[News] Nigel Farage and Reform

[Nobby]

That is utter bollocks and pretty contemptible if I’m honest. You‘d vote for a racist shit, whose economic policies make as much sense as ferret doing calculus… as a protest vote. you are just trying to defend the indefensible.

He’s a troll. Best ignore him.

 

[worthingseagull123]

Look at what you have written yourself. We have always offered discretionary asylum applications from people abroad WHO HAVE NOT been referred by the UNHCR or another country.

Since 1951 we have allowed applications for asylum from abroad, until we withdrew the facility in sept 2011 under the Government of David Cameron. I really don't know how else to explain it

So, yet again
What do you think about that and all the other steps taken to create the current issue and numbers, Incompetence or planned ?

So with these discretionary powers, how many people did we allow to claim asylum in the UK from abroad?

I am not including family reunion visas for dependents. I am talking about people in their own right.

How many? I suspect very few. In the hundreds if that.

As for the current government, you are right. We have an incompetent government. Cuts in investing in the Immigration service since 2010 has led to this. Backlogs and weak decision making.

 

[worthingseagull123]

Once we leave the ECHR they can really roll back the decades and reintroduce hanging

We are not going to leave the ECHR.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Still it goes on, 'they didn't know what they were doing'.
There's loads of that on the Brexit thread.

Truth hurts doesn’t …

 

[jcdenton08]

Banning smoking in puns? Political correctness gone mad.

This country

 

[pb21]

Still it goes on, 'they didn't know what they were doing'.
There's loads of that on the Brexit thread.

Are you suggesting some people didn't vote for Brexit as a protest vote, at least partly?

 

[BadFish]

Look at what you have written yourself. We have always offered discretionary asylum applications from people abroad WHO HAVE NOT been referred by the UNHCR or another country.

Since 1951 we have allowed applications for asylum from abroad, until we withdrew the facility in sept 2011 under the Government of David Cameron. I really don't know how else to explain it

So, yet again
What do you think about that and all the other steps taken to create the current issue and numbers, Incompetence or planned ?

Planned, to harvest votes from empathically challenged nitwits.

And it works a treat, who knew there were so many.

 

[Eric the meek]

Planned, to harvest votes from empathically challenged nitwits.

And it works a treat, who knew there were so many.

52% to be precise. 52% of those who voted, voted to leave the EU. To take back control. We all know what that meant.

Except that the passage of time shows that it didn't turn out quite like that.

Result: Farage is back for more. Don't fall for it again. Don't.

 

[BadFish]

52% to be precise. 52% of those who voted, voted to leave the EU. To take back control. We all know what that meant.

Except that the passage of time shows that it didn't turn out quite like that.

Result: Farage is back for more. Don't fall for it again. Don't.

I was actually talking about the Tory's asylum seeker policies.

Sadly nitwits doesn't adequately describe Farage/Reform voters. Although they are still empathically challenged.

 

[BadFish]

So with these discretionary powers, how many people did we allow to claim asylum in the UK from abroad?

I am not including family reunion visas for dependents. I am talking about people in their own right.

How many? I suspect very few. In the hundreds if that.

As for the current government, you are right. We have an incompetent government. Cuts in investing in the Immigration service since 2010 has led to this. Backlogs and weak decision making.

Having been involved in many many discussions about asylum seekers over the years on here there as been a small area of agreement across all sides. This being that the applications should be processed as quickly as possibly to help thise in need and return the bogus.

Surely if this 0.6% of your population are at the top of your voting priorities then you find the party that is looking to process quickly and with rigour and stick your X next to them?

 

[worthingseagull123]

Having been involved in many many discussions about asylum seekers over the years on here there as been a small area of agreement across all sides. This being that the applications should be processed as quickly as possibly to help thise in need and return the bogus.

Surely if this 0.6% of your population are at the top of your voting priorities then you find the party that is looking to process quickly and with rigour and stick your X next to them?

Absolutely.

But with Conservatives not investing in public services and Labour threatening financial cuts, I am not so sure we’ll see much improving.

Labour set to announce big public spending cuts after ruling out tax rises

Services such as courts, prisons, local government, job centres, police and immigration are all under threat after the election, experts tell i

inews.co.uk

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Absolutely.

But with Conservatives not investing in public services and Labour threatening financial cuts, I am not so sure we’ll see much improving.

Labour set to announce big public spending cuts after ruling out tax rises

Services such as courts, prisons, local government, job centres, police and immigration are all under threat after the election, experts tell i

inews.co.uk

An article which says what ‘experts’ predict will be the Labour policy. Why not wait to see what the policies are, before commenting.

 

[BadFish]

Absolutely.

But with Conservatives not investing in public services and Labour threatening financial cuts, I am not so sure we’ll see much improving.

