America is going to the dogs – politicalbetting.com
YouGov America have some fascinating polling when it comes to dog/pet owners. As a cat owner/slave to a cat I am delighted to see my fellow cat owners are a net negative when it comes to Trump but what is going with dog owners?
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
My cat passed away aged 15 last year. He was a Maine Coon and a great companion for me, especially when I lived alone & worked from home. Have to say though, the thought of an animal living in our house seems a bit odd now.
I always thought of cat people as more introverted & sensitive and dog owners the macho extroverts, so it fits that the latter voted Trump I suppose
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Supposedly they are increasing ILR to 10 years and I assume they will raise the bar on those visa renewals which means most won't qualify and will have to return to their home country. They need to act fast though as clock is ticking.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
And, from my experience of the US, a lot of Trump’s core demographic happen to own dogs. Often rather large, untrained, fierce dogs. Such that owners of smaller less fierce dogs have to watch where they go with their dogs and take care in dog parks and the like.
These folks mostly live in small settlements in rural areas where dog ownership is normal and relatively easy to accommodate within your lifestyle. With the advantage that the dog guards your property at times when you don’t have a gun to hand. A dog fits less easily into the lifestyles of the Dem core demographic of younger professional folk living in the large cities.
Whereas, provided you don’t live in a flat (and even then), a cat is much easier to accommodate within a busy urban life; you just need a cat flap and be home often enough to feed the useless animal.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Supposedly they are increasing ILR to 10 years and I assume they will raise the bar on those visa renewals which means most won't qualify and will have to return to their home country. They need to act fast though as clock is ticking.
I suspect they will just talk tough, a few small tinkers, wait for fuss to die down then just grant these people,and their economically inactive dependents ILR and go back to telling anyone concerned at the fiscal burden they are all racists. That’s the usual playbook
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
In the context of the header, it's a bit "Dog bites man".
Back on topic- is it a simple as cats = urban bias = Democrat bias and dogs = suburb/rural bias = Republican bias?
That and the cat ladies that Vance and co hate so much.
My guess is that it's probably a gender split that's the cause rather than per ownership. Women are more likely to be cat owners than men and they are also more likely to be Democratic voters than men, whether it's the cats forcing them into the polling booth and making them vote for the Dems I couldn't say but I wouldn't rule it out.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Supposedly they are increasing ILR to 10 years and I assume they will raise the bar on those visa renewals which means most won't qualify and will have to return to their home country. They need to act fast though as clock is ticking.
I suspect they will just talk tough, a few small tinkers, wait for fuss to die down then just grant these people,and their economically inactive dependents ILR and go back to telling anyone concerned at the fiscal burden they are all racists. That’s the usual playbook
I'm not so sure, Reform will absolutely crucify then in 2029 if they do nothing.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Supposedly they are increasing ILR to 10 years and I assume they will raise the bar on those visa renewals which means most won't qualify and will have to return to their home country. They need to act fast though as clock is ticking.
I suspect they will just talk tough, a few small tinkers, wait for fuss to die down then just grant these people,and their economically inactive dependents ILR and go back to telling anyone concerned at the fiscal burden they are all racists. That’s the usual playbook
I'm not so sure, Reform will absolutely crucify then in 2029 if they do nothing.
Doesn’t the polling show they lose more votes to the greens and Lib Dems than reform ?
Considerably more.
Indeed there are some in labour who think they need to go left. Of course that was not a winner in 2019 but who knows in 2029
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
In the context of the header, it's a bit "Dog bites man".
Back on topic- is it a simple as cats = urban bias = Democrat bias and dogs = suburb/rural bias = Republican bias?
That and the cat ladies that Vance and co hate so much.
My guess is that it's probably a gender split that's the cause rather than per ownership. Women are more likely to be cat owners than men and they are also more likely to be Democratic voters than men, whether it's the cats forcing them into the polling booth and making them vote for the Dems I couldn't say but I wouldn't rule it out.
I loathe cats. They shit on your lawn. Cat owners are just selfish by and large allowing their foul animals to do it.
