Liberal Democrats: a complete joke!!!!!?

[skitzee2k]

The fact that we are an island used to make a big difference, until the channel funnel was built and vans loads starting coming through making English drivers rich with back-handers.

An amnesty would send a clear message that our country may do it again and again, and again…

This is what happened in Germany and Italy, if proof were needed, and so the immigrants still kept coming in hope of the next amnesty.


Incidentally, I think it would be an asset to have a polyglot as a leader; like other European leaders are...

...


Italy give regular amnesties - so the illegals can then travel to the UK on a Euro passport. What's the point in not having an amnesty here when they only have to hang around in Italy for a few years?

So why aren't you asking to tighten up the EUs borders??

You are so defeatest.

 

[joe-90]

Now you're cooking on gas.

Take London hotels, restaurants etc. If they paid minimum wage they'd have to raise their prices and tourists would be deterred from coming here. Less tourism equals less revenue for the government.
THAT is the reason that NO political party will ever attempt to stop illegal immigration.

...if they get caught with illegals they will instantly lose all the money they would have saved for YEARS and YEARS. They may also be arrested..so it isn't worth it for the business. Secondly, the government HATES illegals because 1) They are untraceable 2) they do not pay tax.

Stop being silly. If I were given the job of catching illegals I'd start off with spot checks every month or two on ALL HOTELS, RESTAURANTS and CONTRACT CLEANERS. I would impose a £10,000 MANDATORY fine on employers.

It would stop their employment overnight. No money, no dole - better move on then.

It's quite clear that the governments WANT an underclass to keep prices down.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/employersandsponsors/listemployerspenalties/ yawn...
The government brought in a minimum wage...why would they do that if they wanted to keep wages lower?

the link is to information for some of the prosecutions....averages out about 5k per person. ...still think the government is ENCOURAGING illegal immigration??

The Labour Government brought in the minimum wage because their Union paymasters ordered it. Remember the old Scottish saying: He who pays the piper - calls the tune.

As far as the fines on employers - how many spot checks have been made on known employers of illegals? Hardly any. They even worked in the foreign office as cleaners.

They WANT the illegals.

 

[Nordio]

The government certainly don't want illegal immigrants in the country.
We employ foreign labour only and pay them cash in hand. They also have free housing paid for the tax payer.
It gives us a competitive edge over our competitors at the expense of the taxpayer. Works a treat.
All thanks to nu labour.

 

[joe-90]

If they didn't want them why would they allow over 600,000 of them to work here? Get real. just get real.

 

[Big Tone]

So why aren't you asking to tighten up the EUs borders??

Sorry skitzee2k, I don't know you or anyone else here very well, and I don't mean to be argumentative, but I imagine the answer lies somewhere in the fact that we are impotent in the EU.

I think there's also another truism... We, here in the UK, are taxed to the hilt more than once, twice, thrice on transport, food, clothing - you name it! In short every provision you can think of.

Even if you are working here on the fiddle or live here illegally you are paying tax - and lots of it!

So immigrants are really low down on their agenda I'm guessing, other than a political point scoring exercise

The Government is getting its pound of flesh from them; just maybe not the ten Lb$ of prime steak it's getting from the rest of us...

Call me cynical, but if it really stung them in their pocket they would be onto it like ravenous hyenas' on a lame gazelle.

 

[Nordio]

why would they allow over 600,000 of them to work here?

They never allowed them to work here.
The government neither have the resources nor the will to deal with them.
Some of our guys are illegals, some are not. We can hand pick them through various contacts that we have. One guy we have told us his taxi here was in a cattle truck along with 35 cows.
I guess when free housing, free health care etc is available in the land of plenty it worth getting shat on and nearly killed by a huge cow.
He showed me a gouge in his side which he claimed was caused when one of animals attacked him. The guy is about 18 stone and built like a brick S@it house.
I began to feel sorry for the poor cow.
The scale of the problem has become so vast there is nothing the government can do.

 

[joe-90]

Who are 'your' guys? Why try and make out that you are 'in the know'. Governments love illegals because they keep prices down in the Big Smoke. That's why they aren't interested in pursuing them. They won't pursue them after the election either. They offset the over-generous minimum wage.

 

[ajstoneservices]

"Contempt for foreign workers has its source in fear of the unknown, but also in the need to hand over to someone else work that is perceived as lacking in respect and which is difficult, tiring or dirty. This contempt, which is always liable to lead to revolt, constitutes a refusal to look in the mirror." Rami Saari

It's not the unknown we fear, it's the reality of the mess we find ourselves in.

