Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[ralphjohn69]

First topic message reminder :

It's not logic. Most pot 4 teams are no worse than Rangers. If Rangers were the worst ever pot 4 team last year, what makes them any better now?

Because instead of playing another Pot 3 team they will be playing a Pot 4 team, who will probably be worse than a Pot 3 team so they have a better chance of getting 3rd, although it's obviously not guaranteed. You really don't help yourself when you post about football....

[JAS]

Anybody else enjoy Keegan's little potty mouthed hissy fit? If I'm honest i can have some sympathy for her frustration but I also cant help but thinking, did she do that deliberately to deflect the spotlight away from Sunak?

Don't think I have any problem with her swearing at least she said what she thought instead of what she thinks people like to hear like that poisonous racist dwarf Sadiq Kh*nt. 
I didn't care when Brown swore or Prescott punched a guy. 
I think you are far too conspiratorial JAS. This concrete is an issue of successive governments.
Think you meant this for a different post anyway didn't you, unless you were referring to Keegan swearing in your four-ball.

Relocated after going o.o.b. on the "tell us about your game today thread"

As an accomplished swearer myself that doesn't particularly bother me either. The thing is though (and even my Tory voting partner concurs here). After Gove spent 4 years screwing up the brief while he was coked off his tits there have been 9 Education secretaries in 9 years. How can ANY organisation function properly never mind strategically at any level with that amount of leadership change. Of course big issues are going to get missed and fester before they eventually boil back to the surface, Keegan just happens to unluckily be holding the ticking time bomb when it goes boom.
Sunaks pathetic attempt to dodge the bullet is even more jaw dropping. He made a big play about what he set out in 2020 yet the Senior civil servant that ratted on him specifically said he halved the budget to tackle it in 2021. I don't understand why journo's aren't quicker to nail these charlatans to the wall, Christ they're even being given the hammer and the nails. Oh no wait...Apart from the Mirror and the Guardian they're on the same side as the charlatans so of course they're not going to bottom out the important questions.

[super_realist]

Tje question is why successive governments built schools with such a pathetically short shelf life. 
Labour are not off the hook with this either.

[JAS]

Tje question is why successive governments built schools with such a pathetically short shelf life. 
Labour are not off the hook with this either.

Yep don't disagree Thatcher, Major Blair Brown Cameron all presided over neoliberal driven administrations where balance sheet economics is valued above the public good. Throw schools up, tick the box, to hell with long term strategic thinking, we need to keep taxes low because that's a vote winner so we have to keep costs as low as possible.

"That concrete costs much less than that concrete yep go with that"

"yeah but that means that those buildings will only have a 30 year lifespan."

"Och bugger that I won't be in office in 30 years time."

That in a nutshell is a prime example of reaping what we sow, from crumbling schools to Poopie rivers to exorbitant utility bills and high mortgage rates the country is beyond broken. Sunak cant fix it, Starmer won't be able to either because the real powerbrokers in neoliberal economics won't allow him to. We are doomed until it dawns on the vast majority that we cant go on letting bloody greedy accountants run modern economies and I don't expect that to happen any time in the next few decades. The greedy illegitimate childen that have everything are now so good at lying and passing the buck that we are stuck with them calling the shots.

[super_realist]

Britain's just a useless country. I miss much of it, especially golf  but glad not to be there. 
I really can't seeing it getting any better under Starmer either.

[McLaren]

The only person of any talent to come from Scotland in the last decade or so was Nicola Sturgeon.

[JAS]

The only person of any talent to come from Scotland in the last decade or so was Nicola Sturgeon.

That gives your “Letby is innocent” statement a good run for its money in the absurdity stakes Mac.

[super_realist]

The only person of any talent to come from Scotland in the last decade or so was Nicola Sturgeon.

Yeah, a woman who thinks you should get arrested for what you say in private,  who thinks a r***ist should be permitted in a woman's jail  and who thinks a toy tartan mask is efficacious against Covid. 
Sheer genius.

[McLaren]

Put it this way, Sturgeon wouldn't have let Letby get locked up.

[super_realist]

Put it this way, Sturgeon wouldn't have let Letby get locked up.

She's so left wing she probably would have said we need to show her sympathy and not lock her up because it's against her human rights.

[JAS]

Put it this way, Sturgeon wouldn't have let Letby get locked up.

She's so left wing she probably would have said we need to show her sympathy and not lock her up because it's against her human rights.

Have to say you have a really weird concept of what left is, that is certainly not the kind of left behaviour I believe in. Sadly though, many would concur with you. Rule number one of populist politics...discredit any opposing ideology by whatever means... lying?, projecting?, rewriting history? yep any of that, just discredit what you don't like by continually throwing that kind of Poopie until some of it sticks

[super_realist]

Put it this way, Sturgeon wouldn't have let Letby get locked up.

She's so left wing she probably would have said we need to show her sympathy and not lock her up because it's against her human rights.

