|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 4, 2024 21:41:03 GMT
Indeed, but then I'm not arguing we maintain immigration rates and build houses for Africa. I am arguing that we build for the people already living here. When you say 'living here' I assume you refer to the illegals who before the election were costing us £5.5 billion a year in hotel bills alone, Christ knows how much it's gone up under this excuse for a government. However, I have a question. Lets assume for one moment the government actually attempt to build new homes for millions of illegals, who are a massive drain on resources, and I have every confidence they will 'attempt' to. Which do you think may come first: 1) Completion of the plan, millions of illegals and future Labour voters are given free homes. Or 2) Civil unrest/disorder on a scale we have never seen in this country because the vast majority of people are pissed of with being ignored. It's a poser. Personally, I don't want either, but I suspect the second choice is more realistic. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Nov 4, 2024 21:54:43 GMT
Only on a Tuesday, when there's an "R" in the month, with a kipper. I hadn't realised that came up so often. I hadn’t realised people thought everybody who rocked up here were invited. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 4, 2024 22:25:43 GMT
Indeed, but then I'm not arguing we maintain immigration rates and build houses for Africa. I am arguing that we build for the people already living here. When you say 'living here' I assume you refer to the illegals who before the election were costing us £5.5 billion a year in hotel bills alone, Christ knows how much it's gone up under this excuse for a government. However, I have a question. Lets assume for one moment the government actually attempt to build new homes for millions of illegals, who are a massive drain on resources, and I have every confidence they will 'attempt' to. Which do you think may come first: 1) Completion of the plan, millions of illegals and future Labour voters are given free homes. Or 2) Civil unrest/disorder on a scale we have never seen in this country because the vast majority of people are pissed of with being ignored. It's a poser. Personally, I don't want either, but I suspect the second choice is more realistic. You assume wrong. I am only talking about those here legally. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 4, 2024 22:32:32 GMT
I hadn't realised that came up so often. I hadn’t realised people thought everybody who rocked up here were invited. Do they. I don't. I am talking about the 6,000,000 we invited not the two hundred thousand or so illegal ones |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Nov 4, 2024 22:33:29 GMT
We don't want them here FFS.... I'm aware of that. But your government asked them to come. Yes your good old Tories. Either way its not the fault of those who were invited. Not my fucking government zany.. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 4, 2024 22:35:55 GMT
I hadn’t realised people thought everybody who rocked up here were invited. Do they. I don't. I am talking about the 6,000,000 we invited not the two hundred thousand or so illegal ones They voluntarily applied for a visa - they were not invited to apply. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 5, 2024 8:19:50 GMT
You should make it clear that your advocacy for opening up the greenbelt is contingent upon us first closing down immigration. The weird thing is you never, ever do this - you advocate for opening the greenbelt as an isolated policy I add it to pretty much every post. I can't say how many times I've told you I think we must stop immigration. The actual difference between our opinions is that you want to make building homes for young people in the UK conditional on stopping immigration and I don't. I see no reason to punish the young for something they have no control over. In the first paragraph you claim that you hold this position and often make it clear you hold this position. In the second you explain why you don't hold this position and why you shouldn't. Every conversation on this topic with you runs into the same contradiction. You want to avoid a conversation about the position by claiming that you already hold it, but you also want not to hold it and argue against it. It's not holding the young hostage because with immigration they would get virtually nothing anyway. On the contrary, i see your current stance as a ploy (conscious or not) to remove this future opportunity from our young people permanently by giving it to someone else. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 5, 2024 9:31:36 GMT
Unless action is taken 'the people already living here' by next week will have risen beyond the number of houses being built for those already living here this week. There is no point in baling out the boat but not try to fix the leak. A problem has many facets and all need to be dealt with effectively. If we cannot stop the inward surge then no amount of house building will suffice and no matter what the percentages are our land is finite. There is every point because the people you wish to hold hostage are not responsible. Tell you what, how about we throw old people out of their homes until the government cuts immigration? Yes we could do that especially if we held an election, that was proposed as policy and it gained the vote. We are not holding anyone to hostage. It is pointless building houses specifically for young people but not dealing with the problem of increasing demand from immigration at the same time or even first. If we build the houses but do not strictly control immigration then we will be turning away young British Citizens from homes because citizens from somewhere else fancied coming here. At best it is idiotic at worst it is criminal of a government to adopt policies such as these when we consider what the democratic vote expected from our government, and has expected from our government for at least 60 years by way of controlling immigration. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 5, 2024 9:38:59 GMT
