UK Conservative Party Leadership Election

[ChopleyIOM]

I agree this is not about fighting inflation, but I think it is partly about protecting the banks, the money they lent out for mortgages had more buying power than the money being repaid, it is hard on the folk with big mortgages but will also 'correct' to some degree the inflated cost of housing moving forward. Swings and roundabouts long term.

Agree re the water firms, they're taking the piss [literally] and with them being foreign owned [french in the main?] I don't see why we need to be so obliging, afaik firms in france have more restrictions on what they can do in terms of pushing up prices and sacking employees etc..they're getting an easy ride here in old blighty.

On your other post regarding the highest cost housing in the western world, I think you need to [finally] accept reality in terms of one of the negative effects of large amounts of immigration.

Nearly everything that Thatcher (and later Tory governments) flogged off has ended up in foreign hands. You can say what you want about the old UK nationalised industries (and for sure, they had their problems), but at least they were British owned! It would have been far better to reform them whilst keeping them as UK assets for the benefit of the British population, but instead they've ended up being owned abroad. So you end up with the remarkable situation whereby UK energy customers pay massive bills to the French owners who then use that money to reduce bills for French people in France!

As for housing costs, the problem is we haven't built enough new housing, not immigration. We need immigration, the UK's indigenous population is getting old and not having enough babies, you can't run a society with a load of pensioners. (We have exactly the same problem on the IOM, but the government here is openly committed to increasing the population from 84,000 to 100,000 over the next fifteen years.)

 

[paul7388]

Nearly everything that Thatcher (and later Tory governments) flogged off has ended up in foreign hands. You can say what you want about the old UK nationalised industries (and for sure, they had their problems), but at least they were British owned! It would have been far better to reform them whilst keeping them as UK assets for the benefit of the British population, but instead they've ended up being owned abroad. So you end up with the remarkable situation whereby UK energy customers pay massive bills to the French owners who then use that money to reduce bills for French people in France!

As for housing costs, the problem is we haven't built enough new housing, not immigration. We need immigration, the UK's indigenous population is getting old and not having enough babies, you can't run a society with a load of pensioners. (We have exactly the same problem on the IOM, but the government here is openly committed to increasing the population from 84,000 to 100,000 over the next fifteen years.)

Okay might as well ask your opinion again.

You say the population is getting older and that's why we need immigration as country can not run itself.

Here is the problem with a lot of immigration. Many do not even make the effort to learn English. They come to the country and have no wishes to integrate with society in any way. They have to be housed, given benefits and have interpreters paid for for every single thing they need . So how can that possibly be of any benefit to the country in any way. Its just a burden on an overstretched country as it is.

Fine if you bring immigrants In to the country that are skilled or willing to integrate and become a part of society.

Let's face it I am sure when IOM brings in the 16,000 needed to get population up they will not be non English speaking immigrants that will bring nothing at all to your Island .

 

[dunover]

Okay might as well ask your opinion again.

You say the population is getting older and that's why we need immigration as country can not run itself.

Here is the problem with a lot of immigration. Many do not even make the effort to learn English. They come to the country and have no wishes to integrate with society in any way. They have to be housed, given benefits and have interpreters paid for for every single thing they need . So how can that possibly be of any benefit to the country in any way. Its just a burden on an overstretched country as it is.

Fine if you bring immigrants In to the country that are skilled or willing to integrate and become a part of society.

Let's face it I am sure when IOM brings in the 16,000 needed to get population up they will not be non English speaking immigrants that will bring nothing at all to your Island .

Nearly everything that Thatcher (and later Tory governments) flogged off has ended up in foreign hands. You can say what you want about the old UK nationalised industries (and for sure, they had their problems), but at least they were British owned! It would have been far better to reform them whilst keeping them as UK assets for the benefit of the British population, but instead they've ended up being owned abroad. So you end up with the remarkable situation whereby UK energy customers pay massive bills to the French owners who then use that money to reduce bills for French people in France!

As for housing costs, the problem is we haven't built enough new housing, not immigration. We need immigration, the UK's indigenous population is getting old and not having enough babies, you can't run a society with a load of pensioners. (We have exactly the same problem on the IOM, but the government here is openly committed to increasing the population from 84,000 to 100,000 over the next fifteen years.)

So what happens when these alien migrants to the Isle of Moan (many of whom churn out kids like Russian dolls because you will pay them to) all want doctors, houses, school places, roads, transport and other services?

