Farage bashed by charity for suggesting UK ban migrants with HIV

First topic message reminder :

Ukip leader Nigel Farage has been condemned by a leading charity after suggesting that migrants with HIV should be prevented from entering the UK.

Mr Farage reportedly said preventing people with the condition entering the country would be a "good start" in controlling the UK's borders.

The chief executive of HIV/Aids charity Terrence Higgins Trust accused Mr Farage of stooping to a "new level of ignorance" and Labour MP David Lammy said he was "trying to revive the very worst bigotry" of the 1980s.

In an interview with Newsweek Europe, Mr Farage set out the changes he would like to see, including a block on convicted killers being allowed into the UK, referring to the prime suspect in the Alice Gross murder case.

Convicted killer Arnis Zalkalns, from Latvia, was found hanged in Boston Manor Park, west London, on October 4, near where Alice was last seen on August 28 as she walked back to her family home in Hanwell.

"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here," Mr Farage said.

Mr Farage said Ukip "want to control the quantity and quality of people who come" to the UK.

The Daily Mail reported that, asked by Newsweek whether "quality" meant people without a murder conviction, he answered: "Yes. And people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start. And people with a skill. That is what Britain should do."

He went on to say: "I have never said that we should not take refugees. We have a proud record of accepting refugees, and that must be continued."

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/farage-ban-hiv-migrants-from-uk-1.620778

victorisnotamused wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

I'll criticize xenophobia or a lack of compassion disguised by concerns over the budget not balancing when I see people doing it anywhere. Though obviously the NHS needs more funding (I understand the Tory cuts of the past few years have been devastating).

and perhaps as a yank, you should first understand that the NHS is non negotiable and is certainly NOT up for control by the jealous minions of former colonies.....
You cant even look after your OWN ...why do YOU expect us to look after everyone else.....If YOU think that is the right way to go, I suggest you start a movement to do just that ...over there, afterall your economy is many times larger than ours...so you can afford it better....oh....i forgot...you cant afford it can you????

The UK -- a place where people have convinced themselves to poison everything good about their country with austerity, while right-wing idiots spew endless bile in hopes of preserving everything bad about their country.

Sooooo jealous ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:The UK -- a place where people have convinced themselves to poison everything good about their country with austerity, while right-wing idiots spew endless bile in hopes of preserving everything bad about their country.

Sooooo jealous ...

well you would be.comming from the place where anything good is iimmediately priced out of the range of "everyman"
and where corporate greed is the byword......

where you allow the "corn lobby" to poison you with their corn syrup in everything....strewth I have heard even your butter contains corn syrup

you stand all need to talk veya....what with your penchant for sheep and kangaroos.......

we've all heard about your liking for bondage games with them there roos....

"tie me kangaroo down sport " indeed.......

victorisnotamused wrote:you stand all need to talk veya....what with your penchant for sheep and kangaroos.......

we've all heard about your liking for bondage games with them there roos....

"tie me kangaroo down sport " indeed.......

well Aussies need something a bit bigger than the foxes and badger Englishmen use

There's very little chemical difference between HFCS and cane sugar (cane is 50 percent glucose and 50 percent fructose, while HFCS is usually something like 45 percent glucose, 55 percent fructose).

Ben_Reilly wrote:There's very little chemical difference between HFCS and cane sugar (cane is 50 percent glucose and 50 percent fructose, while HFCS is usually something like 45 percent glucose, 55 percent fructose).

yeah?   but we dont put cane sugar in butter either.......

or in half the things you lot put corn syrup in......

and as for pickles....dont even go there...do you actually know what a pickle IS over there...i mean a real genuine vinegar pickle at 5% acidity????

thats why american books on pickling have everything "canned style" i.e heated and sealed.....

yeuk

all we do is pour on boiling neat vinegar (spiced as appropriate) and voilla...pickles that bite back......

oh and we don have cases of botulism from home made pickles here either....

English food preparation
or "Meat and Heat" as it is known to the rest of us

American food
a.k.a Plastic Fantastic (and probably poisonous)

Ben_Reilly wrote:The UK -- a place where people have convinced themselves to poison everything good about their country with austerity, while right-wing idiots spew endless bile in hopes of preserving everything bad about their country.