How to give a cat a pill 1. Pick the cat up & cradle in the crook of your left arm as if holding a baby. Position right forefinger & thumb on either side of cat's mouth and gently apply pressure to cheeks while holding pill in right hand. As cat opens mouth pop pill into it, allow cat to close mouth & swallow. 2. Retrieve pill from floor & cat from behind the sofa. Cradle cat in left arm & repeat process. 3. Retrieve cat from bedroom and throw soggy pill away. 4. Take new pill from foil wrap, cradle cat in left arm holding rear paws tightly with left hand. Force jaws open & push pill to back of mouth with right forefinger. Hold mouth shut for count of ten. 5. Retrieve pill from goldfish bowl & cat from top of wardrobe. Call partner in from garden. 6. Kneel on floor with cat wedged firmly between knees, hold front & rear paws. Ignore low growls emitted by cat. Get partner to hold head firmly with one hand while forcing wooden ruler into mouth. Drop pill down ruler & rub cat's throat vigorously. 7. Retrieve cat from curtain rail, get another pill from foil wrap. Make note to get new ruler & repair curtains. Carefully sweep shattered 'Doulton' figurines from hearth & set to one side for gluing later. 8. Wrap cat in large towel & get partner to lie on cat with head just visible from below armpit. Put pill in end of drinking straw, force cat's mouth open with pencil & blow down drinking straw. 9. Check label to make sure pills not harmful to humans, drink glass of water to take taste away. Apply plaster to partner's forearm & remove blood from carpet with cold water & soap. 10. Retrieve cat from neighbour's shed & get another pill. Place cat in cupboard & close door onto neck to leave head showing. Force mouth open with dessert spoon & flick pill down throat with elastic band. 11. Fetch screwdriver from garage & put cupboard door back on hinges. Apply cold compress to cheek & check for date of last tetanus shot. Throw T-shirt away & fetch new one from bedroom. 12. Ring fire brigade to retrieve cat from tree across the road & apologise to neighbour who crashed into fence while swerving to avoid the cat. Take last pill from foil wrap. 13. Tie cat's paws to rear paws with garden twine & bind tightly to leg of dining table, find heavy duty pruning gloves from shed & pry cat's mouth open with a small spanner wrench. Push pill into mouth followed by a large piece of fillet steak. Hold head vertically & pour a pint of water down throat to wash down pill. 14. Get partner to drive you to hospital & sit quietly while doctor stitches fingers & forearms & remove pill remnants from right eye. Call at furniture shop on way home to order new dining table. 15. Arrange for RSPCA to collect cat & ring local pet shop to see if they have hamsters for sale.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
Labour actually, not Tory, and on this they aren’t wrong.
The Boriswave, to which the Mail now takes exception, happened under a Conservative government. The clue is in the name.
Ah, my mistake, an article entitled ‘ Can Labour ever truly change its spots over immigration?’ which is full of criticism of the Labour Party, which you’d know if you read it,is actually an attack on the Tories who don’t really get a mention. 😂😂😂😂
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Both Labour and Tories should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Up to a point, but the immigration/emigration statistics are rubbish. Nobody counts who leaves the country other than questioning a sample of travellers at airports. If someone going to Australia on a 2 year work visa then decides to stay this is not recorded. Coupled with the mess that was the last Census, I am not sure anyone knows how many people are here!
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Supposedly they are increasing ILR to 10 years and I assume they will raise the bar on those visa renewals which means most won't qualify and will have to return to their home country. They need to act fast though as clock is ticking.
I suspect they will just talk tough, a few small tinkers, wait for fuss to die down then just grant these people,and their economically inactive dependents ILR and go back to telling anyone concerned at the fiscal burden they are all racists. That’s the usual playbook
I'm not so sure, Reform will absolutely crucify then in 2029 if they do nothing.
Doesn’t the polling show they lose more votes to the greens and Lib Dems than reform ?
Considerably more.
Indeed there are some in labour who think they need to go left. Of course that was not a winner in 2019 but who knows in 2029
Given the distribution of votes, going left does not help Labour. There are Green votes left in Red Wall seats, but few Lib Dem votes (they’re battling the Conservatives). But there are 89 Labour held seats where Reform are second, most of which have a sizeable Tory vote left to squeeze. That, plus a swing of 8%, from left to right, since 2024, is where Labour’s problem lies.
Once Reform reaches 25%+, its vote is more efficient than Labour’s.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
There is some (deliberate) conflation here between asylum seekers/small boats/illegal migration, and legal immigration. Just look at the photo that they use - that's not of people on student visas overstaying, is it?
I think it's perfectly natural for a "labour" party to be against immigration. The minimum wage was a control against it in some respects, because it prevented the flooding of our labour market with low-wage workers. Now that we are out of the EU, I guess you could make the argument that we don't need it anymore as long as there are restrictions on inwards migration/salary controls.
And the bigoted thing is tiresome. The trouble is that some of those who are most against immigration are bigots, dominate the discussion about it and don't like being called out.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Supposedly they are increasing ILR to 10 years and I assume they will raise the bar on those visa renewals which means most won't qualify and will have to return to their home country. They need to act fast though as clock is ticking.
I suspect they will just talk tough, a few small tinkers, wait for fuss to die down then just grant these people,and their economically inactive dependents ILR and go back to telling anyone concerned at the fiscal burden they are all racists. That’s the usual playbook
I'm not so sure, Reform will absolutely crucify then in 2029 if they do nothing.
Doesn’t the polling show they lose more votes to the greens and Lib Dems than reform ?
Considerably more.
Indeed there are some in labour who think they need to go left. Of course that was not a winner in 2019 but who knows in 2029
Given the distribution of votes, going left does not help Labour. There are Green votes left in Red Wall seats, but few Lib Dem votes (they’re battling the Conservatives). But there are 89 Labour held seats where Reform are second, most of which have a sizeable Tory vote left to squeeze. That, plus a swing of 8%, from left to right, since 2024, is where Labour’s problem lies.
Once Reform reaches 25%+, its vote is more efficient than Labour’s.
To continue, if you put a 2017/Canada type result into Electoral Calculus, Reform finish 26 seats ahead of Labour, even when 2% behind.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
Labour actually, not Tory, and on this they aren’t wrong.
