You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Calais migrant trouble
April 24 2024 8.04pm

Calais migrant trouble

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 28 of 85 < 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 >

 

View fed up eagle's Profile fed up eagle Flag Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 29 Jul 15 9.01pm Send a Private Message to fed up eagle Add fed up eagle as a friend

Quote serial thriller at 29 Jul 2015 8.24pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 29 Jul 2015 7.39pm

What is the Labour Party for and who do they represent?


They are supposed to represent the Labour movement, or ordinary workers, and give them a voice in Parliament. Organised labour still represents well over 4 million workers in this country through unions, as well as hundreds of thousands more in cooperatives.

Obviously Blair decided that the biggest democratic movement in the country wasn't his cup of tea, scrapped clause 4 and instead decided taking cash for people who wanted government contracts/plushy positions in the Lords, but then he was a demon child spawned to bring pain and misery to mankind, so we can overlook him. That Corbyn's drawn support from most of the major unions and is now bookie's favourite shows the importance of ordinary workers to the Labour party even after St Tony's best efforts.


I'm an ordinary worker who draws a modest wage. The Labour party of old probably would have represented me but this lot certainly don't. It's been hijacked by liberal idealists and crooks. Of course when the Labour movement started it was a good idea and very well meaning. What a shame that it has become what it is now.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View serial thriller's Profile serial thriller Flag The Promised Land 29 Jul 15 9.04pm Send a Private Message to serial thriller Add serial thriller as a friend

Quote fed up eagle at 29 Jul 2015 9.01pm

Quote serial thriller at 29 Jul 2015 8.24pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 29 Jul 2015 7.39pm

What is the Labour Party for and who do they represent?


They are supposed to represent the Labour movement, or ordinary workers, and give them a voice in Parliament. Organised labour still represents well over 4 million workers in this country through unions, as well as hundreds of thousands more in cooperatives.

Obviously Blair decided that the biggest democratic movement in the country wasn't his cup of tea, scrapped clause 4 and instead decided taking cash for people who wanted government contracts/plushy positions in the Lords, but then he was a demon child spawned to bring pain and misery to mankind, so we can overlook him. That Corbyn's drawn support from most of the major unions and is now bookie's favourite shows the importance of ordinary workers to the Labour party even after St Tony's best efforts.


I'm an ordinary worker who draws a modest wage. The Labour party of old probably would have represented me but this lot certainly don't. It's been hijacked by liberal idealists and crooks. Of course when the Labour movement started it was a good idea and very well meaning. What a shame that it has become what it is now.


So I'm guessing you'll be voting for 'back to the 1980s' Jeremy Corbyn then?

 


If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 29 Jul 15 9.10pm

Quote serial thriller at 29 Jul 2015 8.54pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 29 Jul 2015 8.44pm

Quote serial thriller at 29 Jul 2015 8.24pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 29 Jul 2015 7.39pm

What is the Labour Party for and who do they represent?


They are supposed to represent the Labour movement, or ordinary workers, and give them a voice in Parliament. Organised labour still represents well over 4 million workers in this country through unions, as well as hundreds of thousands more in cooperatives.

Obviously Blair decided that the biggest democratic movement in the country wasn't his cup of tea, scrapped clause 4 and instead decided taking cash for people who wanted government contracts/plushy positions in the Lords, but then he was a demon child spawned to bring pain and misery to mankind, so we can overlook him. That Corbyn's drawn support from most of the major unions and is now bookie's favourite shows the importance of ordinary workers to the Labour party even after St Tony's best efforts.

If that is the case, why do they advocate unlimited immigration that takes existing workers' jobs or lowers their wages and makes housing more difficult?


That reminds me of an interesting thing I read the other day about UKIP and the SNP. Someone said they're appeal is that any problem you name, they can blame it on one thing. So the SNP can go to the doorstep and listen to any political grievance and blame Westminster, while UKIP can blame the EU and migration.

In this case, connecting worker's conditions with migration is actually very tenuous. I could write a really long post on this but instead here's a link to a great piece of literature that came through my door during the election: [Link]

Note the fact that between 2005-08 when migration was flowing higher than it is now, employment of existing British workers rose by over 100 000. It's a pretty damning counter to the whole 'comin ova e're, taking OUR jobs' stuff.