Have to say you have a really weird concept of what left is, that is certainly not the kind of left behaviour I believe in. Sadly though, many would concur with you. Rule number one of populist politics...discredit any opposing ideology by whatever means... lying?, projecting?, rewriting history? yep any of that, just discredit what you don't like by continually throwing that kind of Poopie until some of it sticks

She wanted to put  a double r***ist into a woman's prison because he identified as a woman. What would you call that?
Didn't she discredit herself with that ludicrous leftist policy?

Remember it's the left who can't tell you what a woman is without tying themselves in knots. (They do know what a woman is, but they're too scared of the trans lobby and gender politics to be honest)

You're just as "guilty " of this sort of "by any means necessary" stone throwing  so I'm not sure why you object. Sturgeon is left wing, and she became increasingly left wing prior to her departure, not sure how that is even in question.

[McLaren]

Super

Can you tell us what a woman is?

[JAS]

Put it this way, Sturgeon wouldn't have let Letby get locked up.

She's so left wing she probably would have said we need to show her sympathy and not lock her up because it's against her human rights.

Have to say you have a really weird concept of what left is, that is certainly not the kind of left behaviour I believe in. Sadly though, many would concur with you. Rule number one of populist politics...discredit any opposing ideology by whatever means... lying?, projecting?, rewriting history? yep any of that, just discredit what you don't like by continually throwing that kind of Poopie until some of it sticks

She wanted to put  a double r***ist into a woman's prison because he identified as a woman. What would you call that?
Didn't she discredit herself with that ludicrous leftist policy?

Remember it's the left who can't tell you what a woman is without tying themselves in knots. (They do know what a woman is, but they're too scared of the trans lobby and gender politics to be honest)

You're just as "guilty " of this sort of "by any means necessary" stone throwing  so I'm not sure why you object. Sturgeon is left wing, and she became increasingly left wing prior to her departure, not sure how that is even in question.

I wouldn't tag it as left, right or centre it's just lunacy pure and simple.

I have a very simple view on what left politics should be about and it's rooted in clause IV i.e. securing for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their labour. Create a society where power wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few. All this Poopie about gender politics is a bloody distraction. There's poverty running rife and a cost of living crisis and politicians on the left who allow themselves to get sidetracked by stuff that relatively doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things should give their heads a wobble.

Sturgeon by being a nationalist is also an isolationist which goes against the general principles of coming together for the common good. She sure liked to give the impression that she is rooted deep in leftish thinking because she knows very well that the Scots as a nation are generally left of centre and she was pretty astute at appealing to that base but really it was all a charade. A bit like the current Tories who pretend to be centrist. They're about as centrist as an effin perimeter fence.

[super_realist]

Perhaps not, but I certainly think that gender ideology/Stonewall madness is certainly more bought into by the left, and I bet Mac is a prime proponent of it, so I certainly think it can be seen as a lefty hill to die on. 
I'd also say that immigration and the pandering to those making needless journeys across the channel is a thing the left love. 
They're happy to spend all that money on people travelling because Britain's a soft touch (France just stick them in tents, so why don't we?) We put them up on hotels at £7-8m a day.

[super_realist]

Super

Can you tell us what a woman is?

Yes, adult human female, born a female. You think different?

[McLaren]

Super

Can you tell us what a woman is?

Yes, adult human female, born a female. You think different?

I obviously do.

Very happy to accept transwomen can be women.

[JAS]

Super

Can you tell us what a woman is?

Yes, adult human female, born a female. You think different?

I obviously do.

Very happy to accept transwomen can be women.

That's not Mac being left, that's Mac being Mac

[super_realist]

Super

Can you tell us what a woman is?

Yes, adult human female, born a female. You think different?

I obviously do.

Very happy to accept transwomen can be women.

I just see them as transwomen. I don't think it makes them indistinguishable from a genuine woman. 
For example I don't think they belong in women's sport. Clearly it's a distinct and demonstrable advantage.

Presume you think a woman can have a c0ck Mac?

[superflyweight]

Super

Can you tell us what a woman is?

Yes, adult human female, born a female. You think different?

I obviously do.

Very happy to accept transwomen can be women.

I just see them as transwomen. I don't think it makes them indistinguishable from a genuine woman. 
For example I don't think they belong in women's sport. Clearly it's a distinct and demonstrable advantage.

Presume you think a woman can have a c0ck Mac?

They can in some of the porn I will never unsee.

[McLaren]

Presume you think a woman can have a c0ck Mac?

Building on Superflyweights comment, from what I have seen. Yes.

[JAS]

Perhaps not, but I certainly think that gender ideology/Stonewall madness is certainly more bought into by the left, and I bet Mac is a prime proponent of it, so I certainly think it can be seen as a lefty hill to die on. 
I'd also say that immigration and the pandering to those making needless journeys across the channel is a thing the left love. 
They're happy to spend all that money on people travelling because Britain's a soft touch (France just stick them in tents, so why don't we?) We put them up on hotels at £7-8m a day.

I don't buy into it, not because I've researched and come to that conclusion, quite the opposite, it's just not on my importance radar.