Sooooo jealous ...

You really don't have a clue.


It is the 'progressives' agenda that is poisoning this once great nation.


13 years of labours open tap spending and open door immigration has been a disaster for the UK and the effects will be felt for years to come.


If they hadn't over spent so much and committed us to so much outlay in their fraudulent PFI deals for years to come, plus the billions now needed to just pay interest on this massively increased national debts, then there would be much more money available to actually spend on public services where it is needed and cuts in spending wouldn't be necessary.


We need cuts in bureaucracy, red tape, quangos and a return to common sense.

Sure ...

Your government prints your money and decides how much of it is available for curing sick human beings. Nice racket there. Your Tories decided to cut the funding, making the NHS less popular than it had been in a long time. Your Tories aren't progressives, they're corporatists. Much like your Labour.

National debt is a bullshit reason for a world power to make any decision. Nobody's cutting off the UK for its debt, and they'd be a fool to try to call it in. More importantly, the people who own the UK debt are not people, but corporate entities and governments which expect to last for centuries and which are quite content to continue on collecting payment in installments. The UK debt is not owned by a person looking to have a nice nest egg for retirement. It's owned by faceless groups that want to keep collecting predictable income and that have a vested interest in the UK not going belly-up -- so they're sure as hell not to help that happen.

You're just being manipulated by people who know you're stupid and phobic toward non-British citizens with HIV and that can count on your support when they propose all the funding cuts that make them even richer. You do their heavy lifting for them and you don't even ask for payment.

You even bleat about how they'll leave for some third-world hellhole with no taxes if anybody pisses them off too much. You should be saying fuck them, if that's how they regard your country they don't belong in it anyway. But you just continue on, spreading fear and animosity for them so they can get rich while you twist in the wind -- it's pathetic.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Sure ...

Your government prints your money and decides how much of it is available for curing sick human beings. Nice racket there. Your Tories decided to cut the funding, making the NHS less popular than it had been in a long time. Your Tories aren't progressives, they're corporatists. Much like your Labour.

National debt is a bullshit reason for a world power to make any decision. Nobody's cutting off the UK for its debt, and they'd be a fool to try to call it in. More importantly, the people who own the UK debt are not people, but corporate entities and governments which expect to last for centuries and which are quite content to continue on collecting payment in installments. The UK debt is not owned by a person looking to have a nice nest egg for retirement. It's owned by faceless groups that want to keep collecting predictable income and that have a vested interest in the UK not going belly-up -- so they're sure as hell not to help that happen.

You're just being manipulated by people who know you're stupid and phobic toward non-British citizens with HIV and that can count on your support when they propose all the funding cuts that make them even richer. You do their heavy lifting for them and you don't even ask for payment.

You even bleat about how they'll leave for some third-world hellhole with no taxes if anybody pisses them off too much. You should be saying fuck them, if that's how they regard your country they don't belong in it anyway. But you just continue on, spreading fear and animosity for them so they can get rich while you twist in the wind -- it's pathetic.

and all of it imported from the good ole US of A.........

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:The UK -- a place where people have convinced themselves to poison everything good about their country with austerity, while right-wing idiots spew endless bile in hopes of preserving everything bad about their country.

Sooooo jealous ...

You really don't have a clue.


It is the 'progressives' agenda that is poisoning this once great nation.


13 years of labours open tap spending and open door immigration has been a disaster for the UK and the effects will be felt for years to come.


If they hadn't over spent so much and committed us to so much outlay in their fraudulent PFI deals for years to come, plus the billions now needed to just pay interest on this massively increased national debts, then there would be much more money available to actually spend on public services where it is needed and cuts in spending wouldn't be necessary.


We need cuts in bureaucracy, red tape, quangos and a return to common sense.

You think that this country only went down the tube when Labour took power in 1997? Think again and go back to 1979 when Thatcher got a hold of our country.

She signed the Single European Act and then John Major signed the Maastrich Treaty allowing free movement of of people across all borders of the EU countries.

Spending by Labour over their 13 years was lower than they inherited from the Tories who blew much of our national wealth on just running the country and paying out unemployment benefit to millions that they put on the scrapheap. They invested in nothing and left our hospitals, schools and national infrastructure crumbling wrecks which had to be upgraded or replaced by the next government.