I'm sure you could write a very long post telling us how wonderful mass immigration is for us all. As it is such an unmitigated blessing, presumably you think we should encourage even more of it to accrue even more benefit. Of course an increase in employment of 100,000 over three years must clearly be a direct result of mass immigration!

Edited by leggedstruggle (29 Jul 2015 9.10pm)

 


mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 29 Jul 15 9.10pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote serial thriller at 29 Jul 2015 9.04pm

Quote fed up eagle at 29 Jul 2015 9.01pm

Quote serial thriller at 29 Jul 2015 8.24pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 29 Jul 2015 7.39pm

What is the Labour Party for and who do they represent?


They are supposed to represent the Labour movement, or ordinary workers, and give them a voice in Parliament. Organised labour still represents well over 4 million workers in this country through unions, as well as hundreds of thousands more in cooperatives.

Obviously Blair decided that the biggest democratic movement in the country wasn't his cup of tea, scrapped clause 4 and instead decided taking cash for people who wanted government contracts/plushy positions in the Lords, but then he was a demon child spawned to bring pain and misery to mankind, so we can overlook him. That Corbyn's drawn support from most of the major unions and is now bookie's favourite shows the importance of ordinary workers to the Labour party even after St Tony's best efforts.


I'm an ordinary worker who draws a modest wage. The Labour party of old probably would have represented me but this lot certainly don't. It's been hijacked by liberal idealists and crooks. Of course when the Labour movement started it was a good idea and very well meaning. What a shame that it has become what it is now.


So I'm guessing you'll be voting for 'back to the 1980s' Jeremy Corbyn then?

The old Labour party were anti EU.....Corbyn pretty much toes the pro EU line...Also Corbyn's a CND wimp. The working classes were never CND majority supporters.....That's your nut jobs, middle class hippies and drop outs.


Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Jul 2015 9.13pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 29 Jul 15 9.14pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 29 Jul 2015 9.10pm

Quote serial thriller at 29 Jul 2015 9.04pm

Quote fed up eagle at 29 Jul 2015 9.01pm

Quote serial thriller at 29 Jul 2015 8.24pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 29 Jul 2015 7.39pm

What is the Labour Party for and who do they represent?


They are supposed to represent the Labour movement, or ordinary workers, and give them a voice in Parliament. Organised labour still represents well over 4 million workers in this country through unions, as well as hundreds of thousands more in cooperatives.

Obviously Blair decided that the biggest democratic movement in the country wasn't his cup of tea, scrapped clause 4 and instead decided taking cash for people who wanted government contracts/plushy positions in the Lords, but then he was a demon child spawned to bring pain and misery to mankind, so we can overlook him. That Corbyn's drawn support from most of the major unions and is now bookie's favourite shows the importance of ordinary workers to the Labour party even after St Tony's best efforts.


I'm an ordinary worker who draws a modest wage. The Labour party of old probably would have represented me but this lot certainly don't. It's been hijacked by liberal idealists and crooks. Of course when the Labour movement started it was a good idea and very well meaning. What a shame that it has become what it is now.


So I'm guessing you'll be voting for 'back to the 1980s' Jeremy Corbyn then?

The old Labour party were anti EU.....Corbyn pretty much toes the pro EU line...Also Corbyn's a CND wimp. The working classes were never CND majority supporters.....That's your nut jobs, middle class hippies and drop outs.


Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Jul 2015 9.13pm)

CND was largely a branch of the Communist Party of Britain.

 


mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Tom-the-eagle Flag Croydon 29 Jul 15 9.18pm

Quote serial thriller at 29 Jul 2015 8.25pm

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 29 Jul 2015 7.08pm

Quote serial thriller at 26 Jul 2015 11.43am

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 26 Jul 2015 10.21am

Serial Thriller - so what are you suggesting is done then about the migrants in Calais then?


House them and stop causing the international tensions which result in so many fleeing their country of origin.

I have a question for those on the right who have no sympathy with these poor folk: how bad would things have to get in Britain for you to leave? Would you leave if war broke out? If bombings were frequent? Jeremy Corbyn became PM?