 

[Big Tone]

"Contempt for foreign workers has its source in fear of the unknown, but also in the need to hand over to someone else work that is perceived as lacking in respect and which is difficult, tiring or dirty. This contempt, which is always liable to lead to revolt, constitutes a refusal to look in the mirror." Rami Saari

It's not the unknown we fear, it's the reality of the mess we find ourselves in.

Which was not created by foreigners suddenly deciding to invade us or forcing our door open to immigrants but by OUR incompetent Government who gave it all away and interfered in matters where we had absolutely no right to act like self-appointed police of the world and start killing innocent people or declare ‘black gold’ as something God accidentally planted in someone else’s back garden! Yet some still wonder why we have terrorism...

The true enemy lies within and the devil is not in the detail but in our Government policies, corruption and greed. The enemy is on our own doorstep, not abroad!

Have we really become so pathetic as a nation that we have to blame others, (whom if we were in their position would do exactly the same don't forget), instead of our putrid Government who should have prevented this whole mess in the first place? Are we really so sanitized to it all and brainwashed by media bullsh1t that we have forgotten what brought us to this point in history by both mainstream parties over the years?

I despond! I honestly despond for our future and I personally place the blame completely and squarely at number 10 & 11 Downing Street. Everyone who has occupied those positions has reneged on promises so just vote for the smallest liar.

If c--ts could fly Brown would be a squadron leader, followed closely by 'Mr suffered 18 years of your party before'. (I'd sooner vote for Donald Duck after what the Cons did to me and for family values in the 90s).

If I screw up in my job I would be sacked, and for a much lesser crime! Why should they have impunity as they bask in opulence?

Rant over...

 

[skitzee2k]

both mainstream parties

Again...this is being bandied around a lot...like there has only ever been the tories and labour.

 

[Big Tone]

both mainstream parties

Again...this is being bandied around a lot...like there has only ever been the tories and labour.

I'm aware of that but when talking about electable parties it's been Labour or Conservative since before my mother was born, so I don't see it as an inappropriate phrase or expression to use.

"the principal or dominant course, tendency, or trend"

 

[skitzee2k]

both mainstream parties

Again...this is being bandied around a lot...like there has only ever been the tories and labour.

I'm aware of that but when talking about electable parties it's been Labour or Conservative since before my mother was born, so I don't see it as an inappropriate phrase or expression to use.

"the principal or dominant course, tendency, or trend"

.....because of democracy. Obviously, leaving out that 1/5th of the 1900s had a government that wasn't labour or tory, the fact that, as you have freely admitted, there is more than two parties in existence but people have kept voting these 2 parties in for 4/5ths of the time would to me suggest that people are choosing these parties.

If someone doesn't like it, too bad, because a lot more people actually do...and as we live in a democracy, that is what the people get...

 

[Big Tone]

both mainstream parties

Again...this is being bandied around a lot...like there has only ever been the tories and labour.

I'm aware of that but when talking about electable parties it's been Labour or Conservative since before my mother was born, so I don't see it as an inappropriate phrase or expression to use.

"the principal or dominant course, tendency, or trend"

.....because of democracy. Obviously, leaving out that 1/5th of the 1900s had a government that wasn't labour or tory, the fact that, as you have freely admitted, there is more than two parties in existence but people have kept voting these 2 parties in for 4/5ths of the time would to me suggest that people are choosing these parties.

I agree, but that wasn’t the point you seemed to disagree with me on.

All I was saying is that anyone would know what is meant by the two mainstream parties. It’s a definition which fits what has been happening for the past umpteen generations so therefore, by definition, we can call them 'the two mainstream parties'.

I'm not arguing about the rights or wrongs of it, I'm just saying it is what it is. It’s not even ambiguous. Everyone knows what is meant by it so I don’t understand your objection to something which is an accurate description of what has been happening.

The 1/5 th you mention is irrelevant when looking at a this trend because that was towards the beginning of the 20th century. Since then it has been a two horse race; a trend which has been between Conservative and Labour ever since.

If someone doesn't like it, too bad, because a lot more people actually do...and as we live in a democracy, that is what the people get...

But that wasn’t something I disagreed with and I don’t know why you are using it to try and counter an argument about the definition of mainstream parties. If, by some miracle, the Lib Dems get in that would be the start of a new and different trend.

Can we just agree to disagree on this please? I’ll keep using the term 'Two' or 'Both' Mainstream Parties and everyone else will understand exactly what I mean by it...