Get real

Brasidas wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:We have about 100,000 people here with hiv/aids, cost of between £10-20,000 a year in drugs, two thirds of those are immigrants.

You are making money a view point to discriminate on, of which of cause is not viable or equality.
Your argument is about not about you not being able to do what medical trained people can do, but off the fact this nation advanced to be able that they could via education based off plunder from other nations it abused.
That is not a viable argument to deny people treatment based on levels of money input, it actually argues in favour of more discrmination.

If I'm reading you correctly then you would be against private healthcare where people can use their wealth to get access to healthcare and an operation before someone who has equal need and no real wealth and can't afford it.

Same could apply to education where someone in the catchment area for say Eton couldn't go there because they couldn't afford it.

Is that right? If so then you are a right leftie at heart

victorisnotamused wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Sure ...

Your government prints your money and decides how much of it is available for curing sick human beings. Nice racket there. Your Tories decided to cut the funding, making the NHS less popular than it had been in a long time. Your Tories aren't progressives, they're corporatists. Much like your Labour.

National debt is a bullshit reason for a world power to make any decision. Nobody's cutting off the UK for its debt, and they'd be a fool to try to call it in. More importantly, the people who own the UK debt are not people, but corporate entities and governments which expect to last for centuries and which are quite content to continue on collecting payment in installments. The UK debt is not owned by a person looking to have a nice nest egg for retirement. It's owned by faceless groups that want to keep collecting predictable income and that have a vested interest in the UK not going belly-up -- so they're sure as hell not to help that happen.

You're just being manipulated by people who know you're stupid and phobic toward non-British citizens with HIV and that can count on your support when they propose all the funding cuts that make them even richer. You do their heavy lifting for them and you don't even ask for payment.

You even bleat about how they'll leave for some third-world hellhole with no taxes if anybody pisses them off too much. You should be saying fuck them, if that's how they regard your country they don't belong in it anyway. But you just continue on, spreading fear and animosity for them so they can get rich while you twist in the wind -- it's pathetic.

and all of it imported from the good ole US of A.........

Give it up, Victor.  You're just farting in the wind.

The reason why you've got a roof over your head is because the good ole US of A taxpayers float eleven supercarrier fleets around the world, making it safe for y'all who can't even afford two...your last two, btw.  You are bleating about lifestyles, yet enjoying the very protection we provide.  Then you have the nerve to lobby us into another fookin' Iraq war that bleeds resources and goes nowhere.  Jeezus fookin' Christ...the NEO-CONS got one thing right: fook the international community.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Sure ...

Your government prints your money and decides how much of it is available for curing sick human beings. Nice racket there. Your Tories decided to cut the funding, making the NHS less popular than it had been in a long time. Your Tories aren't progressives, they're corporatists. Much like your Labour.

National debt is a bullshit reason for a world power to make any decision. Nobody's cutting off the UK for its debt, and they'd be a fool to try to call it in. More importantly, the people who own the UK debt are not people, but corporate entities and governments which expect to last for centuries and which are quite content to continue on collecting payment in installments. The UK debt is not owned by a person looking to have a nice nest egg for retirement. It's owned by faceless groups that want to keep collecting predictable income and that have a vested interest in the UK not going belly-up -- so they're sure as hell not to help that happen.

You're just being manipulated by people who know you're stupid and phobic toward non-British citizens with HIV and that can count on your support when they propose all the funding cuts that make them even richer. You do their heavy lifting for them and you don't even ask for payment.

You even bleat about how they'll leave for some third-world hellhole with no taxes if anybody pisses them off too much. You should be saying fuck them, if that's how they regard your country they don't belong in it anyway. But you just continue on, spreading fear and animosity for them so they can get rich while you twist in the wind -- it's pathetic.

You really don't have a clue do you!?

NHS cuts?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2358846/NHS-spending-risen-EVERY-year-coalition-formed-new-figures-reveal.html


And I have already shown that British citizens are denied treatments and drugs because of costs, while we spend billions treating foreigners who have paid nothing into our system and have no right to use it.


We have about 100,000 people with hiv aids walking about, most of them foreigners, costing about a billion.