Ah yes! Concrete and tarmac over the place! Of course! What price do you then put on overcrowding, integration failure and resulting lack of general happiness and quality of life? Immigration is nothing but a sticking plaster with dire consequences further down the line, same as printing money is in times of economic need.

What happens in a few generations when these people all get old themselves? Bring in more and more using that as justification, further exacerbating the issues in the first paragraph above...brilliant!

Don't you look at the UK? The schisms and division in society this policy has caused, as well as (again) issues mentioned in paragaph 1. The overcrowding, loss of quality of life, loss of green space, crammed-in future-slum high-density new housing.

Then of course we have the easy excuse to allow more of the native population to opt-out of work either 'sick' or 'depressed' or simply idle while the immigrants theoretically fix the shortfall and this removes need for the government to make tough decisions to reduce the vast 4-5 million people on long-term sick or unemployment.

So what has happened in the UK, and WILL thus happen in the Isle of Moan is an increase in population, a growth therefore in overall GDP headline figure (which the decision-makers and their useful idiots will crow about) while the product PER HEAD of population stagnates or slowly falls as has occurred here.

So taking the UK as an example, we have 68m people, 4-5 million not participating in the labour force and about 30m who are.

In the years to come, we will have 70m people, still about 30.5 million or so participants but another million or so opted out of working.

Therefore income per head will at best stagnate, or decrease as it has done here.

For someone who constantly criticises the government and Brexit for short termism and patching things up, you certainly advocate the same train of thought yourself.

 

[mack341]

Nearly everything that Thatcher (and later Tory governments) flogged off has ended up in foreign hands. You can say what you want about the old UK nationalised industries (and for sure, they had their problems), but at least they were British owned! It would have been far better to reform them whilst keeping them as UK assets for the benefit of the British population, but instead they've ended up being owned abroad. So you end up with the remarkable situation whereby UK energy customers pay massive bills to the French owners who then use that money to reduce bills for French people in France!

As for housing costs, the problem is we haven't built enough new housing, not immigration. We need immigration, the UK's indigenous population is getting old and not having enough babies, you can't run a society with a load of pensioners. (We have exactly the same problem on the IOM, but the government here is openly committed to increasing the population from 84,000 to 100,000 over the next fifteen years.)

I was watching a video on utube which showed copenhagen [in winter] it was empty and this is not in lockdown, so much space and room, they have a high standard and quality of life. The population of england and wales was 32 million in 1901 [census] and folk had large families in those days, lots of industry and a large empire to administer. Lots of immigration doesn't solve anything, in fact the opposite, but it's a left wing sacred cow. I suspect IOM will thoroughly vet everyone of the annual 1,000 potential arrivals.

I mostly agree on the first paragraph, not only silly to see these profits sent across to france but being unable to reform and run our own essential services was a sign of weakness as a country too.

BT has been a success but then they did have a monopoly on telephone services for a long time so money for investment was likely not a problem, if it had been kept with the post office the profit from one could've subsidised the less profitable other, and the post office branches replacing banks we're losing in the high street.

 

[goatwack]

Sacked sycophant and Boris superfan Nadine Dorries 'interviewing' her old flame Bojo on her new, erm, talkshow? called....Talk TV?

I haven't subjected myself to this piece of powerful pop culture as of yet, but you can be sure it'll be the most nauseating slice of television you'll see all of 2023, to those who still watch television that is!

In this informal chat, we hear him talk about quadbikes, his (many) offspring, and hot topics like who he'd rather be stuck in a lift with out of Sturgeon or Starmer. Hey wait a minute - this sounds dope!

Unconfirmed rumours state that a man on the IoM has watched this several times in his bedsit, before emergency services had to pull him away from the screen as he shouted "Brexit. Man.....did....Brexit....GARY..... Inflation. Perestroika!"

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Okay might as well ask your opinion again.

You say the population is getting older and that's why we need immigration as country can not run itself.

Here is the problem with a lot of immigration. Many do not even make the effort to learn English. They come to the country and have no wishes to integrate with society in any way. They have to be housed, given benefits and have interpreters paid for for every single thing they need . So how can that possibly be of any benefit to the country in any way. Its just a burden on an overstretched country as it is.

Fine if you bring immigrants In to the country that are skilled or willing to integrate and become a part of society.

Let's face it I am sure when IOM brings in the 16,000 needed to get population up they will not be non English speaking immigrants that will bring nothing at all to your Island .

