Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2024 19:19:25 GMT
What record? He trashed the country, which we know you support and gloat over throughout this forum. Just like NuLabour you get off on rubbing everyone's face in mass-immigration and multiculturalism, which brought terrorism, division, Orwellianism and a horde of backwards who have 20 kids on social welfare. Blair and his illegal war in Iraq poisoned British politics, we've never recovered, the rot set in as of then, now Blair is worth upwards of £100million, he ever earned that through his boring after dinner speeches.
Labour are poison, they advocate one thing while they totally do the opposite, the young voters of today are the pensioners of tomorrow.
Young voters are all for socialism, vote Labour blah blah, while they rack up their uni loans, it's only when they leave Uni start to get a proper job, get married and have kids, they soon change their minds, mortgage payers with some assets start to realise how Labour are squandering their hard earned cash, then they vote Tory.
LOL... why do you think Labour always want to punish 'TORY' pensioners, most of them were the young socialists of yesterday, as they got older and more wiser they switched from Labour to the Tories .... they eventually realised their hard earned cash, their homes and assets would be gone if left in the hands of a Labour government.
Not to mention the balkanisation of the UK. Blair's legacy is treason for cash, which if why he's supported by those who actually hate the UK and want to see it colonised and top-down ruled with extreme Orwellian lunacy. You would have thought the lefties would at least be put off by the persistent licking of the Republican ballsack when he was selling out by the hour. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2024 19:24:30 GMT
What Labour went through is precisely what the Conservative Party is currently going through, a broad Church is fine, but to stretch it too far means you reach breaking point. The Labour Party is now fully under the control of "Social Democrats", the moderate Left as opposed to "Socialists", and Starmer has learned from the huge success of Blair how to widen the electoral appeal of the Labour Party to the middle classes, business people, the self employed and at the same time keep Labours principles. The Tory Party is in a civil war, its been pulled and fought over between traditional Conservatives, one nation Conservatives and the populist Right who play more on culture wars rather than focus on REAL politics. I find it absolutely alarming that a potential Tory leader has come out and backed Donald Trump for President, a man who would throw Ukraine AND EUROPE to the dogs ( To Russia ), and who has little interest in NATO.Trump was President for 4 years, in case you hadn't noticed, he did neither of those things, then. Why should he now? Trump just wanted NATO members to pay their membership fees now and again. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Apr 18, 2024 20:48:15 GMT
What record? He trashed the country, which we know you support and gloat over throughout this forum. Just like NuLabour you get off on rubbing everyone's face in mass-immigration and multiculturalism, which brought terrorism, division, Orwellianism and a horde of backwards who have 20 kids on social welfare. ? Throughout Blair's term of office, borrowing remained lower than its peak during John Majors term, in fact the UK budget was actually in surplus for 4 years, something which never happened under the Major government. Unemployment was low - interest rates low - we had sustainable growth - public services all improved, but in particular our NHS - living standards improved. There is nothing today which is in a better position than it was under Blair, not borrowing, not the National Debt, not growth, not living standards, the NHS is in a terrible state, as are all public services, everything is worse. As for mass immigration, the three people responsible for Free Movement were (1) John Major, (2) Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd, and (3) Europe Minister Francis Maude, all of who's signatures appear upon the Treaty which opened the doors to Free Movement. Blair opened the floodgates to non-convergent Eastern bloc migrants. He changed UK society for the worse, hellbent on "rubbing the right's noses in diversity". Socially, the rot started with Blair. Britain's never been the same since. It has become a melting pot, a multicultural shit hole in fact that pockets enclaves a distrust. |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Apr 18, 2024 21:14:28 GMT
I wonder where you get the idea that Blair "trashed the country" ? Throughout Blair's term of office, borrowing remained lower than its peak during John Majors term, in fact the UK budget was actually in surplus for 4 years, something which never happened under the Major government. Unemployment was low - interest rates low - we had sustainable growth - public services all improved, but in particular our NHS - living standards improved. There is nothing today which is in a better position than it was under Blair, not borrowing, not the National Debt, not growth, not living standards, the NHS is in a terrible state, as are all public services, everything is worse. As for mass immigration, the three people responsible for Free Movement were (1) John Major, (2) Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd, and (3) Europe Minister Francis Maude, all of who's signatures appear upon the Treaty which opened the doors to Free Movement. Blair opened the floodgates to non-convergent Eastern bloc migrants. He changed UK society for the worse, hellbent on "rubbing the right's noses in diversity". Socially, the rot started with Blair. Britain's never been the same since. It has become a melting pot, a multicultural shit hole in fact that pockets enclaves a distrust. No - John Majors government opened the floodgates to migration from Eastern Europe, it was his government and his ministers that signed The Maastricht Treaty opening the doors to Free Movement of People. There is no such thing as "non-convergant migrants", only non-convergents economies, a POlish person can work in a factory or serve tables in a restaurant equaly as good as any British person, often better. The overwhelming and vast majority of migrant workers from Eastern Europe came here and WORKED, often in jobs that our own people seem unable to do. Most of the Eastern European migrant workers were young, therefore generally in good health, meaning little or no extra strain on our NHS. It is a - FACT - that Eastern European migrant workers contributed to our economy, fueling productivity, growth and investment due to their willingness to work in industries and areas where our own people were reluctant to work, and where labour shortages were hindering growth. I bet that David Cameron, Terresa May, Boris Johnson and Fishy Sunak would love to have the growth and prosperity we saw under Tony Blair, because its been non-existent now for 14 years. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 18, 2024 21:45:53 GMT
It's interesting that witchfinder defends the Blair government opening the flood gates when the actual members of the Blair government have already apologised and admitted it was a mistake...