Labour set to announce big public spending cuts after ruling out tax rises

Services such as courts, prisons, local government, job centres, police and immigration are all under threat after the election, experts tell i

inews.co.uk

From Labour's website:

Strong foundations – The Labour Party

A Labour government would put country before party with strong foundations of national security, secure borders and economic stability.

labour.org.uk

Surely this is better than a secondary source article predicting policy?

You can then compare this to what the Tories have done over the last 13 years and the other party's policies and see who is suggesting the best option.

 

[worthingseagull123]

From Labour's website:

Strong foundations – The Labour Party

A Labour government would put country before party with strong foundations of national security, secure borders and economic stability.

labour.org.uk

Surely this is better than a secondary source article predicting policy?

You can then compare this to what the Tories have done over the last 13 years and the other party's policies and see who is suggesting the best option.

They can say what they like. But surely public services cannot improve with financial cuts?

We’ll just see the same failures we’ve had since 2010.

 

[BadFish]

They can say what they like. But surely public services cannot improve with financial cuts?

We’ll just see the same failures we’ve had since 2010.

Sounds like you are pretty set on voting for the same failures you've had since 2010.

 

[Curious Orange]

Not lies, mis representation. Its the muller inquiry playbook.

Also know as doing a Bill Barr.

 

[dsr-burnley]

That is utter [edited] and pretty contemptible if I’m honest. You‘d vote for a racist [edited], whose economic policies make as much sense as ferret doing calculus… as a protest vote. you are just trying to defend the indefensible.

Apart from anything else, you have clearly misunderstood the word "IF". "IF" is not a word used to indicate certainty.

I realise that a certain contempt would be offered to those who vote, not for what they believe in, but against what they don't like. No doubt many of those people on here who intend to vote for "anyone but the Tories", would get the same oppobrium from some sectors of society. Ditto those who would vote for "anyone but Trump" or "anyone but Biden". On the other hand, some people believe that voting against a certain faction, and thereby voting for something else that you don't really believe in, is a valid political tactic - it's called "tactical voting".

 

[dsr-burnley]

He’s a troll. Best ignore him.

A troll is someone who posts to wind people up. Not someone who posts genuinely held beliefs for the sake of discussion. If this is an official "Labour party and points left" political discussion board, then you might have a point. But if it's a football board with a strong political element, then not.

I've already been banned from one board for having political views in disagreement with the majority (FMTTM, Middlesbrough) and it does seem to be a feature of some people who claim to decry fascism, that they wish to silence the voices of those who they don't agree with. With is a contradictory position indeed. This board, by and large, is tolerant of differing opinions; a minority is not.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Apart from anything else, you have clearly misunderstood the word "IF". "IF" is not a word used to indicate certainty.

I realise that a certain contempt would be offered to those who vote, not for what they believe in, but against what they don't like. No doubt many of those people on here who intend to vote for "anyone but the Tories", would get the same oppobrium from some sectors of society. Ditto those who would vote for "anyone but Trump" or "anyone but Biden". On the other hand, some people believe that voting against a certain faction, and thereby voting for something else that you don't really believe in, is a valid political tactic - it's called "tactical voting".

You are never going to find a political party who fulfils all your ideals. Think of it as a destination. You aren’t getting a taxi to the exact address but a bus ride which takes you to the nearest stop. That gives voters a flexibility to change their votes in different elections depending on circumstances at the time.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

A troll is someone who posts to wind people up. Not someone who posts genuinely held beliefs for the sake of discussion. If this is an official "Labour party and points left" political discussion board, then you might have a point. But if it's a football board with a strong political element, then not.

I've already been banned from one board for having political views in disagreement with the majority (FMTTM, Middlesbrough) and it does seem to be a feature of some people who claim to decry fascism, that they wish to silence the voices of those who they don't agree with. With is a contradictory position indeed. This board, by and large, is tolerant of differing opinions; a minority is not.

It isn't about being tolerant or intolerant of opinions.

It (your detractors' posts) is about being irritated by endless whataboutery and convoluted justification for backing the Tories, and if not them, then Farage (you may have only hinted at this or defended others who have decided to use a 'protest vote' - it amounts to the same thing - tacit approval). Nevertheless, you can rest assured there is little chance of your being banned on NSC because you are never rude or offensive.

I quite enjoy most of your posts, and indeed you do explore ideas, but it isn't beyond the realms of possibility for some of us to sense an agenda (anyone but Labour). I don't engage with you much on the basis of 'what's the point?'. There are many NSC readers who are 'anyone but Labour' but they recognize it's just a prejudice, and don't bother trying to defend it. If you really wanted to 'discuss' politics then you wouldn't be quite so one-eyed. I am sure there will be many who say much the same about me, albeit they seem to struggle when it comes down to explaining how I am attempting to defend the indefensible. I did, after all, urge against voting Corbyn first time around (in the hope a big defeat would see him gone).

I post a lot of nonsense on here, but I can recall being wrong and admitting it on many occasions. It is good for the soul.

Anyway....it is what it is.