The Boriswave, to which the Mail now takes exception, happened under a Conservative government. The clue is in the name.
Ah, my mistake, an article entitled ‘ Can Labour ever truly change its spots over immigration?’ which is full of criticism of the Labour Party, which you’d know if you read it,is actually an attack on the Tories who don’t really get a mention. 😂😂😂😂
Unlike you, I did read all of the article, not just the headline, which is how I know the Mail is complaining about the massive increase in immigration which occurred under the Conservative government.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Both Labour and Tories should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
What swamp are you going to dredge for their replacements though?
More of the same is not the answer.
Do I take it you don't like the LibDems?
And, very pleasant morning here, and the cold Easterly wind of yesterday seems to have moved more to the South East, so is warmer.
“Government by gesture” is how Paul Bew described Terence O’Neill’s leadership in Northern Ireland. Trudeau, Ahern, and Sturgeon were in the same mould.
Chris Philp wants more automation and technology used by companies to allegedly help reduce immigration but will more likely lead to accusations that this will replace jobs all round and wants a cap on immigration but can’t say what it would be . He wants a cap voted on in parliament which will just turn into a political football where Reform and the Tories will put a ludicrous number forward to score political points .
The opposite, surely? The clickbait headline muddies the waters. The issue seems to be not that parties are renting offices to MPs who claim it on expenses (which iirc we covered recently) but that the parties are not paying the tax that is due on their rental income from MPs or from anyone else.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Both Labour and Tories should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
What swamp are you going to dredge for their replacements though?
More of the same is not the answer.
Do I take it you don't like the LibDems?
And, very pleasant morning here, and the cold Easterly wind of yesterday seems to have moved more to the South East, so is warmer.
“Government by gesture” is how Paul Bew described Terence O’Neill’s leadership in Northern Ireland. Trudeau, Ahern, and Sturgeon were in the same mould.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Both Labour and Tories should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
What swamp are you going to dredge for their replacements though?
More of the same is not the answer.
Do I take it you don't like the LibDems?
And, very pleasant morning here, and the cold Easterly wind of yesterday seems to have moved more to the South East, so is warmer.
“Government by gesture” is how Paul Bew described Terence O’Neill’s leadership in Northern Ireland. Trudeau, Ahern, and Sturgeon were in the same mould.
All politicians spend far too much time on gestures, but sadly commentators only seem to notice this when it’s the other side that’s doing the vacuous gesturing. The last year of Sunak’s government was gesture central, culminating in national service for the youth.
Simple answer: dogs are small town/rural pets; cats take up less space so are better for higher density populations. Which in turn are correlated with antipathy to Trump.
Cats are far better pets than dogs. We have a catchprase in our house whenever some minor setback befalls us "at least we don't have a dog" as some would say "worse things happen at sea". But we can't blame this on dogs, or indeed their owners
FPT - isn't the issue that degrees used to be the gold standard for an excellent education and highly skilled worker ready to enter the workforce, and no longer are?
Is a 2025 graduate from a Russell Group university worth the same as a 1995 one?
Cats are owned by irresponsible eejits. They get kicked out all day to roam the streets, pissing up cars on other people's drives and shitting in flower beds. When they inevitably go missing/ squashed by cars, the owners then post a lament on Facebook, moaning about poor Tiddles being left to die by the side of the road. I always ask if Tiddles was insured to pay for any damage to the car that Tiddles ran in front of. I'm not popular amongst the cat owners in my area.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Both Labour and Tories should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
What swamp are you going to dredge for their replacements though?
More of the same is not the answer.
It says "eventually voters found them out", but ironically none of the three leaders mentioned (Trudeau, Sturgeon and Ardern) lost an election. They might well have gone on to do so, but that's true of most leaders.
Simple answer: dogs are small town/rural pets; cats take up less space so are better for higher density populations. Which in turn are correlated with antipathy to Trump.
Cats are far better pets than dogs. We have a catchprase in our house whenever some minor setback befalls us "at least we don't have a dog" as some would say "worse things happen at sea". But we can't blame this on dogs, or indeed their owners
We had a dog 'when I were a lad'. Great company wandering about the country park which backed onto our house. However, as an adult I've never fancied the idea, and Mrs C has always been against it. We've had a couple of cats though, largely as a result of demands from our children.However, after the second died we've no desire to have another.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Both Labour and Tories should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
What swamp are you going to dredge for their replacements though?
More of the same is not the answer.
It says "eventually voters found them out", but ironically none of the three leaders mentioned (Trudeau, Sturgeon and Ardern) lost an election. They might well have gone on to do so, but that's true of most leaders.
Simple answer: dogs are small town/rural pets; cats take up less space so are better for higher density populations. Which in turn are correlated with antipathy to Trump.
Cats are far better pets than dogs. We have a catchprase in our house whenever some minor setback befalls us "at least we don't have a dog" as some would say "worse things happen at sea". But we can't blame this on dogs, or indeed their owners
We had a dog 'when I were a lad'. Great company wandering about the country park which backed onto our house. However, as an adult I've never fancied the idea, and Mrs C has always been against it. We've had a couple of cats though, largely as a result of demands from our children.However, after the second died we've no desire to have another.
