Labour party wants to put pictures of yourhouse on the web
- Thread starter PsiFox
- Start date
Okay my posts were in jest but seriously I wonder how many other thing's can be taxed by the government? We're already seeing signs that they'll make a windfall tax on the banks, then no doubt credit cards due to the level of charging they have. I'd also expect to see some sort of broadband tax in the guise of a digital media tax.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 7,004
- Location
- Thessaloniki
lots of people claim that they would leave the UK if they could , but would you accept the fact that YOU would be technically immigrants and possibly work in jobs where you could earn LESS than most of you do now?
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 1,387
- Location
- Aberdeen
Iraklis F.C. said:
Earning less does not always equate to less spending power, or a lower standard of living. I think that is what people have a problem with. Whats the point in having a decent job when a large chunk goes straight to Mr Brown and then another to pay the stupidly large mortgage you have becuase of house inflation. I'I have a few friends that have moved to New Zealand, their saleries are not a patch on what they would get here, but the quality of life is amazing. And thats the only thing that matters really.
Iraklis F.C. said:
If my country is going to be continuously sold out to immigrants then it ceases to be my country and whether I leave or not I won't be in "my" country. It wasn't the average Briton who made the UK "Great Briton" it was a number of pioneers who in todays Britain would have been taxed to death and hamstrung by legislation.
Everything that attracts people to the UK will disappear with the people who want to leave. I'm looking quite seriously at canada, I have relatives there and they want engineers.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 7,004
- Location
- Thessaloniki
but quality of life is something subjective i think , for example quality is to have the latest broadband connection and for someone else living in the woods. I have travelled to lots of countries and i mostly have friends in italy and spain , we earn less than most of you guys do and have less expenditures but ironically we deposit a few % of our wages in the end of the month in banks. It is the same **** everywhere i believe , there isnt a perfect country as far as i know
Virii's going to love this story then. 
It seems like it already is. They say what happens in America today happens here tomorrow, and that's not a nice thought. The Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act, the illegal mass phone tapping, the redefinition of torture, the power to detain anyone indefinitely on the President's say-so alone - these are frightening developments.AJUK said:I take it you have read 1984, don't laugh it may come true.
And what of our own anti-terrorist legislation? Used to bar a 80 y o from the Labour Party conference and to arrest a woman who read aloud a list of war dead at the Cenotaph.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 1,387
- Location
- Aberdeen
Iraklis F.C. said:
Very true sir. But having lived abroad a lot myself I find I'm missing the UK less and less. What I miss are my friends and people I care about. Apart from that there is nothing in or about the UK that I long for. Which is a bit sad really.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 7,004
- Location
- Thessaloniki
the best thing to do if you are not pleased with the current political status in your country is the use of your vote. Fleing is an extreme solution imho.
Turnout in elections in the UK is the lowest in the EU , isnt it so?
Turnout in elections in the UK is the lowest in the EU , isnt it so?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 May 2003
- Posts
- 9,361
- Location
- Limehouse
The flawed nature of our electoral system means that turnout really isn't that important in most seats. That's the public perception anyway, wonder if everybody voted exactly as they felt whether things would be different...Iraklis F.C. said:the best thing to do if you are not pleased with the current political status in your country is the use of your vote. Fleing is an extreme solution imho.
Turnout in elections in the UK is the lowest in the EU , isnt it so?
Iraklis F.C. said:the best thing to do if you are not pleased with the current political status in your country is the use of your vote. Fleing is an extreme solution imho.
Turnout in elections in the UK is the lowest in the EU , isnt it so?
The rest of the EU use proportional representation do they not? In those countries, everyone's vote carries equal weight. In the UK, that isn't the case.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 7,004
- Location
- Thessaloniki
dirtydog said:
forgot that again , yes it is proportional representation here.afraser2k said:Virii's going to love this story then.
I heard it on the radio this morning, projections that at current rates it'll take 18 years to get rid of those who have already failed the asylum process.
