Call for a General Election-petition exceeds 200,000 signatures

[ForsythiaPlease]

In six hours, this is unstoppable-please sign and share
https://t.co/0aZ6Q6VhZD

Siding with Terrorists against our allies Israel democratically elected leader

Whilst trying to start WW3 with Russia.

Even the most pro-Israeli, pro-Putin person couldn’t really say these words are “analysis”, could they?!

What a load of hyperbolic ordure.

Emphasis on the 'anal'.

"Labours policies so far:

Murder thousands of pensioners by removing their Winter Fuel Allowance.

Cripple British farming to land grabs by big commercial companies run by the likes of Bill gates.

Cost millions of people their jobs with ridiculous NI tax increases.

Whilst flooding the country with millions of illegal migrants.

Siding with Terrorists against our allies Israel democratically elected leader.

Whilst trying to start WW3 with Russia."

I think a better analysis would be to look at the complete failure of Labour to consider the secondary impact of their policies:

So WFA - yes it saves money on WFA spending but because only those eligible for Pension Credits get it - this then encourages more people who are eligible for Pension Credits (and who previously hadn't bothered to claim it) to claim it. The savings from cutting WFA are then wiped out by additional spending on PC.

IHT on farms - this will create a shift from generational family ownership to large investor ownership and tenant farmers. The investors simply want a return on their investment so we can expect less environmental stewardship of the land, more short termism and less security for the farmers.

Increasing NI for employers- quite simply if you increase the cost of employing somebody and keep their productivity the same then companies will employ less ss people.

The illegal migration problem cannot be solved unless you tackle the demand problem ie what makes the UK more attractive than staying in France. Starmer's plan of bashing the smuggling gangs is naive to the point of stupid. Whilst the demand is there if you get rid of one gang then another will take its place.

You can't do politics and policy in sound bites.

Labour are doing this anyway, it's part of their problem

Smash the gangs

Fastest growth

All the pre GE lines that have fallen away, which many see as lies

Their problem rn is none of their lines get close to outcomes

But it is all correct though isn’t it. Nobody needs the Daily Mail to see and hear and understand what is going on. I do my own research thank you and why oh why the Daily Mail is consistently mentioned on this site should anyone care to disagree with the left is getting really really tedious. 🥱
Oh and I say it again.. I am a floating voter with my eyes wide open to everything.

I'm sure you are a floating voter.

But it is all correct though isn’t it

No, it's not. It's a load of nonsense by a third rate rag.

The alternative to furlough was to let businesses close and go bust and people to be laid off and use the existing benefits system - defaulting on their homes and cars and everything really as benefits wouldn't touch the sides.

You might not think ordinary people that were furloughed were vulnerable but they were in the face of covid. Plenty of people's finances wouldn't last a month without wages, few could last 3 or 6 months and businesses that closed and defaulted on rent and suppliers would struggle to reopen.

No one could have assumed that people who weren't able to work would get 80% of their wages for doing nowt. It was unprecedented.

I don't believe a Labour government could have done any more for people during Covid and from the look of what theh are doing now they might well have said if you own more than x in assets (businesss for example) or have more than x in savings you are on your own. From what we see them doing now it isn't hard to imagine that Labour might have used it as a prime opportunity to punish the "rich" by letting their businesses and jobs go to the wall - trashing our economic recovery in the process.

I wonder who's told them million of any kind of migrant, legal or otherwise, has arrived since the 5th of July?

What do you mean?

Gov figures are put up and were pre GE

Missed the million, no edit.

Thought you meant general reporting

The alternative to furlough was to let businesses close and go bust and people to be laid off and use the existing benefits system - defaulting on their homes and cars and everything really as benefits wouldn't touch the sides.

It's even worse than that. The existing benefits system wasn't designed to accommodate millions of new claimants overnight, and people wouldn't just have all sat there watching as they defaulted on everything.

Furlough was an inevitable consequence of lockdown. If millions of people are going to be prevented from earning a living but the state still wants them out of the way and compliant at home, a critical mass of them have to be paid enough to facilitate this. If that hadn't happened, not only would there have been a risk of disorder but also more people would've had no choice but to work illegally. Which meant more contacts, thus undermining the whole point of the thing.

I understand that many people feel lockdown was the wrong decision, or at least that the second one was. However, no political party in the UK could've avoided the first one at least. And that meant paying for it.

In your opinion.

Facts aren't opinions. I'd like to see your evidence backing up your claims.