I think one useful characteristic of a dog is that the owner gets regular exercise therefore.
Society benefits since dog walkers are always everywhere, and always know everything.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Simple answer: dogs are small town/rural pets; cats take up less space so are better for higher density populations. Which in turn are correlated with antipathy to Trump.
Cats are far better pets than dogs. We have a catchprase in our house whenever some minor setback befalls us "at least we don't have a dog" as some would say "worse things happen at sea". But we can't blame this on dogs, or indeed their owners
We had a dog 'when I were a lad'. Great company wandering about the country park which backed onto our house. However, as an adult I've never fancied the idea, and Mrs C has always been against it. We've had a couple of cats though, largely as a result of demands from our children.However, after the second died we've no desire to have another.
I think one useful characteristic of a dog is that the owner gets regular exercise therefore.
Society benefits since dog walkers are always everywhere, and always know everything.
Dog walkers also find a large proportion of dead bodies.
Simple answer: dogs are small town/rural pets; cats take up less space so are better for higher density populations. Which in turn are correlated with antipathy to Trump.
Cats are far better pets than dogs. We have a catchprase in our house whenever some minor setback befalls us "at least we don't have a dog" as some would say "worse things happen at sea". But we can't blame this on dogs, or indeed their owners
We had a dog 'when I were a lad'. Great company wandering about the country park which backed onto our house. However, as an adult I've never fancied the idea, and Mrs C has always been against it. We've had a couple of cats though, largely as a result of demands from our children.However, after the second died we've no desire to have another.
I think one useful characteristic of a dog is that the owner gets regular exercise therefore.
Society benefits since dog walkers are always everywhere, and always know everything.
Simple answer: dogs are small town/rural pets; cats take up less space so are better for higher density populations. Which in turn are correlated with antipathy to Trump.
Cats are far better pets than dogs. We have a catchprase in our house whenever some minor setback befalls us "at least we don't have a dog" as some would say "worse things happen at sea". But we can't blame this on dogs, or indeed their owners
We had a dog 'when I were a lad'. Great company wandering about the country park which backed onto our house. However, as an adult I've never fancied the idea, and Mrs C has always been against it. We've had a couple of cats though, largely as a result of demands from our children.However, after the second died we've no desire to have another.
I think one useful characteristic of a dog is that the owner gets regular exercise therefore.
Society benefits since dog walkers are always everywhere, and always know everything.
The average number of steps per day is only about 4,000. It's probably lower now due to WFH.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Both Labour and Tories should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
What swamp are you going to dredge for their replacements though?
More of the same is not the answer.
It says "eventually voters found them out", but ironically none of the three leaders mentioned (Trudeau, Sturgeon and Ardern) lost an election. They might well have gone on to do so, but that's true of most leaders.
All three jumped, before they were pushed.
Presumably that shows remarkable self awareness. In Trudeau’s case it saved his party’s electoral chances.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Both Labour and Tories should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
What swamp are you going to dredge for their replacements though?
More of the same is not the answer.
Do I take it you don't like the LibDems?
And, very pleasant morning here, and the cold Easterly wind of yesterday seems to have moved more to the South East, so is warmer.
“Government by gesture” is how Paul Bew described Terence O’Neill’s leadership in Northern Ireland. Trudeau, Ahern, and Sturgeon were in the same mould.
Government by gesture is government by soundbite, which, sadly, is what the media notice these days.
Simple answer: dogs are small town/rural pets; cats take up less space so are better for higher density populations. Which in turn are correlated with antipathy to Trump.
Cats are far better pets than dogs. We have a catchprase in our house whenever some minor setback befalls us "at least we don't have a dog" as some would say "worse things happen at sea". But we can't blame this on dogs, or indeed their owners
We had a dog 'when I were a lad'. Great company wandering about the country park which backed onto our house. However, as an adult I've never fancied the idea, and Mrs C has always been against it. We've had a couple of cats though, largely as a result of demands from our children.However, after the second died we've no desire to have another.
I think one useful characteristic of a dog is that the owner gets regular exercise therefore.
Society benefits since dog walkers are always everywhere, and always know everything.
The average number of steps per day is only about 4,000. It's probably lower now due to WFH.
Imagine what it would be without dog walkers.
Do you have figures for dog owners vs not dig owners?
I'm still averaging 5k or so, despite missing one or two days per week.
Today I'm repeating a favourite childhood walk - back way to Newstead Abbey avoiding the pay-barrier., the saved entrance money being the lunch budget.
FPT - isn't the issue that degrees used to be the gold standard for an excellent education and highly skilled worker ready to enter the workforce, and no longer are?
Is a 2025 graduate from a Russell Group university worth the same as a 1995 one?
Yes but it’s the university name that’s going to be all important here - I suspect were you to allow Indian universities to count the system could be seriously gamed
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Both Labour and Tories should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
What swamp are you going to dredge for their replacements though?
More of the same is not the answer.
It says "eventually voters found them out", but ironically none of the three leaders mentioned (Trudeau, Sturgeon and Ardern) lost an election. They might well have gone on to do so, but that's true of most leaders.