So what happens when these alien migrants to the Isle of Moan (many of whom churn out kids like Russian dolls because you will pay them to) all want doctors, houses, school places, roads, transport and other services?

Ah yes! Concrete and tarmac over the place! Of course! What price do you then put on overcrowding, integration failure and resulting lack of general happiness and quality of life? Immigration is nothing but a sticking plaster with dire consequences further down the line, same as printing money is in times of economic need.

What happens in a few generations when these people all get old themselves? Bring in more and more using that as justification, further exacerbating the issues in the first paragraph above...brilliant!

Don't you look at the UK? The schisms and division in society this policy has caused, as well as (again) issues mentioned in paragaph 1. The overcrowding, loss of quality of life, loss of green space, crammed-in future-slum high-density new housing.

Then of course we have the easy excuse to allow more of the native population to opt-out of work either 'sick' or 'depressed' or simply idle while the immigrants theoretically fix the shortfall and this removes need for the government to make tough decisions to reduce the vast 4-5 million people on long-term sick or unemployment.

So what has happened in the UK, and WILL thus happen in the Isle of Moan is an increase in population, a growth therefore in overall GDP headline figure (which the decision-makers and their useful idiots will crow about) while the product PER HEAD of population stagnates or slowly falls as has occurred here.

So taking the UK as an example, we have 68m people, 4-5 million not participating in the labour force and about 30m who are.

In the years to come, we will have 70m people, still about 30.5 million or so participants but another million or so opted out of working.

Therefore income per head will at best stagnate, or decrease as it has done here.

For someone who constantly criticises the government and Brexit for short termism and patching things up, you certainly advocate the same train of thought yourself.

It's going to be difficult, no doubt about it, but the consequence of doing nothing is inevitable failure, it can't end any other way if we do nothing, so the only credible option is to try and do something, despite the risks and struggles that will involve.

The IOM has negative unemployment, there are far more job vacancies than there are unemployed people, our unemployment rate is 0.7%, and of that small number out of work, there are all kinds of legitimate reasons for them not being able to enter the workforce.

To give you an idea of the scale of the problem, here's the current list of job vacancies on the government website -

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

So yes, we need people (same as the UK does, let's be clear on that), and in the absence of the locals making out like rabbits, that means, amongst other things, a degree of immigration.

It's all on the government website here -

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

And the English language requirements are here -

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

No one even remotely thinks this is going to be easy, we're looking at a substantial increase in population and that's going to put extra stress and strain on our infrastructure and services, and is going to need a lot of house building too, but if we don't try, we're just going to die of old age.

So if through Door A is 'guaranteed failure' and through Door B is 'a difficult path but it might work out', you're going to have to choose Door B, aren't you?

 

[mack341]

I'm actually starting to prefer [cautiously mind you] Sunak's less attention seeking approach, it feels like he is taking the job more seriously rather than being distracted thinking about the next social event he's attending.

Regarding the often quoted view immigrants are needed for care homes to care for the elderly, it's actually nice for the elderly to have a carer or nurse they can relate to rather than someone shipped in from bulgaria, the congo or far east. Stop treating care homes like a business that needs to be profitable.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I'm actually starting to prefer [cautiously mind you] Sunak's less attention seeking approach, it feels like he is taking the job more seriously rather than being distracted thinking about the next social event he's attending.

Regarding the often quoted view immigrants are needed for care homes to care for the elderly, it's actually nice for the elderly to have a carer or nurse they can relate to rather than someone shipped in from bulgaria, the congo or far east. Stop treating care homes like a business that needs to be profitable.

Let's check our history books and find out when care homes were changed into profit-making enterprises instead of being an essential public service.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.

Private sector involvement in the long-term care market began in the 1980s; it was one of the first targets for outsourcing of public services to the private sector.

In 1990 the

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

restructured councils as 'enabling authorities' as opposed to care providers. Councils were required to spend 85% of their funding on purchasing care services from the private sector.

A report from the

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

(CHPI) in late 2016 states that "the vast majority of both home care and residential care in England is now provided by private companies." Around 72% of the adult social care workforce are now employed by the private or voluntary sectors with only 14% still employed by local authorities.

As for Sunak, I'm hard-pushed to think of anything he's actually achieved in his first 100 days. I guess we should be thankful he didn't hand-grenade the UK economy like Truss did, but in terms of forward progress, what's he done?

 

[mack341]

Let's check our history books and find out when care homes were changed into profit-making enterprises instead of being an essential public service.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.