|
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Apr 18, 2024 22:18:01 GMT
It's interesting that witchfinder defends the Blair government opening the flood gates when the actual members of the Blair government have already apologised and admitted it was a mistake... Wrong again - what SOME people of the Blair government have said is that they should of triggered the "Transition Period" whereby the access to Free Movement could have been delayed by as buch as 7 years. My own personal view based on lots of evidence is that Free Movement did not put British people out of jobs, nor did it create unemployment, some countries did envoke the transition period, others did not. I would be interested to know why you opposed the Free Movement of People, takeing into consideration that it did not create any negative effects upon our economy, but helped to sustain growth, helped many industries to prosper, invest and grow, and contribute to our GDP. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 19, 2024 6:37:11 GMT
It's interesting that witchfinder defends the Blair government opening the flood gates when the actual members of the Blair government have already apologised and admitted it was a mistake... Wrong again - what SOME people of the Blair government have said is that they should of triggered the "Transition Period" whereby the access to Free Movement could have been delayed by as buch as 7 years. My own personal view based on lots of evidence is that Free Movement did not put British people out of jobs, nor did it create unemployment, some countries did envoke the transition period, others did not. I would be interested to know why you opposed the Free Movement of People, takeing into consideration that it did not create any negative effects upon our economy, but helped to sustain growth, helped many industries to prosper, invest and grow, and contribute to our GDP. That is a rather strong claim. I'll give you one example of a negative effect - increased competition for jobs keeps wages down. Karl Marx pointed that out over a Century ago. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Apr 19, 2024 8:12:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 19, 2024 8:16:40 GMT
It's interesting that witchfinder defends the Blair government opening the flood gates when the actual members of the Blair government have already apologised and admitted it was a mistake... Wrong again - what SOME people of the Blair government have said is that they should of triggered the "Transition Period" whereby the access to Free Movement could have been delayed by as buch as 7 years. My own personal view based on lots of evidence is that Free Movement did not put British people out of jobs, nor did it create unemployment, some countries did envoke the transition period, others did not. I would be interested to know why you opposed the Free Movement of People, takeing into consideration that it did not create any negative effects upon our economy, but helped to sustain growth, helped many industries to prosper, invest and grow, and contribute to our GDP. There have been mammoth effects on communities, localities and social cohesion and significant additional costs on the NHS, education, housing, policing, the justice system as well as translation services for all of these. The positive aspects on the economy is just a chimera when all the effects are accounted for. This it seems to me is stating the bleedin obvious but for some reason is ignored as suited by far too many. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Apr 19, 2024 8:27:01 GMT
Wrong again - what SOME people of the Blair government have said is that they should of triggered the "Transition Period" whereby the access to Free Movement could have been delayed by as buch as 7 years. My own personal view based on lots of evidence is that Free Movement did not put British people out of jobs, nor did it create unemployment, some countries did envoke the transition period, others did not. I would be interested to know why you opposed the Free Movement of People, takeing into consideration that it did not create any negative effects upon our economy, but helped to sustain growth, helped many industries to prosper, invest and grow, and contribute to our GDP. There have been mammoth effects on communities, localities and social cohesion and significant additional costs on the NHS, education, housing, policing, the justice system as well as translation services for all of these. The positive aspects on the economy is just a chimera when all the effects are accounted for. This it seems to me is stating the bleedin obvious but for some reason is ignored as suited by far too many. It sort of reminds me of the widow taken in by the Nigerian prince, after the former husband left her well enough off to live out the rest of her life left penniless, while some people will say silly old bat, others will say how can this even happen! |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Apr 19, 2024 9:09:27 GMT
It's interesting that witchfinder defends the Blair government opening the flood gates when the actual members of the Blair government have already apologised and admitted it was a mistake... Yep, like those Japanese soldiers fighting in the jungle 29 years after the war had ended. Doh! |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 19, 2024 9:33:16 GMT