Your next statement is a bit trickier to navigate let me try...using a (hopefully) less right-wing ideological Zealot tone

Immigration is a complex issue made worse by this country and others interfering (directly and indirectly) in the affairs of other countries where there is conflict causing a mass exodus to perceived safer places. Yes there are also other nations where famine and extreme poverty has also caused mass displacement, something the human race has experienced since biblical times. People affected by mass displacement are generally vulnerable people who are open to exploitation by criminal gangs and organised crime.It is humanity as a whole's responsibility to deal with this phenomenon. We can as a nation choose to show a bit of humanity by helping to mitigate the worst effects of this fallout. OR we can as a leading nation say, You know what, we're failing as a nation ourselves, we want to be cruel Brittania hark back to the days of empire, let modern day slavery happen under our noses, we don't care, it's not our problem.

They're happy to spend all that money on people travelling because Britain's a soft touch (France just stick them in tents, so why don't we?) We put them up on hotels at £7-8m a day.

As for the last bit...who's they?? and what makes you think they're happy??

Who's putting them up in hotels?? Oh yes the party that cant afford to employ home office officials to process the applications because they're too busy promising tax cuts (also relevant to previous comment on thread about local gov't funding).

Like we mostly agree....pretty much every aspect of this country is beyond broken and I'd advance the point that most of the things that are broken are as a result of flights of fancy by the ideological right.

[super_realist]

Presume you think a woman can have a c0ck Mac?

Building on Superflyweights comment, from what I have seen. Yes.

You'd have sex with such a person would you?

[McLaren]

Presume you think a woman can have a c0ck Mac?

Building on Superflyweights comment, from what I have seen. Yes.

You'd have sex with such a person would you?

Yes.

[super_realist]

Perhaps not, but I certainly think that gender ideology/Stonewall madness is certainly more bought into by the left, and I bet Mac is a prime proponent of it, so I certainly think it can be seen as a lefty hill to die on. 
I'd also say that immigration and the pandering to those making needless journeys across the channel is a thing the left love. 
They're happy to spend all that money on people travelling because Britain's a soft touch (France just stick them in tents, so why don't we?) We put them up on hotels at £7-8m a day.

I don't buy into it, not because I've researched and come to that conclusion, quite the opposite, it's just not on my importance radar.

Your next statement is a bit trickier to navigate let me try...using a (hopefully) less right-wing ideological Zealot tone

Immigration is a complex issue made worse by this country and others interfering (directly and indirectly) in the affairs of other countries where there is conflict causing a mass exodus to perceived safer places. Yes there are also other nations where famine and extreme poverty has also caused mass displacement, something the human race has experienced since biblical times. People affected by mass displacement are generally vulnerable people  who are open to exploitation by criminal gangs and organised crime.It is humanity as a whole's responsibility to deal with this phenomenon. We can as a nation choose to show a bit of humanity by helping to mitigate the worst  effects of this fallout. OR we can as a leading nation say, You know what, we're failing as a nation ourselves, we want to be cruel Brittania hark back to the days of empire, let modern day slavery happen under our noses, we don't care, it's not our problem.

They're happy to spend all that money on people travelling because Britain's a soft touch (France just stick them in tents, so why don't we?) We put them up on hotels at £7-8m a day.

As for the last bit...who's they?? and what makes you think they're happy??

Who's putting them up in hotels?? Oh yes the party that cant afford to employ home office officials to process the applications because they're too busy promising tax cuts (also relevant  to previous comment on thread about local gov't funding).

Like we mostly agree....pretty much every aspect of this country is beyond broken and I'd advance the point that most of the things that are broken are as a result of flights of fancy by the ideological right.

No country bears ANY responsibility for economic migrants. They aren't coming to Britain for any other reason than they get treated better than they do in France.

[super_realist]

Presume you think a woman can have a c0ck Mac?

Building on Superflyweights comment, from what I have seen. Yes.

You'd have sex with such a person would you?

Yes.

Someone with a c0ck? Sure your wife would be happy with that?

[McLaren]

Presume you think a woman can have a c0ck Mac?

Building on Superflyweights comment, from what I have seen. Yes.

You'd have sex with such a person would you?

Yes.

Someone with a c0ck? Sure your wife would be happy with that?

A woman.

[super_realist]

Presume you think a woman can have a c0ck Mac?

Building on Superflyweights comment, from what I have seen. Yes.

You'd have sex with such a person would you?

Yes.

Someone with a c0ck? Sure your wife would be happy with that?

A woman.

What makes a transwoman a woman? 
They have no female genetics, no female skeleton, no female brain, no female hormones or organs and as far as we can tell no knowledge of what it is to be a woman. 
Just being unhappy in your own male body, doesn't mean you're a woman mentally by default.

[JAS]

Perhaps not, but I certainly think that gender ideology/Stonewall madness is certainly more bought into by the left, and I bet Mac is a prime proponent of it, so I certainly think it can be seen as a lefty hill to die on. 
I'd also say that immigration and the pandering to those making needless journeys across the channel is a thing the left love. 
They're happy to spend all that money on people travelling because Britain's a soft touch (France just stick them in tents, so why don't we?) We put them up on hotels at £7-8m a day.