There is every point because the people you wish to hold hostage are not responsible. Tell you what, how about we throw old people out of their homes until the government cuts immigration? Yes we could do that especially if we held an election, that was proposed as policy and it gained the vote. We are not holding anyone to hostage. It is pointless building houses specifically for young people but not dealing with the problem of increasing demand from immigration at the same time or even first. If we build the houses but do not strictly control immigration then we will be turning away young British Citizens from homes because citizens from somewhere else fancied coming here. At best it is idiotic at worst it is criminal of a government to adopt policies such as these when we consider what the democratic vote expected from our government, and has expected from our government for at least 60 years by way of controlling immigration. I'd want to see two decades of near zero immigration and legislation to the effect that the abuse that has been perpetrated on us for the last three decades is now illegal and will not tolerated again, before i would even consider supporting it. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 5, 2024 12:13:06 GMT
Given that the migrant and migrant-descended population, legal and illegal, is now close to or perhaps already over 17 million, how many of them do you believe we (the host population) have an obligation to provide accommodation for? 100%? Fewer? Is there some cut-off point beyond which you would agree that no such obligation exists? As I said I want accommodation for people living here. I have stated a hundred times that I don't want anymore immigration. I separate legal from illegal migrants as they are very different things with very different solutions and very different numbers. We have obligation to provide for homes for the UK population. WE invited those who live here. We don't have to invite more. I'm taking this to read:
100% obligation for all legal migrants, including those arriving today by rubber dinghy, and
<100% for all illegals
Is that about right?
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 5, 2024 18:38:19 GMT
I'm aware of that. But your government asked them to come. Yes your good old Tories. Either way its not the fault of those who were invited. Not my fucking government zany.. The peoples government, the elected government, the one that runs your countries affairs. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 5, 2024 18:39:03 GMT
Do they. I don't. I am talking about the 6,000,000 we invited not the two hundred thousand or so illegal ones They voluntarily applied for a visa - they were not invited to apply. I'll let others debate that. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 5, 2024 18:42:14 GMT
As I said I want accommodation for people living here. I have stated a hundred times that I don't want anymore immigration. I separate legal from illegal migrants as they are very different things with very different solutions and very different numbers. We have obligation to provide for homes for the UK population. WE invited those who live here. We don't have to invite more. I'm taking this to read:
100% obligation for all legal migrants, including those arriving today by rubber dinghy, and
<100% for all illegals
Is that about right?
No. I do not include illegals in this unless they are granted asylum. But in any case they represent a tiny minority compared to those arriving legally, If we are to slow or stop immigration it is the legal ones that make the biggest difference by a huge percentage. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 5, 2024 18:44:22 GMT
Yes we could do that especially if we held an election, that was proposed as policy and it gained the vote. We are not holding anyone to hostage. It is pointless building houses specifically for young people but not dealing with the problem of increasing demand from immigration at the same time or even first. If we build the houses but do not strictly control immigration then we will be turning away young British Citizens from homes because citizens from somewhere else fancied coming here. At best it is idiotic at worst it is criminal of a government to adopt policies such as these when we consider what the democratic vote expected from our government, and has expected from our government for at least 60 years by way of controlling immigration. I'd want to see two decades of near zero immigration and legislation to the effect that the abuse that has been perpetrated on us for the last three decades is now illegal and will not tolerated again, before i would even consider supporting it. I'd sign up to that. Not sure the British public would like the bill, but then that's us through and through. The cake and eat it brigade. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Nov 5, 2024 18:51:21 GMT
Not my fucking government zany.. The peoples government, the elected government, the one that runs your countries affairs. I never voted for the fuckers zany so they are not MY GOVERNMENT... |
|