Private sector involvement in the long-term care market began in the 1980s; it was one of the first targets for outsourcing of public services to the private sector.

In 1990 the

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

restructured councils as 'enabling authorities' as opposed to care providers. Councils were required to spend 85% of their funding on purchasing care services from the private sector.

A report from the

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

(CHPI) in late 2016 states that "the vast majority of both home care and residential care in England is now provided by private companies." Around 72% of the adult social care workforce are now employed by the private or voluntary sectors with only 14% still employed by local authorities.

As for Sunak, I'm hard-pushed to think of anything he's actually achieved in his first 100 days. I guess we should be thankful he didn't hand-grenade the UK economy like Truss did, but in terms of forward progress, what's he done?

BBC today:

The FTSE 100 stock index has closed at a record high, thanks to a fall in the pound and as optimism grows that central banks will slow down recent interest rate increases.

The FTSE closed at 7,901.8 points. Its previous closing high was 7,877.45 in May 2018.

The dollar rallied after strong US jobs numbers, making sterling weaker.

The index on the London Stock Exchange has many firms which export overseas, so a weaker pound helps them.

This is because the goods they export become cheaper for foreign buyers.

The stock market closed more than 1% higher.

---------

This can't be bad news can it?

 

[ChopleyIOM]

BBC today:

The FTSE 100 stock index has closed at a record high, thanks to a fall in the pound and as optimism grows that central banks will slow down recent interest rate increases.

The FTSE closed at 7,901.8 points. Its previous closing high was 7,877.45 in May 2018.

The dollar rallied after strong US jobs numbers, making sterling weaker.

The index on the London Stock Exchange has many firms which export overseas, so a weaker pound helps them.

This is because the goods they export become cheaper for foreign buyers.

The stock market closed more than 1% higher.

---------

This can't be bad news can it?

I'd be inclined to turn that question on its head and ask who it's good news for?

The FTSE100 is a very internationally focused index so it's done well off the back of the continuing weakness of the pound and the fact it's fallen in the last few days, off the back of very strong US numbers and the likes of Shell posting $40bn in annual profits.

So yes, if you've got cash in stocks and shares then woohoo I guess, but it's not going to be helping anyone with their energy bills, or taxes, or food price inflation, or anything else that matters to normal people.

Or in the simplest of terms, rich getting richer.

Even if you are wanting to brand it as 'good news', it's got pretty much nothing to do with Sunak, apart from him not going full kamikaze with the UK's economy like Truss did. You could have literally stuck a three day old cheeseburger in the PM's chair and the UK would have fared better than it did under Truss, so it's not a high bar to cross.

 

[dunover]

It's going to be difficult, no doubt about it, but the consequence of doing nothing is inevitable failure, it can't end any other way if we do nothing, so the only credible option is to try and do something, despite the risks and struggles that will involve.

The IOM has negative unemployment, there are far more job vacancies than there are unemployed people, our unemployment rate is 0.7%, and of that small number out of work, there are all kinds of legitimate reasons for them not being able to enter the workforce.

To give you an idea of the scale of the problem, here's the current list of job vacancies on the government website -

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

So yes, we need people (same as the UK does, let's be clear on that), and in the absence of the locals making out like rabbits, that means, amongst other things, a degree of immigration.

It's all on the government website here -

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

And the English language requirements are here -

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

No one even remotely thinks this is going to be easy, we're looking at a substantial increase in population and that's going to put extra stress and strain on our infrastructure and services, and is going to need a lot of house building too, but if we don't try, we're just going to die of old age.

So if through Door A is 'guaranteed failure' and through Door B is 'a difficult path but it might work out', you're going to have to choose Door B, aren't you?

If you believe the propaganda, yes.

So - these unfilled vacancies could simply be advertised in England, person/person with family moves to IoM. On a job-by-job basis or even work permit rather than just blanket-immigrate with thousands of mainly undesirables of which a few good apples could be found, and when they are the lunatics in charge and their supporters can claim 'what a success that was!' while burying their heads afterwards when the vast societal cost becomes apparent. (See the real world like UK/France/Sweden,Germany/Holland or add any other European multicultural paradise you wish.)