I don't buy into it, not because I've researched and come to that conclusion, quite the opposite, it's just not on my importance radar.

Your next statement is a bit trickier to navigate let me try...using a (hopefully) less right-wing ideological Zealot tone

Immigration is a complex issue made worse by this country and others interfering (directly and indirectly) in the affairs of other countries where there is conflict causing a mass exodus to perceived safer places. Yes there are also other nations where famine and extreme poverty has also caused mass displacement, something the human race has experienced since biblical times. People affected by mass displacement are generally vulnerable people  who are open to exploitation by criminal gangs and organised crime.It is humanity as a whole's responsibility to deal with this phenomenon. We can as a nation choose to show a bit of humanity by helping to mitigate the worst  effects of this fallout. OR we can as a leading nation say, You know what, we're failing as a nation ourselves, we want to be cruel Brittania hark back to the days of empire, let modern day slavery happen under our noses, we don't care, it's not our problem.

They're happy to spend all that money on people travelling because Britain's a soft touch (France just stick them in tents, so why don't we?) We put them up on hotels at £7-8m a day.

As for the last bit...who's they?? and what makes you think they're happy??

Who's putting them up in hotels?? Oh yes the party that cant afford to employ home office officials to process the applications because they're too busy promising tax cuts (also relevant  to previous comment on thread about local gov't funding).

Like we mostly agree....pretty much every aspect of this country is beyond broken and I'd advance the point that most of the things that are broken are as a result of flights of fancy by the ideological right.

No country bears ANY responsibility for economic migrants. They aren't coming to Britain for any other reason than they get treated better than they do in France.

I never said a country, I said humanity as a whole, of course given the isolationist direction of right wing populists, international cooperation on many things will continue to go backwards. We can of course turn a blind eye, wash our hands of all of it and leave them all at the mercy of organised crime and exploitation...would that be your preference??

[super_realist]

What are you on about? This goes back into all the reparations crap judging by what you are saying. 
Just because someone has a bad life in their home country, doesn't mean we owe them a living. It has nothing to do with humanity or humanitarianism. You can't just get on a boat and be taken in by whatever country you please, so why should anyone else?
We don't have the infrastructure to cope with our population growth, legal or illegal.

[JAS]

What are you on about? This goes back into all the reparations crap judging by what you are saying. 
Just because someone has a bad life in their home country, doesn't mean we owe them a living. It has nothing to do with humanity or humanitarianism. You can't just get on a boat and be taken in by whatever country you please, so why should anyone else?
We don't have the infrastructure to cope with our population growth, legal or illegal.

Bugger all to do with reparations, I'm talking about us supplying arms and wading into conflicts (yes Blair's Iraq adventure too as that helped destabilise that country for a long time)

You're too damn right we don't have the infrastructure, but you wouldn't catch the Tories announcing that one too loudly would you? I wonder why?? They'd rather whip up anti immigrant sentiment than give an honest appraisal of why we're not fit to receive thousands.

[McLaren]

What makes a transwoman a woman? 
They have no female genetics, no female skeleton, no female brain, no female hormones or organs and as far as we can tell no knowledge of what it is to be a woman. 
Just being unhappy in your own male body, doesn't mean you're a woman mentally by default.

Unless you believe in a soul I would have thought you accepted that your genetics have a large part to play in how your brain functions. For example gender manifests in your consciousness?

[Duty281]

What are you on about? This goes back into all the reparations crap judging by what you are saying. 
Just because someone has a bad life in their home country, doesn't mean we owe them a living. It has nothing to do with humanity or humanitarianism. You can't just get on a boat and be taken in by whatever country you please, so why should anyone else?
We don't have the infrastructure to cope with our population growth, legal or illegal.

Bugger all to do with reparations, I'm talking about us supplying arms and wading into conflicts (yes Blair's Iraq adventure too as that helped destabilise that country for a long time)

You're too damn right we don't have the infrastructure, but you wouldn't catch the Tories announcing that one too loudly would you? I wonder why?? They'd rather whip up anti immigrant sentiment than give an honest appraisal of why we're not fit to receive  thousands.

Probably because we've had net migration of at least 100,000 for every year over the past quarter of a century (barring 2020), with net migration exceeding one million over just the past two years. If we had more sensible immigration policies over this time, then maybe we'd have more room to house asylum seekers. But many on the left seem to think resources are infinite, and are now surprised we're running out of room.

Only around 28% of those on the boats are from Iraq and Afghanistan, countries that you could argue previous UK governments have destabilised. The two most populous nationalities of people arriving on small boats are from Iran and Albania.

[JAS]

What are you on about? This goes back into all the reparations crap judging by what you are saying. 
Just because someone has a bad life in their home country, doesn't mean we owe them a living. It has nothing to do with humanity or humanitarianism. You can't just get on a boat and be taken in by whatever country you please, so why should anyone else?
We don't have the infrastructure to cope with our population growth, legal or illegal.

