Starmer's vision quest

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

All uphill

Well-Known Member
Why would I do that when it isn't what I claimed?

Andy posted an X shitpost entitled "Thousands of landlords are taking to social media to declare they won't be renting out their homes to illegal migrants under Starmers new plans".

I pointed out that it's a pile of steaming horse manure. Firstly landlords would not be renting to migrants they would be renting to the Government. Secondly those very few landlords who don't want to have desperate people in their properties even if the Government is covering the rent and any damage, are clearly xenophobic and/or racist.

The use of "illegal" is pointless as there is no legal route.

The much better solution which I have posted before would be for Starmer to grow a pair and change the way that the asylum process works. Instead of paying for asylum seekers to be fed and housed, you just let them work for a living. Simple. They don't get full citizenship until their claims are processed but in the meantime they can be given a National Insurance number and permitted to earn a living, buy their own food and pay rent.

Billions are freed up which can be used to assist those migrants in converting any qualifications they might have so that they can be used in the UK. They can be offered language courses.

The problem is the morons like Farage and Bad Enoch who only see asylum seekers as pieces of shite. They fail to see that these desperate, homeless people have travelled vast distances because they want to set up a better life. NATO is responsible for the bulk of asylum seekers. NATO destabilised Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria etc etc. If you start wars, expect to get people desperate to get away from war zones. If you abandon people to despots and religious tyrants, expect people desperate to get away from that oppression and violence.

It's your hero Trump who decided to abandon Afghanistan and let the Taliban take over - a Taliban that have ruthlessly oppressed women and girls. It was the previous worst republican President in history, Dubya who decided to invade Iraq over made up weapons and destabilised the whole region.

Then we have pompous rich morons like the 4th Viscount Rothermere and Murdoch who don't even live in the UK let alone pay taxes here who make money from frothing up the swivel eyed gammons by spreading hatred, racism and dissent and buy into Tice and Farage's brand of Fascism.

If we had any Conservatives left in the Conservative party they would be welcoming asylum seekers and getting them to work. That's how you boost an economy and take more taxes.

Spot on @icowden

Later this morning I'm doing my regular volunteering with asylum seekers. There are many very able people among them, who could be contributing to the economy and paying taxes while waiting for a decision. Instead we taxpayers are paying them not to work.

I wonder if any of the haters have ever taken the time to talk with a real, live asylum seeker.they
 

All uphill

Well-Known Member
As long as the application system takes as long as it does, the problems will persist. Allowing asylum seekers to work would likely add to the problems long term because there would be high unemployment rates given language difficulties, not being able to do crb checks etc. The cost and practicalities of monitoring, supporting, and still having to find accommodation for people who would likely be unemployed or in minimum wage jobs makes it a likely non starter.

It was in Biden's manifesto to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. He followed through on Trump's plan even when it was clear the Afghan government would immediately collapse.

ICowden looks to be morphing into Multitool, minus the swearing.

And yet, when given leave to remain, many of these same people find jobs and accommodation quickly.

Your characterisation of asylum seekers as "unemployed or minimum wage" is a lazy generalisation, which is not reflective of the mix of skills and abilities in the people I meet.
 

icowden

Squire
Is that the plural?<\bluffs remembering some actual latin>
I was in bottom set for Latin. Classified as "these boys cannot do latin - just teach them classics instead". That said, there are bits I absorbed. I can still conjugate amo and mito
 

icowden

Squire
The R&A should sink that idea down a large hole.
Pathetic @rse gobbling from the Government if true.

Or just plausible denial?

"Yes Mr Trump, we have pushed for the Open to return to Turnberry. Regrettably however the decision remains with the company that runs the Open.
Yes, Mr Trump, we are as devastated as you are that the response has been to tell you to offly fark bigly, but what more can we do?"
 

Stevo 666

Active Member
It's really not. I posted a laughing emoticon - which I assume is what's made you so angry and defensive - as a response to your use of the phrase "genuine concerns on immigration", which, as I have already explained, has a context within the immigration 'debate', whether you are aware of it or not.

I've made no other comment in response to your post, and have no idea why you're badgering me to get involved. Insecurity, perhaps?

That's a 'no' when it comes to providing any evidence then 😉

We could discuss genuine concerns, but as far you can see there are none. But if you concede that there may be some genuine concerns then maybe we could debate them....
 
Top Bottom