And you avoided the cogent question I asked you earlier (as usual) - when these migrants are old in the next decades, how will you solve that? A self-perpetuating ever-increasing cycle of mass immigration, exacerbating the previous issues I mentioned and of which there are plenty of existing examples to look at? When do think that stops? When the whole island is finally concreted over, when the native population have fled? Answer me, as it's a very important question and you appear to be advocating the lunacy of mass immigration, then subsequent immigration as they age and so-on. When in your genius understanding of socio-economics, would a point be reached where no further immigration was necessary?

Imagine an elderly Manxman in years to come, living in another country, grandson on this knee, showing him photos of what his young life was like.

"Yes son, this was the village church where you great grandma and grandad lie, now a mosque. Where those shabby dwellings are, they were pubs and shops I used to go to. That cultural centre was once my infants school, and those high density houses were once fields where my friend farmed. Those apartments on the seafront, thay were once hotels when tourists used to come here for fresh air and beaches to escape the heat of the English summer and spend their money until we were colonized. People used to go out in the evening before it became too dangerous, and we used to have the Tynwald to make our laws and rules before we were outnumbered and had to leave. But it was good for 15 years before it all fell into ruin because we had some more carers and shop assistants..."

 

[ChopleyIOM]

If you believe the propaganda, yes.

So - these unfilled vacancies could simply be advertised in England, person/person with family moves to IoM. On a job-by-job basis or even work permit rather than just blanket-immigrate with thousands of mainly undesirables of which a few good apples could be found, and when they are the lunatics in charge and their supporters can claim 'what a success that was!' while burying their heads afterwards when the vast societal cost becomes apparent. (See the real world like UK/France/Sweden,Germany/Holland or add any other European multicultural paradise you wish.)

And you avoided the cogent question I asked you earlier (as usual) - when these migrants are old in the next decades, how will you solve that? A self-perpetuating ever-increasing cycle of mass immigration, exacerbating the previous issues I mentioned and of which there are plenty of existing examples to look at? When do think that stops? When the whole island is finally concreted over, when the native population have fled? Answer me, as it's a very important question and you appear to be advocating the lunacy of mass immigration, then subsequent immigration as they age and so-on. When in your genius understanding of socio-economics, would a point be reached where no further immigration was necessary?

Imagine an elderly Manxman in years to come, living in another country, grandson on this knee, showing him photos of what his young life was like.

"Yes son, this was the village church where you great grandma and grandad lie, now a mosque. Where those shabby dwellings are, they were pubs and shops I used to go to. That cultural centre was once my infants school, and those high density houses were once fields where my friend farmed. Those apartments on the seafront, thay were once hotels when tourists used to come here for fresh air and beaches to escape the heat of the English summer and spend their money until we were colonized. People used to go out in the evening before it became too dangerous, and we used to have the Tynwald to make our laws and rules before we were outnumbered and had to leave. But it was good for 15 years before it all fell into ruin because we had some more carers and shop assistants..."

I've already acknowledged it's going to bring challenges, no one's going into this with their eyes closed or thinking that immigration is some sort of magical panacea that will fix every problem.

All the information is online, the government updated the strategy in November last year to rework the stuff about population growth following concerns being raised as part of a public consultation. They've actually put more emphasis on making the island more desirable to our young people to stay here, and also started talking more about being more child friendly, addressing the cost of living and housing, and so on.

An ageing population and falling birth rates can't be ignored, you have to do something to address that, immigration can be part of the answer but not the whole answer, and that's what the plan here is - which I'm broadly in support of.

No one's talking about 'concreting the whole island over', so it's hard to answer your question since it's based on an incorrect assumption, essentially concocting an apocalyptic scenario that no one is even remotely advocating for, and then saying AHHH YES BUT WHAT ABOUT WHEN THIS HAPPENS EH?

Like I said, all the information is publicly available online.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[dunover]

I've already acknowledged it's going to bring challenges, no one's going into this with their eyes closed or thinking that immigration is some sort of magical panacea that will fix every problem.

All the information is online, the government updated the strategy in November last year to rework the stuff about population growth following concerns being raised as part of a public consultation. They've actually put more emphasis on making the island more desirable to our young people to stay here, and also started talking more about being more child friendly, addressing the cost of living and housing, and so on.

An ageing population and falling birth rates can't be ignored, you have to do something to address that, immigration can be part of the answer but not the whole answer, and that's what the plan here is - which I'm broadly in support of.

No one's talking about 'concreting the whole island over', so it's hard to answer your question since it's based on an incorrect assumption, essentially concocting an apocalyptic scenario that no one is even remotely advocating for, and then saying AHHH YES BUT WHAT ABOUT WHEN THIS HAPPENS EH?