Sorry - just had to bump this - still makes me laugh at how out of touch most of the lefties are on here..


Yeah, housing 4000 people is completely pie in the sky isn't it

Unfortunately it wouldn’t end up being 4000 though would it? Basically what you are suggesting is that anyone who can get themselves to Calais would be entitled to be housed by Britain, so it’s not really 4000 is it? it would end up being millions.
So yes, I think this is pie in the sky as you say

 


"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Tom-the-eagle Flag Croydon 29 Jul 15 9.18pm

Quote serial thriller at 29 Jul 2015 8.25pm

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 29 Jul 2015 7.08pm

Quote serial thriller at 26 Jul 2015 11.43am

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 26 Jul 2015 10.21am

Serial Thriller - so what are you suggesting is done then about the migrants in Calais then?


House them and stop causing the international tensions which result in so many fleeing their country of origin.

I have a question for those on the right who have no sympathy with these poor folk: how bad would things have to get in Britain for you to leave? Would you leave if war broke out? If bombings were frequent? Jeremy Corbyn became PM?

Sorry - just had to bump this - still makes me laugh at how out of touch most of the lefties are on here..


Yeah, housing 4000 people is completely pie in the sky isn't it

Unfortunately it wouldn’t end up being 4000 though would it? Basically what you are suggesting is that anyone who can get themselves to Calais would be entitled to be housed by Britain, so it’s not really 4000 is it? it would end up being millions.
So yes, I think this is pie in the sky as you say

 


"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View serial thriller's Profile serial thriller Flag The Promised Land 29 Jul 15 9.23pm Send a Private Message to serial thriller Add serial thriller as a friend

Quote leggedstruggle at 29 Jul 2015 9.10pm

Quote serial thriller at 29 Jul 2015 8.54pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 29 Jul 2015 8.44pm

Quote serial thriller at 29 Jul 2015 8.24pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 29 Jul 2015 7.39pm

What is the Labour Party for and who do they represent?


They are supposed to represent the Labour movement, or ordinary workers, and give them a voice in Parliament. Organised labour still represents well over 4 million workers in this country through unions, as well as hundreds of thousands more in cooperatives.

Obviously Blair decided that the biggest democratic movement in the country wasn't his cup of tea, scrapped clause 4 and instead decided taking cash for people who wanted government contracts/plushy positions in the Lords, but then he was a demon child spawned to bring pain and misery to mankind, so we can overlook him. That Corbyn's drawn support from most of the major unions and is now bookie's favourite shows the importance of ordinary workers to the Labour party even after St Tony's best efforts.

If that is the case, why do they advocate unlimited immigration that takes existing workers' jobs or lowers their wages and makes housing more difficult?


That reminds me of an interesting thing I read the other day about UKIP and the SNP. Someone said they're appeal is that any problem you name, they can blame it on one thing. So the SNP can go to the doorstep and listen to any political grievance and blame Westminster, while UKIP can blame the EU and migration.

In this case, connecting worker's conditions with migration is actually very tenuous. I could write a really long post on this but instead here's a link to a great piece of literature that came through my door during the election: [Link]

Note the fact that between 2005-08 when migration was flowing higher than it is now, employment of existing British workers rose by over 100 000. It's a pretty damning counter to the whole 'comin ova e're, taking OUR jobs' stuff.

I'm sure you could write a very long post telling us how wonderful mass immigration is for us all. As it is such an unmitigated blessing, presumably you think we should encourage even more of it to accrue even more benefit. Of course an increase in employment of 100,000 over three years must clearly be a direct result of mass immigration!

Edited by leggedstruggle (29 Jul 2015 9.10pm)


Your complete disregard for facts which directly contradict your point is wonderful

 


If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 29 Jul 15 9.30pm

Quote serial thriller at 29 Jul 2015 9.23pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 29 Jul 2015 9.10pm

Quote serial thriller at 29 Jul 2015 8.54pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 29 Jul 2015 8.44pm

Quote serial thriller at 29 Jul 2015 8.24pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 29 Jul 2015 7.39pm

What is the Labour Party for and who do they represent?