Plus about 10% of total nhs budget is spent treating diabetes, with 90% of those being type 2, and 90% of those being totally preventable.

http://www.rodalenews.com/how-prevent-diabetes


But it seems it's foreigners again who are most likely to be costing the NHS for diabetes....


"...people of South Asian, African or African Caribbean descent are significantly more likely to develop Type 2 diabetes..."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19545697


Labour introduced an army of pen pushers and bean counters, masses of middle management, and other useless and expensive bureaucrats costing a fortune.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6890335/Spending-on-NHS-bureaucracy-up-50-per-cent.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7520408/Rise-in-NHS-managers-outstrips-doctors-and-nurses.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/165227/NHS-pen-pushers-outnumber-frontline-nurses-six-to-one

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-142543/One-NHS-staff-bureaucrat.html



In 2010, Andrew Lansley (health sec) said this....


“When the number of managers was rising at six times the rate of nurses, when administration costs increased under the last year of Labour by £346 million, and when consultancy costs increased by 80% in just the last two years, then change is needed. “


"Mr Lansley’s remarks, while broadly backed up by the figures, do highlight an issue...."

https://fullfact.org/factchecks/andrew_lansley_and_the_cost_of_nhs_bureaucracy-1570



And maybe you should look into the huge burden of cost labour saddled the nhs with with their fraudulent PFI hospital deals...


http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/15738/PFI+scam+leads+to+soaring+government+debt

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jul/05/pfi-cost-300bn

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9362658/PFI-is-the-boondoggle-to-end-them-all.html



And it doesn't take an idiot to work out that if we had much lower national debt then we would have less interest to pay and more money to actually spend on public services where it is supposed to be going...


"...
In cash terms, the national debt stands at £1,189 billion this year. In
2017-18, it will be £1,637 billion. In 2009-10, debt stood at £759.5 
billion.In the current year, the interest on the Government’s debts will
cost taxpayers £46.5 billion.


By 2017-18, interest payments will consume £71.3 billion.


That is more than the current annual budgets of the Home Office and the
Department for Education, which between them spend around £65 billion a
year..."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/9944649/Budget-2013-Interest-payments-on-national-debt-to-eclipse-combined-budget-for-schools-and-police.html

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Sure ...

Your government prints your money and decides how much of it is available for curing sick human beings. Nice racket there. Your Tories decided to cut the funding, making the NHS less popular than it had been in a long time. Your Tories aren't progressives, they're corporatists. Much like your Labour.

National debt is a bullshit reason for a world power to make any decision. Nobody's cutting off the UK for its debt, and they'd be a fool to try to call it in. More importantly, the people who own the UK debt are not people, but corporate entities and governments which expect to last for centuries and which are quite content to continue on collecting payment in installments. The UK debt is not owned by a person looking to have a nice nest egg for retirement. It's owned by faceless groups that want to keep collecting predictable income and that have a vested interest in the UK not going belly-up -- so they're sure as hell not to help that happen.

You're just being manipulated by people who know you're stupid and phobic toward non-British citizens with HIV and that can count on your support when they propose all the funding cuts that make them even richer. You do their heavy lifting for them and you don't even ask for payment.

You even bleat about how they'll leave for some third-world hellhole with no taxes if anybody pisses them off too much. You should be saying fuck them, if that's how they regard your country they don't belong in it anyway. But you just continue on, spreading fear and animosity for them so they can get rich while you twist in the wind -- it's pathetic.

You really don't have a clue do you!?

NHS cuts?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2358846/NHS-spending-risen-EVERY-year-coalition-formed-new-figures-reveal.html


And I have already shown that British citizens are denied treatments and drugs because of costs, while we spend billions treating foreigners who have paid nothing into our system and have no right to use it.


We have about 100,000 people with hiv aids walking about, most of them foreigners, costing about a billion.


Plus about 10% of total nhs budget is spent treating diabetes, with 90% of those being type 2, and 90% of those being totally preventable.

http://www.rodalenews.com/how-prevent-diabetes


But it seems it's foreigners again who are most likely to be costing the NHS for diabetes....