Like I said, all the information is publicly available online.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

None so blind as those who don't want to see eh chopley? To take your mantle regarding Brexit where you relentlessly provide (usally other people's) evidence that it was and is a failure, why don't you employ that mindset to the incontrovertible evidence regarding immigration as a fix? It's like having a tattoo - seems like a good idea at the time, a novelty for a few years before the realization hits that the effects are almost irreversible and should you try, permanent scarring is the result.

As for concreting the island over, that's exactly what WILL happen eventually, because you still haven't answered my deadly serious question about the future, and what will you advocate when all these extra mouths to feed get old themselves? Because your logic will be to plaster over with MORE immigration, so more overcrowding, stress, building and reduction in quality of life. So my assertion of the eventual outcome still stands. You will get the same outcome as here, where the urban areas become overcrowded slums that the native population don't even recognize any more, so they try and escape to more pleasant rural areas with limited housing, which drives up the prices for the locals who live in those communities, whose young then cannot afford to live there and have children there so leave in droves - now isn't that what you just said is EXACTLY what's happening in the IoM? (See Cornwall, parts of Scotland and Wales etc.)

 

[goatwack]

It's no secret that populations age, as the average life expectancy in developed countries increases, and the age demographics 'pyramid' starts becoming rather lopsided.

It's the sort of prediction we've all known about for decades, to the point where even our Geography teacher saw fit to bore us (further) into submission, whilst simultaneously writing off our life chances. Thankyou, Mr Roles!

So what's the Government to do , those in power at any particular time, to ward off economic stagnation and flatlined population growth? The only thing they know best, bring in cheap unskilled labour en masse and bolster figures that way, and simply kick the can further down the road.

The notion that this solves anything long-term have already been debunked and mulled over, and we know that our leaders don't see much beyond their 5-year term, and so will happily pass the problem on.

The population of the UK (imagine: something larger than 70,000) had long plateaued decades prior, and so people were effectively encouraged to settle here, who also had a penchant to create 'larger families', the resultant effects we're seeing now as we still find ourselves with a skills shortage, public sectors at breaking point, and yet people living longer, and the population pyramid ever-expanding.

Problem for us all is our Government's favouring these finite methods, no matter who's in charge, via 'dubious' means, even if that means not getting a handle on unchecked 'arrivals'. Because to them, whether it be Labour, Conservatives or God forbid the Monster Raving Loony Party, this is a good thing, beneficial to them only it seems, as numbers get crunched with wild abandon!

And yet, even with the artificial 'raising' of populations, there'll come a point where in Chopley-speak, they too become a burden, and then their children and so forth. It's an inevitability, something that can't be halted or slowed down, and no quick fix to be had.

Far better then to level-up those already here and accept the inevitable aging demographic, than add short-term solutions that ultimately fix diddly- squat. Or watch on bemusedly as our politicians play their 4-D Chess to the detriment of the people they purport to serve, via something crazy, like, say, an open border policy without end!

 

[mack341]

A lot of our ageing population move or moved to spain, this did not seem to create a panic in spain where they would need lots of other, younger immigrants to serve the needs of these ageing brits?

I suppose a portion of the 1,000 new arrivals to IOM will be indigenous brits anyway, but you're going to need 1,000 job vacancies every year and enough vacant or new dwellings to house them.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

When I first saw this on Twitter this morning, I honestly thought it was a hoax, but having just been to Shoprite to do a bit of shopping, I can confirm this is the actual front page of The Torygraph today.

IT WAS THOSE LEFTY REMOANERS ALL ALONG.

The really funny thing is that Private Eye basically ran this story last year in their 'spoof news' section. Yesterday's satire is today's Torygraph front page.

 

[TheAddict]

You managed to increase the subscriber base outside of the IOM up to 2, maybe even 3. I'm not sure, congrats though. Is there any other parts of it you're responsible for writing, or is it just the spoof section?

 

[ChopleyIOM]

You managed to increase the subscriber base outside of the IOM up to 2, maybe even 3. I'm not sure, congrats though. Is there any other parts of it you're responsible for writing, or is it just the spoof section?

Satire is almost redundant when you've got the current incarnation of the crazed right wing on the loose.

I'm wondering if we're going to get our own UK version of the Tea Party.