Bugger all to do with reparations, I'm talking about us supplying arms and wading into conflicts (yes Blair's Iraq adventure too as that helped destabilise that country for a long time)

You're too damn right we don't have the infrastructure, but you wouldn't catch the Tories announcing that one too loudly would you? I wonder why?? They'd rather whip up anti immigrant sentiment than give an honest appraisal of why we're not fit to receive  thousands.

Probably because we've had net migration of at least 100,000 for every year over the past quarter of a century (barring 2020), with net migration exceeding one million over just the past two years. If we had more sensible immigration policies over this time, then maybe we'd have more room to house asylum seekers. But many on the left seem to think resources are infinite, and are now surprised we're running out of room.

Only around 28% of those on the boats are from Iraq and Afghanistan, countries that you could argue previous UK governments have destabilised.  The two most populous nationalities of people arriving on small boats are from Iran and Albania.

Syria? Somalia? I thought they said earlier this year they had had significant success in decreasing Albanian migration. Either way, with the numbers the way they are chucking a couple of dozen on a plane to Rwanda or a couple of hundred on to the Bibi aint gonna fix it is it. If it's that big an issue why don't they put taxes up so they can afford a few hundred more staff in the home office to process claims instead of housing 10s of thousands in hotels and temporary accommodation. That number is only going up because they cant stem the flow. The processing of claims needs to outstrip the rate of arrivals and it's not.

[Duty281]

What are you on about? This goes back into all the reparations crap judging by what you are saying. 
Just because someone has a bad life in their home country, doesn't mean we owe them a living. It has nothing to do with humanity or humanitarianism. You can't just get on a boat and be taken in by whatever country you please, so why should anyone else?
We don't have the infrastructure to cope with our population growth, legal or illegal.

Bugger all to do with reparations, I'm talking about us supplying arms and wading into conflicts (yes Blair's Iraq adventure too as that helped destabilise that country for a long time)

You're too damn right we don't have the infrastructure, but you wouldn't catch the Tories announcing that one too loudly would you? I wonder why?? They'd rather whip up anti immigrant sentiment than give an honest appraisal of why we're not fit to receive  thousands.

Probably because we've had net migration of at least 100,000 for every year over the past quarter of a century (barring 2020), with net migration exceeding one million over just the past two years. If we had more sensible immigration policies over this time, then maybe we'd have more room to house asylum seekers. But many on the left seem to think resources are infinite, and are now surprised we're running out of room.

Only around 28% of those on the boats are from Iraq and Afghanistan, countries that you could argue previous UK governments have destabilised.  The two most populous nationalities of people arriving on small boats are from Iran and Albania.

Syria? Somalia? I thought they said earlier this year they had had significant success in decreasing Albanian migration. Either way, with the numbers the way they are chucking a couple of dozen on a plane to Rwanda or a couple of hundred on to the Bibi aint gonna fix it is it. If it's that big an issue why don't they put taxes up so they can afford a few hundred more staff in the home office to process claims instead of housing 10s of thousands in hotels and temporary accommodation. That number is only going up because they cant stem the flow. The processing of claims needs to outstrip the rate of arrivals and it's not.

Syrians have accounted for just over 7% of small boat arrivals since 2018. Weirdly, Indians are becoming higher on the list now as well - 18% of arrivals in the first quarter of 2023 were people from India, making them the second largest country. Albanians have significantly declined - 9,000 arrivals in the third quarter of 2022, to just 28 in the first quarter of 2023. Although we'll wait and see if that's a continual trend.

Agree that processing of claims needs to quicken. Although, with regards to taxes, though you continually claim taxes are being cut or this is an ideological low-tax government, the tax burden is currently the highest since the 1940s.

[JAS]

What are you on about? This goes back into all the reparations crap judging by what you are saying. 
Just because someone has a bad life in their home country, doesn't mean we owe them a living. It has nothing to do with humanity or humanitarianism. You can't just get on a boat and be taken in by whatever country you please, so why should anyone else?
We don't have the infrastructure to cope with our population growth, legal or illegal.

Bugger all to do with reparations, I'm talking about us supplying arms and wading into conflicts (yes Blair's Iraq adventure too as that helped destabilise that country for a long time)

You're too damn right we don't have the infrastructure, but you wouldn't catch the Tories announcing that one too loudly would you? I wonder why?? They'd rather whip up anti immigrant sentiment than give an honest appraisal of why we're not fit to receive  thousands.

Probably because we've had net migration of at least 100,000 for every year over the past quarter of a century (barring 2020), with net migration exceeding one million over just the past two years. If we had more sensible immigration policies over this time, then maybe we'd have more room to house asylum seekers. But many on the left seem to think resources are infinite, and are now surprised we're running out of room.

Only around 28% of those on the boats are from Iraq and Afghanistan, countries that you could argue previous UK governments have destabilised.  The two most populous nationalities of people arriving on small boats are from Iran and Albania.

Syria? Somalia? I thought they said earlier this year they had had significant success in decreasing Albanian migration. Either way, with the numbers the way they are chucking a couple of dozen on a plane to Rwanda or a couple of hundred on to the Bibi aint gonna fix it is it. If it's that big an issue why don't they put taxes up so they can afford a few hundred more staff in the home office to process claims instead of housing 10s of thousands in hotels and temporary accommodation. That number is only going up because they cant stem the flow. The processing of claims needs to outstrip the rate of arrivals and it's not.

