. Winston Churchill’s legacy being spat on is not something I thought I’d see the right embracing but here we are.
Also, we had no problem getting involved in illegal wars and occupations of other countries in a flagrant breach of international law.If we decide not to adhere to international laws, we go down a very dangerous path. Winston Churchill’s legacy being spat on is not something I thought I’d see the right embracing but here we are.
100% agree. However, given our electoral system, modest swings back in favour of other parties and there are some really vulnerable seats.Literally all that matters is winning the election, by as large a margin as possible, and that's exactly what they've done.
How can a huge majority be anything other than a brilliant result, to suggest anything else is just saltiness.
Exactly. The popularity of Farage is going to increase if immigration isn't controlled and reduced drastically.We are there though.
If we had a more common sense approach to migration (ie, keeping numbers to manageable levels) this wouldn't be the position we are in. But there you go.
Yeah. Don't care. We just needed them out.Labour have a lot to thank Reform for. The people haven’t supported Labour but shown their anger at the Tories by splitting the right of centre vote between Cons and Reform.
what a night. sat up and watched it all.
two thirds of the seats, but only one third of the votes. not good.
as clear an indication as ever that the electoral system in this country is very unfair.
100% agree. However, given our electoral system, modest swings back in favour of other parties and there are some really vulnerable seats.
Labour won a majority with the smallest % of vote share ever. Whilst last night was a massive achievement that was truly unthinkable in 2019, it is a warning that massive majorities can be overturned in one election cycle. The size of the majority isn’t built on solid foundations so there isn’t room for complacency.
Given how much damage Reform and Conservative did to one another, I could definitely see some sort of deal being struck at the next election. Most of the Tory ‘big beasts’ marginally lost their seats with massive vote shares for Reform.
I’m glad the SNP have been wiped out of Scotland and I’m grateful Labour have done this. That’s been my highlight of the night.
So was Churchill wrong?We are there though.
If we had a more common sense approach to migration (ie, keeping numbers to manageable levels) this wouldn't be the position we are in. But there you go.
That's not how things work.Literally all that matters is winning the election, by as large a margin as possible, and that's exactly what they've done.
How can a huge majority be anything other than a brilliant result, to suggest anything else is just saltiness.
You speak as though I support our involvement in international crimes?Also, we had no problem getting involved in illegal wars and occupations of other countries in a flagrant breach of international law.
There is a precedent when it suits!
That's not how things work.
A large majority is traditionally the worst outcome for any party. As weird as that seems.
With no effective opposition, there are no "checks or balances" in the house of commons. The party with the massive majority doesn't need to unite and eventually starts to fragment, making it impossible to lead and ends up in fragmentation.
That's exactly what we've seen in the Conservative party since they won their massive majority in 2019.
I'd also point out that Labour won their landslide victory with only 35% of the vote.
So that means that 65% of the electorate voted against them, and didn't want them in office.
This inevitably will mean that those 65% will feel disengaged with the Labour party. That doesn't bode well for an incoming government, so I'd expect Starmers problems have only just started.
He was wrong on many things throughout his career, and was voted out of office as a result.So was Churchill wrong?
We used to have 4 working people to every retired person, now it's 3 and soon it will be 2.
A Tory friend of mine has put it quite well. Deep down the Tories are pro immigration as it’s good for businesses of all sizes, but they need to outwardly be against it in order to win over socially conservative people on lower incomes than the very richest.There's a very important factor that plays in to the immigration debate and that's the demographic of the country, I think it may have been mentioned on here recently.
We used to have 4 working people to every retired person, now it's 3 and soon it will be 2.
It's a huge issue, and not just here.
…so he made immigration the party’s main issue, not tax.
Personally, I have no qualms with that because Labour will be stable in government. Just as the Tories were in the sense that the government wasn’t in danger of being brought down.Yes the FPTP systems one argument of stability is gone.
The result could easily be reversed next time
I'm not suggesting for 1 minute that you do support it.You speak as though I support our involvement in international crimes?
One thing to mitigate a low %age is the Labour strategy was to campaign in seats it had a chance of losing, and not bother with the safe seats so in many cases that meant the vote share went down in those seats, but they still won them. Of course there are plenty of other reasons too, but it's partly a strategic decision to play the system.
I'd love to know what his thoughts were.Sunak really was rather stupid to call the election when he did
That's very true, but ... the problem is that consecutive government's only look at the short term, ie, immigration leads to growth, and it can do in the very short term.A Tory friend of mine has put it quite well. Deep down the Tories are pro immigration as it’s good for businesses of all sizes, but they need to outwardly be against it in order to win over socially conservative people on lower incomes than the very richest.
Yet you seem fine with us choosing to pursue otherwise criminal actsI'm not suggesting for 1 minute that you do support it.
I'm saying that previous government's have ignored international law when it's suited them
Funnily enough, Farage’s big pitch was to turn the clock back to 1997 (tongue in cheek). Taxation, net migration and public services back to levels seen before Blair became PM.…so he made immigration the party’s main issue, not tax.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?