Interesting to see that the Murdoch press is putting up such a hatchet job on Davey and the Lib Dems. I think they are reading the runes for the Tories and finding that they Lib Dems are set to gain a powerful revenge for the 2015 attempt by Cameron to destroy them.
I think that as the Lib Dems make further progress we will see a lot more of this. However as the power of mass media continues to decline it is an open question as to how effective it will be. I think the Lib Dems will live to see the body of Murdoch floating past down the stream as they have several other of their enemies of recent years.
Cameron also set out to destroy them. Witney is now a Lib Dem seat.
Owners of hunting dogs and junkyard dawgs will be firmly in the Trump demographic.
One of the scariest places I ever had to visit was Ferry Lane in Rainham, South Essex. To get to the area I needed to visit I had to pass several scrap or apparently similar, yards, all guarded by apparently half starved Alsatian or similar dogs. In an open-topped car it was quite alarming, even though the fences were high. The road was a cinder track so one had to go slowly.
I am trying to imagine the howls of apoplexy that would have come from the left if a Tory PM or Farage had tweeted something like that.
I find Tough Sir Keir’s Twitter persona exceptionally cringe, but it does show how much they have realised this issue is hurting them. They might however be better served at quietly getting on with it rather than trying to get into a measuring contest as to who can sound tougher on immigration (because Farage will always, always win that one).
The Telegraph has a further piece about one of their writers, with the nominative spoonerism Wibble-Kite, watching an evening of TV from 1975. Apparently the Telegraph thinks Parkinson talking about Helen Mirren projecting "slutty eroticism" unacceptable, and that Frank Spencer on roller skates would not pass the H&S test in 2025.
I think the Telegraph may be slightly out of touch.
Simple answer: dogs are small town/rural pets; cats take up less space so are better for higher density populations. Which in turn are correlated with antipathy to Trump.
Cats are far better pets than dogs. We have a catchprase in our house whenever some minor setback befalls us "at least we don't have a dog" as some would say "worse things happen at sea". But we can't blame this on dogs, or indeed their owners
We had a dog 'when I were a lad'. Great company wandering about the country park which backed onto our house. However, as an adult I've never fancied the idea, and Mrs C has always been against it. We've had a couple of cats though, largely as a result of demands from our children.However, after the second died we've no desire to have another.
I think one useful characteristic of a dog is that the owner gets regular exercise therefore.
Society benefits since dog walkers are always everywhere, and always know everything.
I speak to people that I wouldn’t otherwise, when walking our dogs. I’m sure this is good for my mental as well as my physical health.
How to give a cat a pill 1. Pick the cat up & cradle in the crook of your left arm as if holding a baby. Position right forefinger & thumb on either side of cat's mouth and gently apply pressure to cheeks while holding pill in right hand. As cat opens mouth pop pill into it, allow cat to close mouth & swallow. 2. Retrieve pill from floor & cat from behind the sofa. Cradle cat in left arm & repeat process. 3. Retrieve cat from bedroom and throw soggy pill away. 4. Take new pill from foil wrap, cradle cat in left arm holding rear paws tightly with left hand. Force jaws open & push pill to back of mouth with right forefinger. Hold mouth shut for count of ten. 5. Retrieve pill from goldfish bowl & cat from top of wardrobe. Call partner in from garden. 6. Kneel on floor with cat wedged firmly between knees, hold front & rear paws. Ignore low growls emitted by cat. Get partner to hold head firmly with one hand while forcing wooden ruler into mouth. Drop pill down ruler & rub cat's throat vigorously. 7. Retrieve cat from curtain rail, get another pill from foil wrap. Make note to get new ruler & repair curtains. Carefully sweep shattered 'Doulton' figurines from hearth & set to one side for gluing later. 8. Wrap cat in large towel & get partner to lie on cat with head just visible from below armpit. Put pill in end of drinking straw, force cat's mouth open with pencil & blow down drinking straw. 9. Check label to make sure pills not harmful to humans, drink glass of water to take taste away. Apply plaster to partner's forearm & remove blood from carpet with cold water & soap. 10. Retrieve cat from neighbour's shed & get another pill. Place cat in cupboard & close door onto neck to leave head showing. Force mouth open with dessert spoon & flick pill down throat with elastic band. 11. Fetch screwdriver from garage & put cupboard door back on hinges. Apply cold compress to cheek & check for date of last tetanus shot. Throw T-shirt away & fetch new one from bedroom. 12. Ring fire brigade to retrieve cat from tree across the road & apologise to neighbour who crashed into fence while swerving to avoid the cat. Take last pill from foil wrap. 13. Tie cat's paws to rear paws with garden twine & bind tightly to leg of dining table, find heavy duty pruning gloves from shed & pry cat's mouth open with a small spanner wrench. Push pill into mouth followed by a large piece of fillet steak. Hold head vertically & pour a pint of water down throat to wash down pill. 14. Get partner to drive you to hospital & sit quietly while doctor stitches fingers & forearms & remove pill remnants from right eye. Call at furniture shop on way home to order new dining table. 15. Arrange for RSPCA to collect cat & ring local pet shop to see if they have hamsters for sale.
Trump supporters are probably the kind of dog owners who let their dog shit on the pavement or tell you "he's just being friendly" when their Rottweiler knocks your child to the ground.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Both Labour and Tories should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
What swamp are you going to dredge for their replacements though?