Shooting is the cheapest option and seeing as they've banned fox hunting this could be a fun alternative.
Iraklis F.C. said:the best thing to do if you are not pleased with the current political status in your country is the use of your vote. Fleing is an extreme solution imho.
Turnout in elections in the UK is the lowest in the EU , isnt it so?
Our system is increasingly flawed.
Firstly the public in general have no faithin the political process, many people do not think that it matters which party is in power as they'll all do the same.
Secondly Labour managed to get about 150 seats more than the conservatives (giving them a massive majority) despite only receiving a few more votes.
Fleeing as you put it is the only option left unless significant changes are made to the voting system.
Once people like me start leaving in droves and taking our wealth with us then who is going to rpop up the welfare state, the single mums, the NHS, the education system, the free houses for immigrants and so on. No-one.
Maybe that will force the change needed in taxation and politics or maybe the UK will just disappear and become another dump.
Spacky said:Do we need an immigration process, do we need asylum seekers in the country?
Can't we just stop immigration and clear the backlog that way
The backlog will take 18 years to clear at current clear up rates without a single new asylum seeker.
We don't "need" immigrants, what we need is people to get off their couches and to go to work instead of watching "trisha" and claiming dole/incapacity benefit and so on.
I agree. To solve the immigration problem (and it is a problem) the first thing we need to do is a 5 year moratorium on ALL immigration/asylum seeking. Then we need to process al the outstanding applications, preferably under a new harsher regime.
After the last case has been cleared we need to get down to the business of tracking down and deporting ALL of the illegal immigrants in the country. Then and only then can we make a determination on how many people we need, want or wish to have. I strongly suspect that after this excercise is complete we will find out that we have way too many people in this country anyway.
I am sorry but we just need to get a lot stricter on our entry requirements. Illegal immigrants should be deported immediately to the counrty they arrived from. Usually that would mean shipping them back to France on the next ferry, forcibly if necessary.
We can discuss at length any number of points systems, quotas and obligations but ultimately there is no need at all for immigration into a highly developed, technologically and economcally strong country like ours. We don't have enough dentists and doctors because the government do not impliment the correct training mechanism to develop our existing populations, the same goes for plumbers, brickies, cooks and binmen. Instead, particularly on the medical side, we see fit to rape the developing world of the people they have trained; yet they need doctors more than we do.
The current unemployment numbers are somewhere around the 1 million (ignoring the 3 million on disability benefit - the exact reversal of the figures during the Conservative administration, 'nuff said), how many of those people would be capable of becoming plumbers, brickies or even doctors, most of them I reckon. I would rather the money was spent on them than on some Eastern European or Somalian to better themselves.
After the last case has been cleared we need to get down to the business of tracking down and deporting ALL of the illegal immigrants in the country. Then and only then can we make a determination on how many people we need, want or wish to have. I strongly suspect that after this excercise is complete we will find out that we have way too many people in this country anyway.
I am sorry but we just need to get a lot stricter on our entry requirements. Illegal immigrants should be deported immediately to the counrty they arrived from. Usually that would mean shipping them back to France on the next ferry, forcibly if necessary.
We can discuss at length any number of points systems, quotas and obligations but ultimately there is no need at all for immigration into a highly developed, technologically and economcally strong country like ours. We don't have enough dentists and doctors because the government do not impliment the correct training mechanism to develop our existing populations, the same goes for plumbers, brickies, cooks and binmen. Instead, particularly on the medical side, we see fit to rape the developing world of the people they have trained; yet they need doctors more than we do.
The current unemployment numbers are somewhere around the 1 million (ignoring the 3 million on disability benefit - the exact reversal of the figures during the Conservative administration, 'nuff said), how many of those people would be capable of becoming plumbers, brickies or even doctors, most of them I reckon. I would rather the money was spent on them than on some Eastern European or Somalian to better themselves.