"...people of South Asian, African or African Caribbean descent are significantly more likely to develop Type 2 diabetes..."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19545697


Labour introduced an army of pen pushers and bean counters, masses of middle management, and other useless and expensive bureaucrats costing a fortune.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6890335/Spending-on-NHS-bureaucracy-up-50-per-cent.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7520408/Rise-in-NHS-managers-outstrips-doctors-and-nurses.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/165227/NHS-pen-pushers-outnumber-frontline-nurses-six-to-one

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-142543/One-NHS-staff-bureaucrat.html



In 2010, Andrew Lansley (health sec) said this....


“When the number of managers was rising at six times the rate of nurses, when administration costs increased under the last year of Labour by £346 million, and when consultancy costs increased by 80% in just the last two years, then change is needed. “


"Mr Lansley’s remarks, while broadly backed up by the figures, do highlight an issue...."

https://fullfact.org/factchecks/andrew_lansley_and_the_cost_of_nhs_bureaucracy-1570



And maybe you should look into the huge burden of cost labour saddled the nhs with with their fraudulent PFI hospital deals...


http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/15738/PFI+scam+leads+to+soaring+government+debt

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jul/05/pfi-cost-300bn

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9362658/PFI-is-the-boondoggle-to-end-them-all.html



And it doesn't take an idiot to work out that if we had much lower national debt then we would have less interest to pay and more money to actually spend on public services where it is supposed to be going...


"...
In cash terms, the national debt stands at £1,189 billion this year. In
 2017-18, it will be £1,637 billion. In 2009-10, debt stood at £759.5 
 billion.In the current year, the interest on the Government’s debts will
 cost taxpayers £46.5 billion.


By 2017-18, interest payments will consume £71.3 billion.


That is more than the current annual budgets of the Home Office and the
 Department for Education, which between them spend around £65 billion a
 year..."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/9944649/Budget-2013-Interest-payments-on-national-debt-to-eclipse-combined-budget-for-schools-and-police.html

Ben, you will never get a conservative to understand geopolitical economics.  They live in a world surrounded by 17th-century shopkeepers, with ancient books by Adam Smith as their Bible.  Consider that: no intellectual growth for over 400-years.

And they still are so ignorant they bleat about:

Tommy Monk wrote:And I have already shown that British citizens are denied treatments and drugs because of costs, while we spend billions treating foreigners who have paid nothing into our system and have no right to use it.

They don't even realize that they have it within their capacity to dictate the cost of "treatments and drugs" but they won't for fear of offending their colleagues who are using anti-competitive tactics to keep such "treatments and drugs" artificially high.  So the one hand helps the other hand, and they go about complaining about "conditions" as if they didn't create them.

You see this kind of duplicity in every argument offered by a Tory or Republican.  Here we see a Republican dominated Congress refusing to pass a single piece of health legislation, yet audaciously blaming Democrats for the Ebola epidemic now spreading to Europe and America.  This is something any capitalist would understand: ya gotta pay for it before you get it, dummy.  It's their standard practice to blame everybody else, while taking their own cheating for granted.

Only Democrats and Labour represent the common interest.  Republicans and Tories are devoted to special interests. That is the source of all economic disparity and injustice in the world.

Quill you are a twat.


And how many times do I have to tell you.... our conservatives have much more in common with your democrats than your republicans.

Why don't you come to England quill? stand as an MP, you never know you might become Prime Minister, you could sort all our problems out.You seem to know what to do better than any one who lives here. Just a thought, why dont you use your amazing knowledge to sort out your own countries problems instead of trying to tell us what to do. You colonials are gettiing above yourselves.

Tommy Monk wrote:
And how many times do I have to tell you.... our conservatives have much more in common with your democrats than your republicans.

Opinion is cheap, Tommy. Make your case, don't just talk about it.

I don't believe it.

nicko wrote:Why don't  you come to England quill?  stand as an MP, you never know   you might become Prime Minister, you could sort all our problems out.You seem to know what to do better than any one who lives here.  Just a thought, why dont you use your amazing knowledge to sort out your own countries problems instead of trying to tell us what to do. You colonials are gettiing above yourselves.  

Been there many times, nicko.  Taught for a year post-doc (political science) at the University of London.  My grandfather came over from Scotland, which means I am within two degrees of sanguinity from British citizenship.  I could join up with the stroke of a pen.