Syrians have accounted for just over 7% of small boat arrivals since 2018. Weirdly, Indians are becoming higher on the list now as well - 18% of arrivals in the first quarter of 2023 were people from India, making them the second largest country. Albanians have significantly declined - 9,000 arrivals in the third quarter of 2022, to just 28 in the first quarter of 2023. Although we'll wait and see if that's a continual trend.

Agree that processing of claims needs to quicken. Although, with regards to taxes, though you continually claim taxes are being cut or this is an ideological low-tax government, the tax burden is currently the highest since the 1940s.

See there's the big difference between chewing the fat with Super and chewing the fat with someone who actually bothers to do some informed research (backhanded compliment).

With regard to taxes though, yep, they present themselves as a low tax regime with aspirations to go lower but the reality is quite quite different in terms of how it affects us ordinary folk. I wish as a nation we could just drag ourselves away from the ideology that Tax is bad. Ask your average Swede what they think of taxation.

[super_realist]

Isn't it funny that UK spends significantly more per migrant than any other European country and that the success rate for gaining "asylum" in UK is significantly higher. 
If I was a deadbeat from some no mark country I'd want to come to Britain too. 

Britain clearly needs to offer a deterrent in the form of less salubrious accommodation and make the bar for having asylum granted to be significantly higher as the claims of "persecution" are accepted without question it would seem.  
We even have had Labour councillors acting as Lawyers stating how they can lie for claimants to have their claims accepted.

Even if we did have the infrastructure though, it's no reason just to let every Ton, D1ck and Abdul in just because they want to live here , not like we had tje infrastructure under Labour either, and net migration had been significantly higher than 100,000 per year, last year it was 650,000, legal and illegal (that we know about)
I am really interested to see how Starmer will solve it. I just keep hearing really weak solutions such as "a dialogue with France"

[super_realist]

Your average Swede earns a lot more. 
I pay 47% tax in Norway but I earn 3x as much as I did in UK.

[super_realist]

What makes a transwoman a woman? 
They have no female genetics, no female skeleton, no female brain, no female hormones or organs and as far as we can tell no knowledge of what it is to be a woman. 
Just being unhappy in your own male body, doesn't mean you're a woman mentally by default.

Unless you believe in a soul I would have thought you accepted that your genetics have a large part to play in how your brain functions. For example gender manifests in your consciousness?

Didn't say anything about gender Mac. You're the one claiming a transwoman is indistinguishable from a a genuine woman.

How does a man unhappy in his head know that what je thinks he is feeling is that he's a woman and not something else? He has no experience of what it is to be a woman, so you just take their word for it and accept that just thinking it means you are a woman?

[superflyweight]

What makes a transwoman a woman? 
They have no female genetics, no female skeleton, no female brain, no female hormones or organs and as far as we can tell no knowledge of what it is to be a woman. 
Just being unhappy in your own male body, doesn't mean you're a woman mentally by default.

Unless you believe in a soul I would have thought you accepted that your genetics have a large part to play in how your brain functions. For example gender manifests in your consciousness?

Didn't say anything about gender Mac. You're the one claiming a transwoman is indistinguishable from a a genuine woman.

How does a man unhappy in his head know that what je thinks he is feeling is that he's a woman and not something else? He has no experience of what it is to be a woman, so you just take their word for it and accept that just thinking it means you are a woman?

What if I'm just getting really bad menstrual cramps?

[McLaren]

Didn't say anything about gender Mac.

If you are saying something about gender and sex not being the same thing then I agree with that.

But I will ask again whether you think genes have anything to do with the gender your consciousness forms?

[navyblueshorts]

Super

Can you tell us what a woman is?

Yes, adult human female, born a female. You think different?

I obviously do.

Very happy to accept transwomen can be women.

I just see them as transwomen. I don't think it makes them indistinguishable from a genuine woman. 
For example I don't think they belong in women's sport. Clearly it's a distinct and demonstrable advantage.

Presume you think a woman can have a c0ck Mac?

They can in some of the porn I will never unsee.  

[navyblueshorts]

Didn't say anything about gender Mac.

If you are saying something about gender and sex not being the same thing then I agree with that.

But I will ask again whether you think genes have anything to do with the gender your consciousness forms?

Seriously. Who gives much of a Poopie? It's a small minority of the population as far as we know. I'm a live and let live sort of person, but I am fed up to the back teeth with this Poopie. If a man wants to live as a women, who gives a crap? Up to them, but enough. Every bloody day in some form of media.

[Duty281]

What are you on about? This goes back into all the reparations crap judging by what you are saying. 
Just because someone has a bad life in their home country, doesn't mean we owe them a living. It has nothing to do with humanity or humanitarianism. You can't just get on a boat and be taken in by whatever country you please, so why should anyone else?
We don't have the infrastructure to cope with our population growth, legal or illegal.

