Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest form of power is making people believe they are free whilst remaining in full control." I like that statement  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This labour government is most definitely the worst one in my lifetime and I'm in my late 50s" The worst labour government or worst of all governments ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In Britain there are always more people who didn't vote for the party in power than the number who did." So basically agreeing that Britain isn’t a democracy right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This labour government is most definitely the worst one in my lifetime and I'm in my late 50s" What do you base that comment on? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This labour government is most definitely the worst one in my lifetime and I'm in my late 50s" Johnson government was far worse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In Britain there are always more people who didn't vote for the party in power than the number who did. So basically agreeing that Britain isn’t a democracy right? " The only way to address that would be to make voting compulsory but is that democratic xx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is democracy a good thing? Should stupid people be allowed a vote? Lowest common denominator politics - has vox populi had its day? Should we adopt a system similar to Starship Troopers- ie: only those who contribute to society get to make the decisions? " How do you know if someone is stupid? What is the criteria? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Says - Tucker Carlson - his argument is in democracy Governments do what majority wants but in Britain it’s the opposite. Do you agree? " From an American somewhat the pot calling the kettle black | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Should we adopt a system similar to Starship Troopers- ie: only those who contribute to society get to make the decisions? " There is much to be said for weighted voting. Very dangerous to implement and probably too dangerous for the UK, but it makes sense. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In Britain there are always more people who didn't vote for the party in power than the number who did. So basically agreeing that Britain isn’t a democracy right? The only way to address that would be to make voting compulsory but is that democratic xx" Australia does that. It does very much change the calculus of the political parties. It's a net good thing - campaigning is less about getting people to the ballot box based on their identities and more about the content. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The majority want to rejoin the EU - do you and Tucker agree with that I wonder? " Does it or is that what state propaganda is telling you? People consistently voted for parties to lower immigration but the state did the opposite. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This labour government is most definitely the worst one in my lifetime and I'm in my late 50s Johnson government was far worse." i think the lettuce government is hard to beat for being worse | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This labour government is most definitely the worst one in my lifetime and I'm in my late 50s" I assume you were in a coma for the absolute clusterfuck that was Liz Truss’s premiership? Or Johnson’s time in government where his utter ineptitude and contempt for the British people led to the needless deaths of thousands upon thousands? Or maybe you missed the swingeing cuts to public services under the coalition, which impacted disproportionately the poorest and most vulnerable in society. Starmer’s government has been dreadful. But let’s not kid ourselves it’s been the worst for fifty years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The majority want to rejoin the EU - do you and Tucker agree with that I wonder? Does it or is that what state propaganda is telling you? People consistently voted for parties to lower immigration but the state did the opposite." No true, rules changed were passed 2-3 years ago and prices increased that massively reduce work visa applications by foreigners and make it very hard to come to the uk legally for work. But this just means people go the illegal route. The legal route costs £2500 per 2.5 years + agents fees , you get no access to benefits and have to pay to use the NHS and reapply after each 2.5 years and pay again. It's is now almost impossible unless your a doctor, engineer etc The illegal route costs around £10,000 one off and you get full access to benefits and NHS immediately , no further costs and usually granted asylum and indefinite leave to remain Which method do you think people will spend thier hard earned money on ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This labour government is most definitely the worst one in my lifetime and I'm in my late 50s" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... maybe you missed the swingeing cuts to public services under the coalition, which impacted disproportionately the poorest and most vulnerable in society ..." They weren't swingeing cuts to public services. Government spending increased for every single year of the coalition government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"full access to benefits and NHS immediately ," Sorry but that is wrong. Look at what the charity for refugees has to say. The charity is called the Refugee Council. Here is a quote: "6. People seeking asylum do not get large handouts from the state. People seeking asylum do not come to the UK to claim benefits. Most know nothing about welfare benefits before they arrive and had no expectation that they would receive financial support. Most people seeking asylum are living in poverty and experience poor health and hunger. Many families are not able to pay for the basics such as clothing, powdered milk and nappies. Almost all people seeking asylum are not allowed to work and are forced to rely on state support—this is as little as £6.43 a day to live on". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Says - Tucker Carlson - his argument is in democracy Governments do what majority wants but in Britain it’s the opposite. Do you agree? " Nothing like an American intervening in another countries politics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The majority want to rejoin the EU - do you and Tucker agree with that I wonder? Does it or is that what state propaganda is telling you? People consistently voted for parties to lower immigration but the state did the opposite. No true, rules changed were passed 2-3 years ago and prices increased that massively reduce work visa applications by foreigners and make it very hard to come to the uk legally for work. But this just means people go the illegal route. The legal route costs £2500 per 2.5 years + agents fees , you get no access to benefits and have to pay to use the NHS and reapply after each 2.5 years and pay again. It's is now almost impossible unless your a doctor, engineer etc The illegal route costs around £10,000 one off and you get full access to benefits and NHS immediately , no further costs and usually granted asylum and indefinite leave to remain Which method do you think people will spend thier hard earned money on ? " I know a person where I work that came to the UK through the correct channels and is enduring the process you have described. The amount he has to pay for his wife and child ( he has a British passport so fees are not for him) is staggering and they are also highly restricted on benefits. He is highly skilled and earns well but is constantly bemused that the illegal ones get benefits, health care and accommodation for free from day one | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"full access to benefits and NHS immediately" "Sorry but that is wrong ..." Well it's half right. They don't get full access to benefits, but they do get housed and fed and a tiny bit of spending money. And they do get access to the NHS. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So people do accept that Britain is a fake democracy where you can ride naked on a bike in public spaces but cannot covert glass roof conservatory with solid roof, correct?" I'm sure most people accept that you can ride a bike naked, but I'm going to disagree about replacing a conservatory roof. I have no idea why you think either of these things prove that the UK is a "fake democracy". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So people do accept that Britain is a fake democracy where you can ride naked on a bike in public spaces but cannot covert glass roof conservatory with solid roof, correct?" For the record, we have a solid roof on our conservatory. Highly, highly, highly recommended! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"None of the western government are democracies. Specially UK and USA. Any 2 party political system is not true democracy. " What is "true" democracy? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"None of the western government are democracies. Specially UK and USA. Any 2 party political system is not true democracy. " There are currently 16 Parties in the House of Commons. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So people do accept that Britain is a fake democracy where you can ride naked on a bike in public spaces but cannot covert glass roof conservatory with solid roof, correct? I'm sure most people accept that you can ride a bike naked, but I'm going to disagree about replacing a conservatory roof. I have no idea why you think either of these things prove that the UK is a "fake democracy"." I think OP is suffering from the misunderstanding that rules apply even in a democracy. He seems to think that a democracy means everyone has carte blanche to do whatever they want, whenever they want. He seems to be confusing anarchy with democracy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"None of the western government are democracies. Specially UK and USA. Any 2 party political system is not true democracy. " America has a two party system I suppose. Which other 'western' government does? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Says - Tucker Carlson - his argument is in democracy Governments do what majority wants but in Britain it’s the opposite. Do you agree? " Tucker Carlson, the millionaire who got Trump elected? In Britain, each party publishes a manifesto, stating what their aims are, and the one with most support gets to steer the ship of state for a while. You are not governing if you switch directions every time an opinion poll goes against you. Especially when the polls are heavily influenced by the right wing media. What Tucker is proposing is “bread and circuses”. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have concerns about the proposal to charge successful asylum seekers 10k. Does this reflect what the majority wants? It may encourage people to arrive here with 10k in their bank account, claim asylum, and only pay after 5/6 years of a tax-funded lifestyle once asylum has been granted. Is this what Brisib democracy wants?" It’s a way of getting back some of the £4-5bn annual costs of supporting these people who have arrived. The average cost of housing an asylum seeker for one night in publicly-owned accommodation is £23.25, and £144 in a hotel. And subsistence payments range from £9.95 to £49.18 for each person per week. Add the lawyers, interpreters, home office case workers, courts, financial burden put on councils etc and £10,000 isn’t a lot, for comparison an undergrad degree is iro £47,000 interest bearing debt. The Refugee Council said the “unfair, impractical” plans amounted to an “extra tax on refugees”, and would make it “harder for families to rebuild their lives and stand on their own feet”. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have concerns about the proposal to charge successful asylum seekers 10k. Does this reflect what the majority wants? It may encourage people to arrive here with 10k in their bank account, claim asylum, and only pay after 5/6 years of a tax-funded lifestyle once asylum has been granted. Is this what Brisib democracy wants?" The current system is that they arrive here with nothing, claim asylum, and never pay back anything. A change to a system where they pay back something at some point seems like an improvement. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have concerns about the proposal to charge successful asylum seekers 10k. Does this reflect what the majority wants? It may encourage people to arrive here with 10k in their bank account, claim asylum, and only pay after 5/6 years of a tax-funded lifestyle once asylum has been granted. Is this what Brisib democracy wants? The current system is that they arrive here with nothing, claim asylum, and never pay back anything. A change to a system where they pay back something at some point seems like an improvement." It’s all mean tested - and you know what happens with that rule | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have concerns about the proposal to charge successful asylum seekers 10k. Does this reflect what the majority wants? It may encourage people to arrive here with 10k in their bank account, claim asylum, and only pay after 5/6 years of a tax-funded lifestyle once asylum has been granted. Is this what Brisib democracy wants? It’s a way of getting back some of the £4-5bn annual costs of supporting these people who have arrived. The average cost of housing an asylum seeker for one night in publicly-owned accommodation is £23.25, and £144 in a hotel. And subsistence payments range from £9.95 to £49.18 for each person per week. Add the lawyers, interpreters, home office case workers, courts, financial burden put on councils etc and £10,000 isn’t a lot, for comparison an undergrad degree is iro £47,000 interest bearing debt. The Refugee Council said the “unfair, impractical” plans amounted to an “extra tax on refugees”, and would make it “harder for families to rebuild their lives and stand on their own feet”." I saw the refugee council saying this is unfair but did not see the reason. I can't see it is unfair to pay back a bit of what they have cost the country that took them in to escape the horrors back in their own country (if true). When able to do so why shouldn't they contribute to the huge expense. Unfortunately they don't have a good record of getting into decent paying jobs so many may end up exempt from this | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hands up who thinks the UK is now utterly fucked! .. 🖐🏻" Treasury income £1.23trn Treasury debt £2.91trn (£100k a household) Debt rising by £4000 a second apparently Good luck to anyone who can turn that around. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hands up who thinks the UK is now utterly fucked! .. 🖐🏻" Welfare spending: £333 billion Income tax revenue: £331 billion We’re now paying out more than we bring in from workers. How is this unsustainable | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hands up who thinks the UK is now utterly fucked! .. 🖐🏻 Welfare spending: £333 billion Income tax revenue: £331 billion We’re now paying out more than we bring in from workers. How is this unsustainable" Just tax the workers more. Duh. Oh, sorry. "Wealthy". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
