The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[titaniumbean]

I'd vote for Toms mum 


https://twitter.com/tomosgjames/status/870687114324721664

[titaniumbean]

I also am just bemused by stuff like this. How is he not called out at the time? 


https://twitter.com/wefail/status/870914048921128960


https://twitter.com/BeardedGenius/status/870750582763552768



Could  you be more Daddys money conservative voter if you tried, he's worried about the poor students though 

[rinswun]

But Adz, the economists have come out and said the effect on the proposed migration cap is going to cost the UK £16bil a year until 2020, then £6bil a year thereafter. That cost will no doubt he borne further by the UK tax payer so that argument doesn't hold much stock. If your issue is just generally with people abusing the benefits system then that's one thing but cutting immigration is going to be net negative for the tax payer.

For those begging, how can you be sure they aren't British or are EU nationals? I live in Brighton, which has one of the worst homelessness problems in the UK, anecdotally it seems the majority are British.

This is my point that many miss. If people are bringing something that enhances our economy, or can do, they are welcome. It's the one that don't, I would refuse entry to.

I also didn't really suggest all beggars are immigrants either now, did I?!

But the point is that under the proposed migration cap we'd be stopping hundreds of thousands of migrants who would contribute positively to the economy in favour of stopping the small percentage who don't. Ultimately it's going to be net negative for the economy.

[Woodsey]

I also am just bemused by stuff like this. How is he not called out at the time?  

https://twitter.com/wefail/status/870914048921128960

https://twitter.com/BeardedGenius/status/870750582763552768

Could  you be more Daddys money conservative voter if you tried, he's worried about the poor students though  

Sorry mate that's a daft point and no calling out required. I needed a flexible job when I was a student to keep afloat and I had a tuxedo amongst other decent things. I get the need for more secure employment, but this guys point is entirely relevant for him.

When McDonald's offered all their zero hours staff a fixed contract, the uptake was actually lowish which shows that many people like the flexibility. This is the way to do it, not to totally ban zero hours contracts.

No doubt it was one of JC's boisterous chav crowd that's posting this in a very poor effort to make a point...

[titaniumbean]

I would bet that he is not and has not worked on a zero hours contract, nor is it anything remotely close to affecting him.


At a guess what % of the populace <21 owns a tuxedo?

I would guess that a decent % wouldn't even know what one was.


For those who even semi regularly go to somewhere expecting black tie absolute million they have to worry about zero hour contracts.



Clearly it's pretty crass but the IRA......





Lucky that the Tories have confirmed they promise not to increase tax on the wealthy, but cant make that promise for anyone else. They really are the party of the people.

I hope this 'money tree' shitty comments come back to haunt them, horribly crass phrase from a party that can find money to increase politicians pay out of line with the public sector who are actually valuable and held responsible for their decisions.

[Woodsey]

I would bet that he is not and has not worked on a zero hours contract, nor is it anything remotely close to affecting him.


At a guess what % of the populace <21 owns a tuxedo?

I would guess that a decent % wouldn't even know what one was.


For those who even semi regularly go to somewhere expecting black tie absolute million they have to worry about zero hour contracts.



Clearly it's pretty crass but the IRA......





Lucky that the Tories have confirmed they promise not to increase tax on the wealthy, but cant make that promise for anyone else. They really are the party of the people.

I hope this 'money tree' shitty comments come back to haunt them, horribly crass phrase from a party that can find money to increase politicians pay out of line with the public sector who are actually valuable and held responsible for their decisions.

How do you know he owns it? Most students rented them the once or twice a year they needed them when I was at uni.....and there are usually a couple of black tie events at every uni that most students go to.

Anyway, my point is banning zero hours contracts is a terrible option, the McDonald's model is a far better option....

[titaniumbean]

I was using your 'I had a tux'.


For many people uni isn't an option because of fees and their education options/family circumstances.


Again you seem to be conflating your childhood with the average kids position of today.


note that I think WE the two Andrews probably had a similar upbringing. I just don't see why my vote should go to demonising people for not being so genetically fortunate.

[titaniumbean]

How do you know he owns it? Most students rented them the once or twice a year they needed them when I was at uni.....and there are usually a couple of black tie events at every uni that most students go to.

Anyway, my point is banning zero hours contracts is a terrible option, the McDonald's model is a far better option....

I don't necessarily think different to you on your policy point, my frustration is at the faux worry of people who are not affected by the policy and how everyone laps it up whilst refusing to focus on the most important points for which they current government have ZERO plan or stated direction.

Alot of QT airtime was spent worrying that people wont be quick enough to destroy the world, whilst in the background the Tories lack of policy on the most pressing matter of the last decade or more is just forgotten about until it blows up in our face and we get told 'well you voted for it'. When no one has a clue what they are voting for they will just be voting against someone else because of some pithy catchphrases.

[DaveShoelace]

I actually think, politics aside, Boris looked like he could 'ave him'

That has to be a level?  Boris is good entertainment but he's borderline retarded.  He can clean out school boys for sure but against an average joe I'd make him the underdog in a street fight.  

He had a bit of a posh rugby bully twat about him at 4:40. Those boarding school types had to be tough because they had to avoid lord of the flies style bummings every school night of year, some of them are a lot harder than you think.