Bugger all to do with reparations, I'm talking about us supplying arms and wading into conflicts (yes Blair's Iraq adventure too as that helped destabilise that country for a long time)

You're too damn right we don't have the infrastructure, but you wouldn't catch the Tories announcing that one too loudly would you? I wonder why?? They'd rather whip up anti immigrant sentiment than give an honest appraisal of why we're not fit to receive  thousands.

Probably because we've had net migration of at least 100,000 for every year over the past quarter of a century (barring 2020), with net migration exceeding one million over just the past two years. If we had more sensible immigration policies over this time, then maybe we'd have more room to house asylum seekers. But many on the left seem to think resources are infinite, and are now surprised we're running out of room.

Only around 28% of those on the boats are from Iraq and Afghanistan, countries that you could argue previous UK governments have destabilised.  The two most populous nationalities of people arriving on small boats are from Iran and Albania.

Syria? Somalia? I thought they said earlier this year they had had significant success in decreasing Albanian migration. Either way, with the numbers the way they are chucking a couple of dozen on a plane to Rwanda or a couple of hundred on to the Bibi aint gonna fix it is it. If it's that big an issue why don't they put taxes up so they can afford a few hundred more staff in the home office to process claims instead of housing 10s of thousands in hotels and temporary accommodation. That number is only going up because they cant stem the flow. The processing of claims needs to outstrip the rate of arrivals and it's not.

Syrians have accounted for just over 7% of small boat arrivals since 2018. Weirdly, Indians are becoming higher on the list now as well - 18% of arrivals in the first quarter of 2023 were people from India, making them the second largest country. Albanians have significantly declined - 9,000 arrivals in the third quarter of 2022, to just 28 in the first quarter of 2023. Although we'll wait and see if that's a continual trend.

Agree that processing of claims needs to quicken. Although, with regards to taxes, though you continually claim taxes are being cut or this is an ideological low-tax government, the tax burden is currently the highest since the 1940s.

See there's the big difference between chewing the fat with Super and chewing the fat with someone who actually bothers to do some informed research (backhanded compliment).

With regard to taxes though, yep, they present themselves as a low tax regime with aspirations to go lower but the reality is quite quite different in terms of how it affects us ordinary folk. I wish as a nation we could just drag ourselves away from the ideology that Tax is bad. Ask your average Swede what they think of taxation.

Yes, that is the stereotypical view of Sweden, and Nordic countries in general, but it's increasingly coming under threat. The Swedish Democrats finished 2nd in the most recent elections over there (I believe they advocated for tax cuts), and the current coalition government (comprising three parties) are now set to bring in tax cuts in a big way in 2024:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-04/sweden-plans-1-billion-income-tax-break-to-help-consumers?leadSource=uverify%20wall

I'm not even sure the Tories masquerade as low tax anymore. Sunak as chancellor, now as PM, alongside Hunt, have driven up taxes enormously, and any pretence the Tories were low-tax went out the window when Truss and Kwarteng were forced out by their own party.

The thing I don't get about people who hold your position is that you think the current government is incompetent. Fair enough, I agree with that. And any prospective Labour government under Starmer doesn't look as though it'll be brilliant either. So why should more taxpayers money be sent the way of these incompetent governments, who will no doubt waste and misspend it? Birmingham City Council is a perfect example. Council tax rises year after year, given to incompetent people within the council. They waste that money on vanity spending and gross mismanagement, ending up in bankruptcy.

If taxation money was given to people who could spend it wisely, then, sure, I might get on board with it. But I really don't see any good in sending heaps of money to Sunak and Hunt, or Starmer and Reeves.

[JAS]

Yes, that is the stereotypical view of Sweden, and Nordic countries in general, but it's increasingly coming under threat. The Swedish Democrats finished 2nd in the most recent elections over there (I believe they advocated for tax cuts), and the current coalition government (comprising three parties) are now set to bring in tax cuts in a big way in 2024:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-04/sweden-plans-1-billion-income-tax-break-to-help-consumers?leadSource=uverify%20wall

I'm not even sure the Tories masquerade as low tax anymore. Sunak as chancellor, now as PM, alongside Hunt, have driven up taxes enormously, and any pretence the Tories were low-tax went out the window when Truss and Kwarteng were forced out by their own party.

Oh they do and they try to demonise the other side as high tax. Obviously as you correctly point out the reality is different from the rhetoric. "We've got away with trotting out lies for over a decade why stop now" seems to be their modus operandi

The thing I don't get about people who hold your position is that you think the current government is incompetent. Fair enough, I agree with that. And any prospective Labour government under Starmer doesn't look as though it'll be brilliant either.

Fair point and yes Starmer does NOT enthuse me at all but there's a MASSIVE difference between not being enthused and being alarmed.

So why should more taxpayers money be sent the way of these incompetent governments, who will no doubt waste and misspend it? Birmingham City Council is a perfect example. Council tax rises year after year, given to incompetent people within the council. They waste that money on vanity spending and gross mismanagement, ending up in bankruptcy.