@EasternStandard

"All the pre GE lines that have fallen away, which many see as lies

Their problem rn is none of their lines get close to outcomes"

In defence of Starmer and Labour I genuinely think the intentions are good but it's just that after 14 years in opposition they are largely incompetent at running an actual country.

Sure on a simple and emotive level "smashing the people smuggling gangs" sounds great. But in reality it's an inefficient,costly game of whack a mole that makes no difference in the number of illegal migrants. But to be blunt the majority of Labour politicians and voters are either too dumb or too ideologically driven to see this.

There seem to be a number of people on SM who think Farage would make a good PM. The only person that charlatan thinks about is himself. The thought of a Reform led government makes me shiver.
I don't necessarily agree with everything the Labour Government have done, but it seems to me people want better public services but want the magic money tree to pay for it.

I would be amazed if Farage actually wants to be the PM, in any case. Too much like hard work.

But to be blunt the majority of Labour politicians and voters are either too dumb or too ideologically driven to see this.

I'd like to hear your solution. Are you one of the Rwanda fiasco fans? Did you enjoy throwing away all that lolly?

Yes I agree with your pp and have had the phrase a gov of unintended consequences for a while

It's madness to me that Labour are incapable of doing this but it will end with them tanking further

Although some of it is just cloth eared refusal to engage

With pensioners, farmers, businesses or schools

'In defence of Starmer and Labour I genuinely think the intentions are good but it's just that after 14 years in opposition they are largely incompetent at running an actual country'

The reason we have a Labour government is largely down to the incompetence of a Conservative government in power and incompetent at 'running' an actual country. For 14 years

'IHT on farms - this will create a shift from generational family ownership to large investor ownership and tenant farmers.'

As has been shown repeatedly, the IHT thresholds will impact very few farmers.

@Lansonmaid

"I don't necessarily agree with everything the Labour Government have done, but it seems to me people want better public services but want the magic money tree to pay for it."

Or alternatively people want better public services but want other people to pay for it. The classic MN response is to tax the rich more with the rich being defined as anyone earning 25% more than them.

@username8348

I'd like to hear your solution. Are you one of the Rwanda fiasco fans? Did you enjoy throwing away all that lolly?"

Happy to offer solutions to tackle illegal migration but in short it is directed at the demand side to make the UK a less attractive destination for illegal migration.

1. Introduce national ID cards
2. Crack down on illegal migrant employer / money laundering operations such as cash only car washes.
3. The Rwanda scheme was hugely expensive and for a limited number of illegal migrants. But it did serve as a deterrent- don't forget that prior to the election and with the Rwanda scheme expected to be "implemented" and illegal migrants asked to register, we saw a sharp increase in migrants travelling to Ireland from the UK to claim asylum.
4. any illegal migrant convicted of a crime to be deported back to their own crime after their sentence or if that is not possible for them to serve their sentence in a third country prison.
5. Speed up the asylum process and reduce the number of and cost of legal appeals.

Now I would be really interested to hear what are your solutions? Or are you one of the open border fans? And do you enjoy to continue throwing away large sums of money on hotel accommodation for illegal migrants?

Asylum seekers aren't illegal. I'm sure you've been told this before. It's not illegal to seek asylum.

Rwanda was a colossal waste of money because the government knew from the outset that it was illegal. It was a white elephant.

You can't just decide to deport someone because you need permission from their country to do so. You also need an agreement with a third country to use their services. You can't legally send someone to a country where they could be at risk of harm.

How are you going to reduce the number of appeals?

My solution would be to invest in the Home Office in order to process claims quicker so that refugees can work.

To invest in the environment so that people don't need to flee their homes. To stop invading and interfering in other countries so that people don't leave. To stop exploiting other countries so that people don't leave to find work. To pay countries to keep refugees and to work internationally to investigate smuggling gangs.

I'm happy to pay money to support people fleeing persecution.

@username8348

"Asylum seekers aren't illegal. I'm sure you've been told this before. It's not illegal to seek asylum."

Agreed that seeking asylum is not illegal provided it is done through the proper channels. Jumping on a dinghy and illegally entering the UK is by definition illegal. If you did the same thing and entered say the US or Spain illegally then you would rightly be arrested.

"I'm happy to pay money to support people fleeing persecution."

Firstly I would argue that the majority of the public are not willing to pay money to support even genuine asylum seekers.
Secondly if such people are genuinely fleeing persecution they why do they feel the need to flee France or are you suggesting that France is a dangerous country that people need to flee from?
Thirdly are you happy to pay money to support economic migrants?