They are supposed to represent the Labour movement, or ordinary workers, and give them a voice in Parliament. Organised labour still represents well over 4 million workers in this country through unions, as well as hundreds of thousands more in cooperatives.

Obviously Blair decided that the biggest democratic movement in the country wasn't his cup of tea, scrapped clause 4 and instead decided taking cash for people who wanted government contracts/plushy positions in the Lords, but then he was a demon child spawned to bring pain and misery to mankind, so we can overlook him. That Corbyn's drawn support from most of the major unions and is now bookie's favourite shows the importance of ordinary workers to the Labour party even after St Tony's best efforts.

If that is the case, why do they advocate unlimited immigration that takes existing workers' jobs or lowers their wages and makes housing more difficult?


That reminds me of an interesting thing I read the other day about UKIP and the SNP. Someone said they're appeal is that any problem you name, they can blame it on one thing. So the SNP can go to the doorstep and listen to any political grievance and blame Westminster, while UKIP can blame the EU and migration.

In this case, connecting worker's conditions with migration is actually very tenuous. I could write a really long post on this but instead here's a link to a great piece of literature that came through my door during the election: [Link]

Note the fact that between 2005-08 when migration was flowing higher than it is now, employment of existing British workers rose by over 100 000. It's a pretty damning counter to the whole 'comin ova e're, taking OUR jobs' stuff.

I'm sure you could write a very long post telling us how wonderful mass immigration is for us all. As it is such an unmitigated blessing, presumably you think we should encourage even more of it to accrue even more benefit. Of course an increase in employment of 100,000 over three years must clearly be a direct result of mass immigration!

Edited by leggedstruggle (29 Jul 2015 9.10pm)


Your complete disregard for facts which directly contradict your point is wonderful


The truth is Niall, whatever facts you throw towards some posters, they still come back with the hackneyed old cliches about the left.
I'm beginning to wonder if it's worth bothering.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View fed up eagle's Profile fed up eagle Flag Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 29 Jul 15 9.32pm Send a Private Message to fed up eagle Add fed up eagle as a friend

Quote serial thriller at 29 Jul 2015 9.04pm

Quote fed up eagle at 29 Jul 2015 9.01pm

Quote serial thriller at 29 Jul 2015 8.24pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 29 Jul 2015 7.39pm

What is the Labour Party for and who do they represent?


They are supposed to represent the Labour movement, or ordinary workers, and give them a voice in Parliament. Organised labour still represents well over 4 million workers in this country through unions, as well as hundreds of thousands more in cooperatives.

Obviously Blair decided that the biggest democratic movement in the country wasn't his cup of tea, scrapped clause 4 and instead decided taking cash for people who wanted government contracts/plushy positions in the Lords, but then he was a demon child spawned to bring pain and misery to mankind, so we can overlook him. That Corbyn's drawn support from most of the major unions and is now bookie's favourite shows the importance of ordinary workers to the Labour party even after St Tony's best efforts.


I'm an ordinary worker who draws a modest wage. The Labour party of old probably would have represented me but this lot certainly don't. It's been hijacked by liberal idealists and crooks. Of course when the Labour movement started it was a good idea and very well meaning. What a shame that it has become what it is now.


So I'm guessing you'll be voting for 'back to the 1980s' Jeremy Corbyn then?


Nope I'll never vote Labour again.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View serial thriller's Profile serial thriller Flag The Promised Land 29 Jul 15 9.35pm Send a Private Message to serial thriller Add serial thriller as a friend

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 29 Jul 2015 9.18pm

Quote serial thriller at 29 Jul 2015 8.25pm

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 29 Jul 2015 7.08pm

Quote serial thriller at 26 Jul 2015 11.43am

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 26 Jul 2015 10.21am

Serial Thriller - so what are you suggesting is done then about the migrants in Calais then?


House them and stop causing the international tensions which result in so many fleeing their country of origin.

I have a question for those on the right who have no sympathy with these poor folk: how bad would things have to get in Britain for you to leave? Would you leave if war broke out? If bombings were frequent? Jeremy Corbyn became PM?