More of the same is not the answer.
It says "eventually voters found them out", but ironically none of the three leaders mentioned (Trudeau, Sturgeon and Ardern) lost an election. They might well have gone on to do so, but that's true of most leaders.
Interesting to see that the Murdoch press is putting up such a hatchet job on Davey and the Lib Dems. I think they are reading the runes for the Tories and finding that they Lib Dems are set to gain a powerful revenge for the 2015 attempt by Cameron to destroy them.
I think that as the Lib Dems make further progress we will see a lot more of this. However as the power of mass media continues to decline it is an open question as to how effective it will be. I think the Lib Dems will live to see the body of Murdoch floating past down the stream as they have several other of their enemies of recent years.
Cameron also set out to destroy them. Witney is now a Lib Dem seat.
If the Lib Dems could destroy Murdoch, they would get my vote forever.
I am trying to imagine the howls of apoplexy that would have come from the left if a Tory PM or Farage had tweeted something like that.
I find Tough Sir Keir’s Twitter persona exceptionally cringe, but it does show how much they have realised this issue is hurting them. They might however be better served at quietly getting on with it rather than trying to get into a measuring contest as to who can sound tougher on immigration (because Farage will always, always win that one).
Personally I think it would be great if a Tory (ex) pm tweeted 'The Tories lost control of our borders and let net migration soar to record levels, undercutting hardworking Brits'. Some honest self-examination for once.
Trump supporters are probably the kind of dog owners who let their dog shit on the pavement or tell you "he's just being friendly" when their Rottweiler knocks your child to the ground.
Trump supporters would be aghast if their dog was friendly.
How to give a cat a pill 1. Pick the cat up & cradle in the crook of your left arm as if holding a baby. Position right forefinger & thumb on either side of cat's mouth and gently apply pressure to cheeks while holding pill in right hand. As cat opens mouth pop pill into it, allow cat to close mouth & swallow. 2. Retrieve pill from floor & cat from behind the sofa. Cradle cat in left arm & repeat process. 3. Retrieve cat from bedroom and throw soggy pill away. 4. Take new pill from foil wrap, cradle cat in left arm holding rear paws tightly with left hand. Force jaws open & push pill to back of mouth with right forefinger. Hold mouth shut for count of ten. 5. Retrieve pill from goldfish bowl & cat from top of wardrobe. Call partner in from garden. 6. Kneel on floor with cat wedged firmly between knees, hold front & rear paws. Ignore low growls emitted by cat. Get partner to hold head firmly with one hand while forcing wooden ruler into mouth. Drop pill down ruler & rub cat's throat vigorously. 7. Retrieve cat from curtain rail, get another pill from foil wrap. Make note to get new ruler & repair curtains. Carefully sweep shattered 'Doulton' figurines from hearth & set to one side for gluing later. 8. Wrap cat in large towel & get partner to lie on cat with head just visible from below armpit. Put pill in end of drinking straw, force cat's mouth open with pencil & blow down drinking straw. 9. Check label to make sure pills not harmful to humans, drink glass of water to take taste away. Apply plaster to partner's forearm & remove blood from carpet with cold water & soap. 10. Retrieve cat from neighbour's shed & get another pill. Place cat in cupboard & close door onto neck to leave head showing. Force mouth open with dessert spoon & flick pill down throat with elastic band. 11. Fetch screwdriver from garage & put cupboard door back on hinges. Apply cold compress to cheek & check for date of last tetanus shot. Throw T-shirt away & fetch new one from bedroom. 12. Ring fire brigade to retrieve cat from tree across the road & apologise to neighbour who crashed into fence while swerving to avoid the cat. Take last pill from foil wrap. 13. Tie cat's paws to rear paws with garden twine & bind tightly to leg of dining table, find heavy duty pruning gloves from shed & pry cat's mouth open with a small spanner wrench. Push pill into mouth followed by a large piece of fillet steak. Hold head vertically & pour a pint of water down throat to wash down pill. 14. Get partner to drive you to hospital & sit quietly while doctor stitches fingers & forearms & remove pill remnants from right eye. Call at furniture shop on way home to order new dining table. 15. Arrange for RSPCA to collect cat & ring local pet shop to see if they have hamsters for sale.
Buy a bag of Pillassist.
Slice of corned beef, cut a piece off and roll the pill in it so it's covered, job done. My cat is exceptionally greedy and undiscriminating when it comes to food though.
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Both Labour and Tories should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
What swamp are you going to dredge for their replacements though?
More of the same is not the answer.
It says "eventually voters found them out", but ironically none of the three leaders mentioned (Trudeau, Sturgeon and Ardern) lost an election. They might well have gone on to do so, but that's true of most leaders.
Interesting to see that the Murdoch press is putting up such a hatchet job on Davey and the Lib Dems. I think they are reading the runes for the Tories and finding that they Lib Dems are set to gain a powerful revenge for the 2015 attempt by Cameron to destroy them.
I think that as the Lib Dems make further progress we will see a lot more of this. However as the power of mass media continues to decline it is an open question as to how effective it will be. I think the Lib Dems will live to see the body of Murdoch floating past down the stream as they have several other of their enemies of recent years.