Fact is, the action is over here.  I'd rather run with the big dogs.  Lol. And.....

Nicko, they obviously think it is a good idea to be using just under 10% of total govt spending on interest repayments instead of on public services.....



And think it is a good idea for UK citizens to be paying into the NHS to employ expensive and relatively useless pen pushers and bean counters and to pay to treat foreigners who've paid Fuck all into the system while denying British people drugs and treatments because of costs....

And they obviously think it is a good idea for us to be spending 15-20% of our total annual budget on quangos.....


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/1982990/100bn-a-year-spent-on-quangos.html

http://www.eutruth.org.uk/eu200bn.html


You see Nicko, you hit them with the cold hard truth and they go into meltdown and full bullshit mode about how the people who are against all the reckless spending are actually responsible for it, while also advocating that it should carry on!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Nicko, they obviously think it is a good idea to be using just under 10% of total govt spending on interest repayments instead of on public services.....



And think it is a good idea for UK citizens to be paying into the NHS to employ expensive and relatively useless pen pushers and bean counters and to pay to treat foreigners who've paid Fuck all into the system while denying British people drugs and treatments because of costs....

And they obviously think it is a good idea for us to be spending 15-20% of our total annual budget on quangos.....


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/1982990/100bn-a-year-spent-on-quangos.html

http://www.eutruth.org.uk/eu200bn.html


You see Nicko, you hit them with the cold hard truth and they go into meltdown and full bullshit mode about  how the people who are against all the reckless spending are actually responsible for it, while also advocating that it should carry on!!!

You wouldn't know a good idea from a hole in the ground, TM. Fook, you don't even know the difference between an opinion and a fact.

Not that you have any facts. You use framing to make your arguments. For example (see above) you talk about the high cost of health care and pharmas, but fail to mention that your government could easily regulate those costs. Fat chance a Tory government is going to right that wrong.

See what I mean Nicko.....

Nicko is not going to stick round and cover your ass, TM. He tried it down in your homophobic thread and got his royal arse kicked.

You keep telling yourself that quim.... but unfortunately in the real world, claiming victory doesn't make you the winner....!

Original Quill wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

and all of it imported from the good ole US of A.........

Give it up, Victor.  You're just farting in the wind.

The reason why you've got a roof over your head is because the good ole US of A taxpayers float eleven supercarrier fleets around the world, making it safe for y'all who can't even afford two...your last two, btw.  You are bleating about lifestyles, yet enjoying the very protection we provide.  Then you have the nerve to lobby us into another fookin' Iraq war that bleeds resources and goes nowhere.  Jeezus fookin' Christ...the NEO-CONS got one thing right: fook the international community.

yer right....cos your lot decided that the first iraq war was a good idea.....(not withstanding that poodle blair lied just to follow suit, hanging onto the coat tail of bush.....)_
the world would look decidely prettier if the USA DID keeep its feckin nose outta other countries affairs now and again.....

question Quill..which NATION is gonna invade us??? none

no less so than the USA, britain could, if it so chose, ultimately utterly destroy any other nation. we do have an albeit small nuclear arsenal and could and would use it at need...

so like the rest of the "western powers" no-one is going to "invade us" there is something to be said for "MAD"

moreover...who the hell would want to????

Pray tell me Quill where did i get my arse kicked, you come out with so much anti-British bullshit and "i know how to put the world to rights" you should stand for the Senate.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
And how many times do I have to tell you.... our conservatives have much more in common with your democrats than your republicans.

Opinion is cheap, Tommy.  Make your case, don't just talk about it.

I don't believe it.

@Quill
umm it is sort of true (on social services anyway)
in Australia too our RW still aren't trying to make our health systems as weak as obamacare
Even TM is talking about not letting non citizen immigrant get FREE treatment for things that Citizens of the USA have to pay for
and Our gov't reduces the cost dramatically because it pays the majority of it so it is on it's interests to limit gouging
don't know for UK specifically but here, even private treatment is only about 10-20% the cost compared to the USA.

On Racism and stuff.... well they are sort of in between. most don't seem as hardcore as US racists

Thank you Veya for your honesty.