[titaniumbean]

He had a bit of a posh rugby bully twat about him. Those boarding school types had to be tough because they had to avoid lord of the flies style bummings every school night of year, some of them are a lot harder than you think.

 

[nirvana]

But Adz, the economists have come out and said the effect on the proposed migration cap is going to cost the UK £16bil a year until 2020, then £6bil a year thereafter. That cost will no doubt he borne further by the UK tax payer so that argument doesn't hold much stock. If your issue is just generally with people abusing the benefits system then that's one thing but cutting immigration is going to be net negative for the tax payer.

For those begging, how can you be sure they aren't British or are EU nationals? I live in Brighton, which has one of the worst homelessness problems in the UK, anecdotally it seems the majority are British.

This is my point that many miss. If people are bringing something that enhances our economy, or can do, they are welcome. It's the one that don't, I would refuse entry to.

I also didn't really suggest all beggars are immigrants either now, did I?!

But the point is that under the proposed migration cap we'd be stopping hundreds of thousands of migrants who would contribute positively to the economy in favour of stopping the small percentage who don't. Ultimately it's going to be net negative for the economy.

The numbers show that immigration isn't a significant drain on resources via benefits but I'd like to know what the 'positive contribution to the economy' statement that gets trotted out, actually means. A person who comes here and pays taxes also sucks up their share of services and resources. So, it's kind of a wash except of course, they will generate some added value/wealth while they are here.

How much do most of us benefit from this added value that is created ?

The answer is, not that much. The millions extra in work and the several million additional people has not resulted in steady wage growth and improved standards of living for the majority of people. It hasn't resulted in better schools, hospitals, security.

Whilst it's true to say that the lack of any trickle down is a lot to do with political choices, the fact is that trickle down isn't obviously working.

We find ourselves perpetually voting in a series of business friendly governments that generate a lot of jobs and inward investment and most of those new jobs are taken up by the new workforce we bring in. The immigrant population benefit from getting a job and higher wages than at home, big business benefits from abnormal profits and wages in the public and private sectors continue to be depressed based on an oversupply of ready labour.

I'd like to see the fodder workforce element of immigration heavily restricted whilst improving our humanitarian efforts with refugees and asylum seekers.

[kukushkin88]

He had a bit of a posh rugby bully twat about him. Those boarding school types had to be tough because they had to avoid lord of the flies style bummings every school night of year, some of them are a lot harder than you think.

 

Story definitely checks out. I know about a half a dozen and they're all deceptively strong, now I know why 😄

[JohnCharver]

Seems incredible that we think he should compromise some of his principles to be more electable, literally the whole point is that he's spent his whole life with unshakeable principles that he believes are best for all people and that's what we on the left want in a politician. The alternative is people who will say or do literally anything to try and be electable. Their record suggests they'll change their mind on literally everything if the net result is a few more votes and approval from Dacre, Barclay, Murdoch.

Hes already compromised, he wont fire a nuke, we all know it but hes the front of a party who back trident.

Hes a breath of fresh air except this issue over security/terrorism where he answers like a politician.

Will you condemn act of violence by the IRA?

The answer is Yes, not I condemn all acts of terrorism. Thats a given man. Just answer the bloody question because when he answers like that we all know the answer is no he doesnt condemn the IRAs actions. He seems to be protecting his ability to go back to this shady world of meetings with undesirables if he loses instead of throwing the sink at getting in. Im not asking him to compromise Im asking him to answer the question as asked. Will you fire a nuke? Yes I will if its the people I trust to give me military advice say its right I will always act in my countries interest. Noone even cares about these issues hes making an issue by not just answering and getting on with it. Theres an issue because he wont answer and when he refuses he fuels tories putting a crowbar between him and labour policy.

[kukushkin88]

Seems incredible that we think he should compromise some of his principles to be more electable, literally the whole point is that he's spent his whole life with unshakeable principles that he believes are best for all people and that's what we on the left want in a politician. The alternative is people who will say or do literally anything to try and be electable. Their record suggests they'll change their mind on literally everything if the net result is a few more votes and approval from Dacre, Barclay, Murdoch.

Hes already compromised, he wont fire a nuke, we all know it but hes the front of a party who back trident.

Hes a breath of fresh air except this issue over security/terrorism where he answers like a politician.

Will you condemn act of violence by the IRA?

The answer is Yes, not I condemn all acts of terrorism. Thats a given man. Just answer the bloody question because when he answers like that we all know the answer is no he doesnt condemn the IRAs actions. He seems to be protecting his ability to go back to this shady world of meetings with undesirables if he loses instead of throwing the sink at getting in. Im not asking him to compromise Im asking him to answer the question as asked. Will you fire a nuke? Yes I will if its the people I trust to give me military advice say its right I will always act in my countries interest. Noone even cares about these issues hes making an issue by not just answering and getting on with it. Theres an issue because he wont answer and when he refuses he fuels tories putting a crowbar between him and labour policy.

Like loads of decent people, he instinctively identifies more with the oppressed than the oppressors, his only interest, just like his friend and mentor Tony Benn was/is peace. Anyone who thinks he was somehow in league with the IRA/Hamas is a proper tin foil hat nut job.

[kukushkin88]

On the nukes, it might be tactically more astute to pretend the answer is yes but it isn't actually yes. It really isn't. Somebody tell me a scenario where it's the right/correct thing to do.