 

[cncas2123]

Is the crazed right wing going to be any worse than the loony left that labour is morphing into? Among the latest plans is to give black owned companies preference in government contracts, regardless of whether its value for money? A loony left who is intent on following the SNP in the crazy stance of letting every Tom, Dick(less) and Harry self identify in any way they want? The mask of normality than Sir Keir tries to keep on the face of labour slips from time to time when the loony left tell their cohorts what they really want for the UK if they get their hands on power again.

 

[goatwack]

It's astounding how incorrigible these politicians are, whereby they don't show any semblance of self- accountability or burden of responsibility upon themselves. If something goes in their favour, they bask in their superintendence, but if things go tits-up, then it's always by design!

Liz Truss especially has proven herself to be unfit for any leadership role, both whilst in office, and out, and has effectively played all her cards.

Whatever route she's planned in her head movies towards front-line politics is unlikely to be realized, as she talks the talk, but has been exposed to be weak, not to mention self- delusional, and people have cottoned on to that.

And yet in amongst the musical chairs of British politics, especially the Conservatives, no one's ever really 'finished', and are biding their time in the Sin Bin, waiting to time their return to some governmental post in a vertical swoop.

But as mentioned, the likely only reason the electorate tolerate these sham antics is the weakness of the Opposition, and their ability to subvert whatever's left of the country's 'morality', quite literally willing to wreck any chance of Government for the sake of political correctness. Or rather, whatever's currently trending, no matter how absurd, or how utterly irrelevant in years to come this 'zeitgeist' will appear......

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Is the crazed right wing going to be any worse than the loony left that labour is morphing into? Among the latest plans is to give black owned companies preference in government contracts, regardless of whether its value for money? A loony left who is intent on following the SNP in the crazy stance of letting every Tom, Dick(less) and Harry self identify in any way they want? The mask of normality than Sir Keir tries to keep on the face of labour slips from time to time when the loony left tell their cohorts what they really want for the UK if they get their hands on power again.

Labour hasn't been more centrist than it is now since the Blair years, whatever you may think about the Corbyn era (or Miliband) and his policy suggestions, Starmer has pretty much expunged them all and any of its advocates (including himself, in terms of anything he's proposing, talk about lying your way to the top, I'm no big fan of Starmer, same as was the case for Blair).

Labour's policy on 'black owned companies' winning government contracts is to try and even out a historical structural imbalance, and to bring it back into the realms of a fair game, there are pretty solid stats that show a racial bias in this area, so a level playing field doesn't sound like it should be too much of an intolerable stretch.

I can't get my head around the concept that Starmer is keeping a 'mask of normality' on the Labour Party, off the back of a couple of weeks whereby the Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer was found to be knowingly dodging millions of pounds in tax, and the previous Tory Prime Minister is doing the news rounds saying she was brought down by the 'Left wing economic establishment', and not her batshit economic policies that were so far off the rails even the most dedicated Trotskyist would have said, 'Hang on Liz, you've got to stay vaguely within the realms of the credible' - but yeah, sure, this hypothetical Labour government that doesn't even exist is the real worry here.

 

[dunover]

Labour hasn't been more centrist than it is now since the Blair years, whatever you may think about the Corbyn era (or Miliband) and his policy suggestions, Starmer has pretty much expunged them all and any of its advocates (including himself, in terms of anything he's proposing, talk about lying your way to the top, I'm no big fan of Starmer, same as was the case for Blair).

Labour's policy on 'black owned companies' winning government contracts is to try and even out a historical structural imbalance, and to bring it back into the realms of a fair game, there are pretty solid stats that show a racial bias in this area, so a level playing field doesn't sound like it should be too much of an intolerable stretch.

I can't get my head around the concept that Starmer is keeping a 'mask of normality' on the Labour Party, off the back of a couple of weeks whereby the Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer was found to be knowingly dodging millions of pounds in tax, and the previous Tory Prime Minister is doing the news rounds saying she was brought down by the 'Left wing economic establishment', and not her batshit economic policies that were so far off the rails even the most dedicated Trotskyist would have said, 'Hang on Liz, you've got to stay vaguely within the realms of the credible' - but yeah, sure, this hypothetical Labour government that doesn't even exist is the real worry here.

Basic life lesson chopley - discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. There is no such thing as 'positive' discrimination' as simple maths tells you the balance will be negative for someone else.