Our Tory govt signed up to EU as Irn bru has already said, allowing huge numbers of foreign Europeans in on top of the immigration that they were letting in from outside EU at that time and since 2010 immigration has even gone up from the huge numbers labour were letting in.

It is not about xenaphobia, it is about economic factors, national security/interest, and the democratic will of the people of UK who have never voted FOR immigration and hugely want drastic reductions in it.


This is about us paying for the nhs and foreigners coming in using it for free, while UK citizens are denied treatments and drugs for costs.


This is also about implementing restrictions on foreigners being allowed to arrive in the first place if they have hiv aids and preventing them being an extra burden on the nhs. I think should also be restrictions for other highly infectious, dangerous and deadly disease ridden foreigners too.

It seems more to me that right-wingers work with wherever the country is on the spectrum, and keep trying to push rightward.

So one conservative regime manages to push Medicare or the NHS a bit more toward privatization ... the next one tries to push it further ... it's like Pinochet in molasses

@ben
the parties definitely do, but I think they do lose the moderate RW people when they push too hard.
LW does the same, the problem is lobbyists and the rich trying to get more say than their one vote is tilting the system in favour of the rich minority too far.

Our previous so called left wing labour govt opened up the nhs to privatisation nearly 15 years ago and then set up multiple PFI hospital decks that are set to cost us 12 times their original value, again at the benefit of private companies.


Did you not read any of the links I gave earlier?


It is their plan to do more of the same, as is The lib dems plan as is Tory plan.


All in line with EU proposals I might add!!!



That's why so many people are voting UKIP!!


As they have the backing of len mcclusky in their plan to save the nhs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11123578/Ukip-in-bid-to-supplant-Labour-as-party-of-NHS.html

Tommy Monk wrote:Our previous so called left wing labour govt opened up the nhs to privatisation nearly 15 years ago and then set up multiple PFI hospital decks that are set to cost us 12 times their original value, again at the benefit of private companies.


Did you not read any of the links I gave earlier?


It is their plan to do more of the same, as is The lib dems plan as is Tory plan.


All in line with EU proposals I might add!!!



That's why so many people are voting UKIP!!


As they have the backing of len mcclusky in their plan to save the nhs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11123578/Ukip-in-bid-to-supplant-Labour-as-party-of-NHS.html

The bills that the Labour government had to pay were the bills that the Tory government should have paid during their 18 years in power. They didn't pay them and left the country's infrastructure crumbling despite selling off the national assets and the bonanza they got from North Sea oil tax revenues. And George Osborne has used PFI more in his few years than Labour did in the past few years they were in power.

From the Institute of Fiscal Studies 2010

Over the first eleven years of Labour government, from 1997 to the eve of the financial crisis in 2007, the UK public finances followed a remarkably similar pattern to the first eleven years of the previous Conservative government, from 1979 to 1989. The first four saw the public sector move from deficit to surplus, while the following seven saw a move back into the red

By 2007 Labour had reduced public sector borrowing slightly below the level it inherited from the Conservatives. And more of that borrowing was being used to finance investment rather than the day to day running costs of the public sector. Labour had also reduced public sector debt below the level it had inherited. As a result the ‘golden rule’ and ‘sustainable investment rule’ that Gordon Brown had committed himself to on becoming Chancellor in 1997 were both met over the economic cycle that he eventually decided had run from 1997/98

–

That waffle has already been smashed on previous thread.


Your argument is basically that the Tories are shit but labour shit is great cos the Tories did some shit too.


Pathetic deflection and double speak

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Opinion is cheap, Tommy.  Make your case, don't just talk about it.

I don't believe it.

@Quill
umm it is sort of true (on social services anyway)
in Australia too our RW still aren't trying to make our health systems as weak as obamacare
Even TM is talking about not letting non citizen immigrant get FREE treatment for things that Citizens of the USA have to pay for
and Our gov't reduces the cost dramatically because it pays the majority of it so it is on it's interests to limit gouging
don't know for UK specifically but here, even private treatment is only about 10-20% the cost compared to the USA.