Cameron also set out to destroy them. Witney is now a Lib Dem seat.
It does indicate how frightened they are if they have to whip up ill feeling against the libdems. It's quite telling that there are some PB right wingers who are doing the same. They only way I would vote Tory again after the 2015 "et tu brute" from Osbourne is if it was to keep the fascist party out. Indeed, I can see the tory party being reduced to a rump
Mail on Sunday not having Sir Keir’s pretend concern about the effects of the mass immigration he & Labour supported but are trying to disown
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
As I posted on the previous thread. Thanks to the Boriswave and ILR after Five years, we have a ticking time bomb that will cost up to 234 Billion GDP of low wage workers with economically inactive dependents.
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
Both Labour and Tories should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
What swamp are you going to dredge for their replacements though?
More of the same is not the answer.
It says "eventually voters found them out", but ironically none of the three leaders mentioned (Trudeau, Sturgeon and Ardern) lost an election. They might well have gone on to do so, but that's true of most leaders.
Interesting to see that the Murdoch press is putting up such a hatchet job on Davey and the Lib Dems. I think they are reading the runes for the Tories and finding that they Lib Dems are set to gain a powerful revenge for the 2015 attempt by Cameron to destroy them.
I think that as the Lib Dems make further progress we will see a lot more of this. However as the power of mass media continues to decline it is an open question as to how effective it will be. I think the Lib Dems will live to see the body of Murdoch floating past down the stream as they have several other of their enemies of recent years.
Cameron also set out to destroy them. Witney is now a Lib Dem seat.
Caveat - the polling doesn't show the Lib Dems doing particularly well, and the last few polls I looked at does not demonstrate many GE '24 Tories switching over to them. Even if there was massive tactical voting on the left, the LDs would not get much more than 100 seats.
It's the same as for Labour switchers to Reform - the Tories that were going to switch to the Lib Dems have already done so.
I can't really remember anything I learnt in my degree anyway.
We had to learn the recommended doses of all the drugs in the British Pharmacopeia. I don't think any of them are still in current use. Possibly Morphine.
I am trying to imagine the howls of apoplexy that would have come from the left if a Tory PM or Farage had tweeted something like that.
I find Tough Sir Keir’s Twitter persona exceptionally cringe, but it does show how much they have realised this issue is hurting them. They might however be better served at quietly getting on with it rather than trying to get into a measuring contest as to who can sound tougher on immigration (because Farage will always, always win that one).
Oh yes, the beauty of the centrist's silence almost calms the anxiety brought on by Sir Keir's bad acting
I would have thought Reform voters would be more put off by the blatant hypocrisy from the nations leading Human Rights lawyer, who signed letters preventing criminals who went on to commit murder being deported recently, as well as campaigning for a second referendum and promising to fight for FOM
Comments
Whatever brought that on?
The Tories lost control of our borders and let net migration soar to record levels, undercutting hardworking Brits.
I won't stand for it.
I promised to restore control and cut migration, and I'm delivering with tough new measures.
British workers – I’ve got your back.
https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1921454888766112166?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Labour have tried to face both ways on this for some time now. But in a new White Paper they plan to embrace a ‘crackdown’ ostensibly intended to deport immigrants who commit any crime, and to somehow overcome the ‘Human Rights’ provisions which make deportation so hard and which Labour themselves wrote into British law.
We are also promised less complacency about the questionable economic benefits of mass immigration, which is seriously straining our health, welfare and school systems.
These moves are designed to create helpful headlines. But should we take any of it seriously?
While they thought they were safe from voter anger, Labour energetically pursued an open borders policy.
Now they are scared of electoral oblivion, they try to ape Nigel Farage. How they used to jeer and sneer at those who warned that their policy was foolish and unrealistic, such as the fact-based campaigning body Migration Watch.
Anyone who suggested that the levels of migration were impractically high was dismissed as some sort of bigot.
Well, now Home Office experts are admitting what Migration Watch said many years ago, that net migration has reached such levels that it is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Edinburgh to the population of the UK each year. Who are the bigots now?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html
Apparently as a result of celebrities who have cats.
I always thought of cat people as more introverted & sensitive and dog owners the macho extroverts, so it fits that the latter voted Trump I suppose
We all know dogs are a man's best friend. Guide dogs, police dogs, sniffer dogs, mountain rescue dogs.
Huzzah for canine companions!
This is something Starmer needs to do something about. He won’t as he, and his party, are fundamentally wedded to it.
For this reason alone the Tories should have a long and tormented road back to power.
https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
Back on topic- is it a simple as cats = urban bias = Democrat bias and dogs = suburb/rural bias = Republican bias?
That and the cat ladies that Vance and co hate so much.
And, from my experience of the US, a lot of Trump’s core demographic happen to own dogs. Often rather large, untrained, fierce dogs. Such that owners of smaller less fierce dogs have to watch where they go with their dogs and take care in dog parks and the like.
These folks mostly live in small settlements in rural areas where dog ownership is normal and relatively easy to accommodate within your lifestyle. With the advantage that the dog guards your property at times when you don’t have a gun to hand. A dog fits less easily into the lifestyles of the Dem core demographic of younger professional folk living in the large cities.