If taxation money was given to people who could spend it wisely, then, sure, I might get on board with it. But I really don't see any good in sending heaps of money to Sunak and Hunt, or Starmer and Reeves.

...and therein lies the rub, a society has to put it's faith in someone to run it's government and our choice is pretty dire. Added to that the vast majority are now in a place where they have very little  or no faith in politicians of ANY persuasion and that view is well justified but we cant just say "aw Frak it, none of you are up to the job we'll just have anarchy". We have to choose and it's looking like we have to choose on the basis of least worst rather than best.

There is nothing to suggest that Starmer is incompetent, by all accounts he ran the Justice system ok when he was DPP. He's just dull and uninspiring with a charisma bypass. The Tories on the other hand (unfair to pick on Sunak specifically as he's just this years fall guy - from which you could conclude, it's not the leader that's the problem it's the ideology they're trying to pursue which has been exposed as flawed) have built up quite a demonstrable track record of wilful destruction of key Public Services.

So the choice would appear to be a bit of a dull unknown or pretty much a continuance of the degradation of public services (health, education, infrastructure, local authority Services, Poopie rivers etc etc). I do find it gobsmacking just how scared of the unknown so many people are.

[McLaren]

Didn't say anything about gender Mac.

If you are saying something about gender and sex not being the same thing then I agree with that.

But I will ask again whether you think genes have anything to do with the gender your consciousness forms?

Seriously. Who gives much of a Poopie? It's a small minority of the population as far as we know. I'm a live and let live sort of person, but I am fed up to the back teeth with this Poopie. If a man wants to live as a women, who gives a crap? Up to them, but enough. Every bloody day in some form of media.

But I assume you are fed up with the squabbling around the issue and not the fact trans people want a better standard of life? If you are somewhat supportive of their plight how would you suggest going about showing support for the cause?

[navyblueshorts]

Didn't say anything about gender Mac.

If you are saying something about gender and sex not being the same thing then I agree with that.

But I will ask again whether you think genes have anything to do with the gender your consciousness forms?

Seriously. Who gives much of a Poopie? It's a small minority of the population as far as we know. I'm a live and let live sort of person, but I am fed up to the back teeth with this Poopie. If a man wants to live as a women, who gives a crap? Up to them, but enough. Every bloody day in some form of media.

But I assume you are fed up with the squabbling around the issue and not the fact trans people want a better standard of life?

Correct.

If you are somewhat supportive of their plight how would you suggest going about showing support for the cause?

I don't really give a Poopie. I'm not going to 'show support'. I'm not going on any parade, or march, or going to rant on some sort of crappy 'social' media' to actively 'show support'. I'm not going to pile on to, say, a J.K. Rowling. As I said, live and let live pretty much. I might call out someone I overheard using language I didn't like to someone else who might be trans, but in all honesty, that might depend how big the other person(s) is/are - I may as well be honest as it's easy to talk the talk, but very few walk the walk when it comes down to it.

[JAS]

Didn't say anything about gender Mac.

If you are saying something about gender and sex not being the same thing then I agree with that.

But I will ask again whether you think genes have anything to do with the gender your consciousness forms?

Seriously. Who gives much of a Poopie? It's a small minority of the population as far as we know. I'm a live and let live sort of person, but I am fed up to the back teeth with this Poopie. If a man wants to live as a women, who gives a crap? Up to them, but enough. Every bloody day in some form of media.

But I assume you are fed up with the squabbling around the issue and not the fact trans people want a better standard of life? If you are somewhat supportive of their plight how would you suggest going about showing support for the cause?

I’d quite clearly and unambiguously say that left of centre intellectuals who prioritise marginal issues affecting a small minority of people while millions worry about heating the house this winter or putting food on the table as they drift further into poverty really need to give their heads a wobble. There is a clear and present danger to the economic security of millions of ordinary people. A situation which originally gave birth to the Labour movement.

Here we are 120 years on from the creation of the Labour movement and Neoliberal economics is regressing society back toward the horrors of the late Victorian era. The last 40 years have seen the biggest transfer of power and wealth from the bottom 99% to the top 1%. The world HAS the wealth to eradicate poverty but it chooses not to. Why, because greedy badtards that run the world know what they want and know how to distract the masses.

By all means raise it when the masses reach the sunlit uplands of economic prosperity but until then (a long way off) I’d prefer not to hear about it. It’s a distraction debate, pure and simple.

P.S. Trans people can also be affected by poverty and lack of prosperity.

[JAS]

Is there still life in Trussonomics?? Quite breathtaking that she still gets a platform…wtf!!!

[JAS]

Russel Brand then Mac…just string him up? No need for charges or a trial or anything like that, he’s obviously guilty :-p

The astonishing thing to me is how followers of his cult have a warped sense of “He has over 6 million followers on youtube so he must be ok, who do these women think they are accusing him, he’s been set up because he’s a threat to the establishment media” That kind of Poopie talk has to be rebutted to oblivion.

[McLaren]

As I always say. Pretty confident we can say he is a r***ist but we need a court case to decide whether he goes to jail or not for it.

[Sponsored content]