On Racism and stuff.... well they are sort of in between. most don't seem as hardcore as US racists

I've heard that myth a million times over.  It is true that America missed the socialism period because the US was busy with other things in the latter half of the 19th-century.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_Kingdom  For this reason the US does not have a lot of the social programs that the European nations have (eg, socialized medicine).  But other than the absence of a socialism experiment in this country, it is untrue that the American Democrat is akin to the British Tory just because the Tory has had to accept progress whereas the US Republican has not.

Regardless of the surficial similarities, a Tory/Republican subscribes to a basically individualistic egoism, whereas a Liberal or Labour/Democrat believes less in egoistic selfishness, and more in a social responsibility approach toward humankind.  In a previous post exchange with Didge, you heard me talk about the dual founding of the United States: the Declaration of Independence and/or the Constitution.  That is a universal dichotomy in contemporary ideologies, and a look through that prism shows clearly that the Tory and Republican believe the same things, and in the exact opposite to a Labourite and Democrat.  And therein is the real ideological dividing line.

Look more closely, if you will, at what Ben is saying.

Even following your bullshit.... Our labour and Tory have moved considerably across from your democrat and republican but this just confirms what I said before.


Our Tory is more like your democrat in their, current positions while our labour and your republican are even further apart and at opposite sides of the scale!!!







Thanks for clarifying that for us!!!

The current positions really mean fuck-all next to the actual ideology. Like I said before, right-wingers always move things rightward, no matter where they start on the game board.

I'm glad to hear Veya say that LWers move things leftward ... in other countries. In the U.S., the right-wingers have been playing a game of social currency worthy of the meanest 14-year-old "popular girl" for several decades and are only recent starting to lose anything -- they nearly made "liberal" a swear word for a while there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States#.22Liberal.22_as_a_derogatory_epithet

In the meantime they've managed to drag liberals rightward in many cases. And they've managed to create a stranger-than-fiction scenario in which most Americans' attitudes are liberal, even if they insist they're conservative:

A couple months ago, a Gallup poll recorded a small uptick in the percentage of Americans who identify as “liberal” — to 23 percent, or what Gallup, eliding the margin of error in the poll, called a “new high.” My Post colleague Chris Cillizza wondered if liberal was “no longer a dirty word.”

We will see. After all, there were far more conservatives in that Gallup poll, which, for some, means we’re still a “center-right nation.” But whether people call themselves “conservative” isn’t necessarily that telling in the first place. A recent book by two political scientists shows that liberal may be a dirty word, but liberalism is alive and well — even among people who call themselves “conservative.”

In Ideology in America, Christopher Ellis and James Stimson describe a striking disjuncture. When identifying themselves in a word, Americans choose “conservative” far more than “liberal.” In fact they have done so for 70 years, and increasingly so since the early 1960s.

But when it comes to saying what the government should actually do, the public appears more liberal than conservative. Ellis and Stimson gathered 7,000 survey questions dating back to 1956 that asked some variant of whether the government should do more, less, or the same in lots of different policy areas. On average, liberal responses were more common than conservative responses. This has been true in nearly every year since 1956, even as the relative liberalism of the public has trended up and down. For decades now there has been a consistent discrepancy between what Ellis and Stimson call symbolic ideology (how we label ourselves) and operational ideology (what we really think about the size of government).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/03/06/why-most-conservatives-are-secretly-liberals/

So basically, American right-wingers have made people too ashamed to admit what they actually think.

Waffle with the current 'centre ground' same 'progressive' agenda politics of today in UK.



Lib lab con all the same.


That's why more and more people are voting UKIP!!!

Oh yeah, you've got an MP now, right?

Yeah, first of many to come....


Won the seat with 60% of the vote!!!


And nearly won another, only a handful of dodgy labour postal votes prevented it.


But come May 2015, that one will be UKIP too!!!

And then you'll have two!

Two plus all the others that are going to be won....!!!!




UKIP will get about 30% of national vote and that will mean lots of seats!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Two plus all the others that are going to be won....!!!!




UKIP will get about 30% of national vote and that will mean lots of seats!!!

You can laugh dodge, but just remember this....... I've been right with all my UKIP predictions over the last couple of years!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:You can laugh dodge, but just remember this....... I've been right with all my UKIP predictions over the last couple of years!!!

Dodge, UKIP just won a seat with 60% of vote.


That is a massive result!!!


Think you'll be laughing on the other side of your face come the election....!