Sorry - just had to bump this - still makes me laugh at how out of touch most of the lefties are on here..


Yeah, housing 4000 people is completely pie in the sky isn't it

Unfortunately it wouldn’t end up being 4000 though would it? Basically what you are suggesting is that anyone who can get themselves to Calais would be entitled to be housed by Britain, so it’s not really 4000 is it? it would end up being millions.
So yes, I think this is pie in the sky as you say


Where exactly did you get that figure from? Was it your arse? I think it was your arse wasn't it?

In a Capitalist society, people migrate to where the money is. That's why more people want to come here than, say, Sudan.

I believe that if you tackle global economic inequality, the issue of migration will become far easier to deal with. We are entering what has been claimed will be the most unequal century in human history, where wealth is more concentrated than ever. In addition to this, we have an alarming rise in the scarcity of resources (oil, water, food) and a rapidly changing climate which are putting further strain on those in the third world and contributing to migration. For example, people are leaving Bangladesh because it has experienced some of the worst floodings in its history, while our motive for meddling in the middle east and Africa, thus causing people to flee their homes, continues to be based around oil and key mining zones.

Therefore of course I think our current situation with migration is unsustainable, because we refuse to deal with the issues that cause it. I also find the idea of leaving those in Calais to die as Winter arrives, particularly considering the higher proportion who are women and children, absolutely heartbreaking on a human level, because god knows what most of them have been through.

 


If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View fed up eagle's Profile fed up eagle Flag Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 29 Jul 15 9.40pm Send a Private Message to fed up eagle Add fed up eagle as a friend

Quote nickgusset at 29 Jul 2015 9.30pm

Quote serial thriller at 29 Jul 2015 9.23pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 29 Jul 2015 9.10pm

Quote serial thriller at 29 Jul 2015 8.54pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 29 Jul 2015 8.44pm

Quote serial thriller at 29 Jul 2015 8.24pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 29 Jul 2015 7.39pm

What is the Labour Party for and who do they represent?


They are supposed to represent the Labour movement, or ordinary workers, and give them a voice in Parliament. Organised labour still represents well over 4 million workers in this country through unions, as well as hundreds of thousands more in cooperatives.

Obviously Blair decided that the biggest democratic movement in the country wasn't his cup of tea, scrapped clause 4 and instead decided taking cash for people who wanted government contracts/plushy positions in the Lords, but then he was a demon child spawned to bring pain and misery to mankind, so we can overlook him. That Corbyn's drawn support from most of the major unions and is now bookie's favourite shows the importance of ordinary workers to the Labour party even after St Tony's best efforts.

If that is the case, why do they advocate unlimited immigration that takes existing workers' jobs or lowers their wages and makes housing more difficult?


That reminds me of an interesting thing I read the other day about UKIP and the SNP. Someone said they're appeal is that any problem you name, they can blame it on one thing. So the SNP can go to the doorstep and listen to any political grievance and blame Westminster, while UKIP can blame the EU and migration.

In this case, connecting worker's conditions with migration is actually very tenuous. I could write a really long post on this but instead here's a link to a great piece of literature that came through my door during the election: [Link]

Note the fact that between 2005-08 when migration was flowing higher than it is now, employment of existing British workers rose by over 100 000. It's a pretty damning counter to the whole 'comin ova e're, taking OUR jobs' stuff.

I'm sure you could write a very long post telling us how wonderful mass immigration is for us all. As it is such an unmitigated blessing, presumably you think we should encourage even more of it to accrue even more benefit. Of course an increase in employment of 100,000 over three years must clearly be a direct result of mass immigration!

Edited by leggedstruggle (29 Jul 2015 9.10pm)


Your complete disregard for facts which directly contradict your point is wonderful


The truth is Niall, whatever facts you throw towards some posters, they still come back with the hackneyed old cliches about the left.
I'm beginning to wonder if it's worth bothering.


In fairness the left use that same old hackneyed phrases in arguments against anyone on the right that they're arguing against and to hell with the facts. The left aren't holier than thou are they? Being a leftie you look at people on the right in a certain way, you need to remember the people on the right view you lefties in exactly the same way.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 28 of 85 < 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Calais migrant trouble