It's also been consigned to the bin in most democratic societies for that very reason (see Allenbakke vs. the Regents of the University of California 1976)

So the playing field will not be 'level' as you put it, far from it. Don't you marxist zealots ever learn? It causes more resentment and societal division than we even have now. It ranges from downright unfair dogma to simply patronizing. 'Let's give those poor inadequate blacks a little leg-up as despite 50 years of equality in education, law and society overall they still fail to do this or achieve that, unlike other racial groups..."

So as well as having (IMO wrongly) ethnocentric tags like BLACK Police Officers Association, MOBO and many more for example, as well as having black actors placed in dramas where the location or environment in real life would feature none (just to check boxes and make the numbers up despite this very act making a mockery of the plot or story) now you want favouritism in business? You wonder why there's racsim in society?

If they were bright enough, you'd think the far right (another misnomer by the way!) had created wokeism, political correctness and rules like you advocate, as they can only serve one purpose - to further separate and polarise groups in society. Mind you, the far left is and has always been prone to more illogicality and stupidity and violence than any other political flank.

All I can do is than my lucky stars the majority of the UK populace sees through the nonsense your and your lefty acolytes spout, as election results in the last half century demonstrate.

 

[TheAddict]

Chop probably clapped when they Imposed diversity quotas. Makes perfect sense to limit the productivity of a society by making it harder for the most qualified person to get the job.

Can't believe I'm still reading this garbage. Done with tis one now too

 

[goatwack]

A poll conducted and released today by Redfield and Wilton Strategies suggests that 60% of the electorate crave a General Election within a month and a half, so as for Sunak to prove his credentials with Labour waiting in the wings.

How reliable that poll ultimately is remains to be seen, but I'd wager *many* to have finally settled upon some form of continuity and moderate financial stability, rather than throwing it up in the air and causing more uncertainty pre-2025.

And the general feeling is that whilst there is undeniably much Tory-weariness, voters are still somewhat reticent in going 'Labour all-in', to the point where we might even see another minority Government/ hung Parliament/ coalition, as people monkey-wrench the results with Reform, or whatever party Farage dreams up.....

(source: Labour pensioners and non-voting under-25s)

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Basic life lesson chopley - discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. There is no such thing as 'positive' discrimination' as simple maths tells you the balance will be negative for someone else.

It's also been consigned to the bin in most democratic societies for that very reason (see Allenbakke vs. the Regents of the University of California 1976)

So the playing field will not be 'level' as you put it, far from it. Don't you marxist zealots ever learn? It causes more resentment and societal division than we even have now. It ranges from downright unfair dogma to simply patronizing. 'Let's give those poor inadequate blacks a little leg-up as despite 50 years of equality in education, law and society overall they still fail to do this or achieve that, unlike other racial groups..."

So as well as having (IMO wrongly) ethnocentric tags like BLACK Police Officers Association, MOBO and many more for example, as well as having black actors placed in dramas where the location or environment in real life would feature none (just to check boxes and make the numbers up despite this very act making a mockery of the plot or story) now you want favouritism in business? You wonder why there's racsim in society?

If they were bright enough, you'd think the far right (another misnomer by the way!) had created wokeism, political correctness and rules like you advocate, as they can only serve one purpose - to further separate and polarise groups in society. Mind you, the far left is and has always been prone to more illogicality and stupidity and violence than any other political flank.

All I can do is than my lucky stars the majority of the UK populace sees through the nonsense your and your lefty acolytes spout, as election results in the last half century demonstrate.

You keep shouting at those clouds old chap, on current polling something in the region of 65% of the UK electorate will be voting for progressive centre-left parties at the next election, and the remaining 35% will be, in the politest possible terms, 'declining over time'.

This is the thing with history, it changes over time, as today's present becomes tomorrow's history. You can rail against wokeism and political correctness as much as you like (two tags I will happily take as compliments. hence 'insufferable woketard' being part of my custom user title), but neither numbers or time are on your side, the simple weight of demographics will get this one done.

Like it or not folks of our generation are increasingly yesterday's news, we are not the future, we are the past, we are almost certainly closer to the end of our lives than we are the beginning, and it will be left to the young to forge the shape of what is it come, as it should be - and the young are having none of your nonsense. (They quite comprehensively didn't want Brexit, for example.)

I could be wrong here of course, but given that your political predictions basically appear to be the exact opposite of the Midas Touch (the Brexit thread and earlier in this thread provide ample evidence of that, anyone else still championing Truss's psycho economy destroying budget? Or telling us how awesome Johnson's Brexit deal is?), I'd say that if dunover bets heads, go for tails - you'll probably call it right.