Mob rule is lefties vandalising statues, blocking roads and closing down London every weekend, and the reason they do it, every weekend, is because the police are weak. The TSG should be deployed to crack a few lefty heads and encourage disruptive feckless lefties to behave themselves. Wrong, mob rule is anyone who goes beyond what is acceptable or what is reasonable protest or within the law to further their political aims. Mob rule is not restricted to people of the Left, and to suggest so is very far removed from reality Some of the very worst scenes of violence, intimidation and vandalism have taken place at marches or demonstrations by the far right, the BNP, Britain First and the EDL, all well known for seeking confrontation. You think vandalising public monuments and works of art is acceptable? You think stopping people going about their lawful business by blocking the public highway, which is against the law, is acceptable? The only reason entitled pampered and equally clueless anti social lefties do these things is because the police are weak. I sincerely wish the TSG would get stuck into them. Can you furnish me with the details of the last far right demonstration in which we saw violence and vandalism?.. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Apr 19, 2024 9:56:32 GMT
Blair opened the floodgates to non-convergent Eastern bloc migrants. He changed UK society for the worse, hellbent on "rubbing the right's noses in diversity". Socially, the rot started with Blair. Britain's never been the same since. It has become a melting pot, a multicultural shit hole in fact that pockets enclaves a distrust. No - John Majors government opened the floodgates to migration from Eastern Europe, it was his government and his ministers that signed The Maastricht Treaty opening the doors to Free Movement of People. There is no such thing as "non-convergant migrants", only non-convergents economies, a POlish person can work in a factory or serve tables in a restaurant equaly as good as any British person, often better. The overwhelming and vast majority of migrant workers from Eastern Europe came here and WORKED, often in jobs that our own people seem unable to do. Most of the Eastern European migrant workers were young, therefore generally in good health, meaning little or no extra strain on our NHS. It is a - FACT - that Eastern European migrant workers contributed to our economy, fueling productivity, growth and investment due to their willingness to work in industries and areas where our own people were reluctant to work, and where labour shortages were hindering growth. I bet that David Cameron, Terresa May, Boris Johnson and Fishy Sunak would love to have the growth and prosperity we saw under Tony Blair, because its been non-existent now for 14 years. So, it was John Major who declared that he wanted to "rub the right's noses in diversity" and allowed non-convergent ECONOMIC migrants into the UK before Germany, Italy, Denmark, France and other major European economies. Blair's legacy on immigration is one that "managed" to favour migrants coming for work and study. Socially, he started the demise of the shit tip we call home. Now, you can dance around the Maypole like a good Blairite does, but anyone with a half a brain sees the damage he has caused. |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Apr 19, 2024 10:33:01 GMT
Wrong again - what SOME people of the Blair government have said is that they should of triggered the "Transition Period" whereby the access to Free Movement could have been delayed by as buch as 7 years. My own personal view based on lots of evidence is that Free Movement did not put British people out of jobs, nor did it create unemployment, some countries did envoke the transition period, others did not. I would be interested to know why you opposed the Free Movement of People, takeing into consideration that it did not create any negative effects upon our economy, but helped to sustain growth, helped many industries to prosper, invest and grow, and contribute to our GDP. That is a rather strong claim. I'll give you one example of a negative effect - increased competition for jobs keeps wages down. Karl Marx pointed that out over a Century ago. No, this is nonsense, the overwhelming majority of jobs which Europeans took were unskilled / low skilled jobs in hospitality, leisure, production work in factories and in the agricultural sector, most of which are National Minimum Wage rates, which begs the question "how can you drive down wages when they are already at the lowest legal point". Competition for jobs ?, virtually every food process and production business here in North Yorkshire had labour shortages until the accession of the EU10 in 2004, from McCains potato products in Scarborough, to the largest pork production factory in Malton, they all struggled to fill vaccancies. Every statistic ever produced proves that Freedom of Movement was posotive and advantageous to our economy, the Eastern European WORKERS did draw on in-work benefits, but what was given back was considerably more. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 19, 2024 10:58:15 GMT
That is a rather strong claim. I'll give you one example of a negative effect - increased competition for jobs keeps wages down. Karl Marx pointed that out over a Century ago. No, this is nonsense, the overwhelming majority of jobs which Europeans took were unskilled / low skilled jobs in hospitality, leisure, production work in factories and in the agricultural sector, most of which are National Minimum Wage rates, which begs the question "how can you drive down wages when they are already at the lowest legal point". Competition for jobs ?, virtually every food process and production business here in North Yorkshire had labour shortages until the accession of the EU10 in 2004, from McCains potato products in Scarborough, to the largest pork production factory in Malton, they all struggled to fill vaccancies. Every statistic ever produced proves that Freedom of Movement was posotive and advantageous to our economy, the Eastern European WORKERS did draw on in-work benefits, but what was given back was considerably more. Try telling someone working in the construction industry that opening the doors to A8 migrants did not drive down wages - they would laugh in your face. If you increase the supply of anything then the cost falls - this is basic economics. The Tories espoused this as a policy when Phil Hammond the Chancellor said: "Relaxing immigration could help deal with record rises in wages across Britain by creating more competition for jobs and lowering workers’ ability to push for pay increases."
|
|