Whereas, provided you don’t live in a flat (and even then), a cat is much easier to accommodate within a busy urban life; you just need a cat flap and be home often enough to feed the useless animal.
QED
(Channelling my inner Edwina Currie there.)
Hunters use dogs for hunting, not cats. (Tigers tend to come home with a hunter in their jaws...)
Considerably more.
Indeed there are some in labour who think they need to go left. Of course that was not a winner in 2019 but who knows in 2029
1. Pick the cat up & cradle in the crook of your left arm as if holding a baby. Position right forefinger & thumb on either side of cat's mouth and gently apply pressure to cheeks while holding pill in right hand. As cat opens mouth pop pill into it, allow cat to close mouth & swallow.
2. Retrieve pill from floor & cat from behind the sofa. Cradle cat in left arm & repeat process.
3. Retrieve cat from bedroom and throw soggy pill away.
4. Take new pill from foil wrap, cradle cat in left arm holding rear paws tightly with left hand. Force jaws open & push pill to back of mouth with right forefinger. Hold mouth shut for count of ten.
5. Retrieve pill from goldfish bowl & cat from top of wardrobe. Call partner in from garden.
6. Kneel on floor with cat wedged firmly between knees, hold front & rear paws. Ignore low growls emitted by cat. Get partner to hold head firmly with one hand while forcing wooden ruler into mouth. Drop pill down ruler & rub cat's throat vigorously.
7. Retrieve cat from curtain rail, get another pill from foil wrap. Make note to get new ruler & repair curtains. Carefully sweep shattered 'Doulton' figurines from hearth & set to one side for gluing later.
8. Wrap cat in large towel & get partner to lie on cat with head just visible from below armpit. Put pill in end of drinking straw, force cat's mouth open with pencil & blow down drinking straw.
9. Check label to make sure pills not harmful to humans, drink glass of water to take taste away. Apply plaster to partner's forearm & remove blood from carpet with cold water & soap.
10. Retrieve cat from neighbour's shed & get another pill. Place cat in cupboard & close door onto neck to leave head showing. Force mouth open with dessert spoon & flick pill down throat with elastic band.
11. Fetch screwdriver from garage & put cupboard door back on hinges. Apply cold compress to cheek & check for date of last tetanus shot. Throw T-shirt away & fetch new one from bedroom.
12. Ring fire brigade to retrieve cat from tree across the road & apologise to neighbour who crashed into fence while swerving to avoid the cat. Take last pill from foil wrap.
13. Tie cat's paws to rear paws with garden twine & bind tightly to leg of dining table, find heavy duty pruning gloves from shed & pry cat's mouth open with a small spanner wrench. Push pill into mouth followed by a large piece of fillet steak. Hold head vertically & pour a pint of water down throat to wash down pill.
14. Get partner to drive you to hospital & sit quietly while doctor stitches fingers & forearms & remove pill remnants from right eye. Call at furniture shop on way home to order new dining table.
15. Arrange for RSPCA to collect cat & ring local pet shop to see if they have hamsters for sale.
How to give a dog a pill
1. Wrap it in bacon
Not illegal but certainly tax effficient.
https://x.com/danneidle/status/1921480956285776198?s=61
Once Reform reaches 25%+, its vote is more efficient than Labour’s.
I think it's perfectly natural for a "labour" party to be against immigration. The minimum wage was a control against it in some respects, because it prevented the flooding of our labour market with low-wage workers. Now that we are out of the EU, I guess you could make the argument that we don't need it anymore as long as there are restrictions on inwards migration/salary controls.
And the bigoted thing is tiresome. The trouble is that some of those who are most against immigration are bigots, dominate the discussion about it and don't like being called out.
And, very pleasant morning here, and the cold Easterly wind of yesterday seems to have moved more to the South East, so is warmer.
And, if it comes to it, Farage is likely to be.
In 1939 cat and dog density was about 1 per 14 people. 3 million cats and dogs. 41 million people.
In 2024 that number was about 1 per 3 people. 21.5 millions cats and dogs. 57 million people.
The songbird density has gone down.
Meanwhile, here's Trump's Chump at the FBI explaining why he is (ahem) complying with the law:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FkBPrjJUH1k
(We'll keep their plots to suspend Habeas Corpus - much more important in the USA then here - for later.)
Cats are far better pets than dogs. We have a catchprase in our house whenever some minor setback befalls us "at least we don't have a dog" as some would say "worse things happen at sea". But we can't blame this on dogs, or indeed their owners
Is a 2025 graduate from a Russell Group university worth the same as a 1995 one?
Total anarchy.
We've had a couple of cats though, largely as a result of demands from our children.However, after the second died we've no desire to have another.
Society benefits since dog walkers are always everywhere, and always know everything.
Imagine what it would be without dog walkers.
https://www.frontpages.com/g/2025/05/10/the-daily-telegraph-230450943.jpg
I'm still averaging 5k or so, despite missing one or two days per week.
Today I'm repeating a favourite childhood walk - back way to Newstead Abbey avoiding the pay-barrier., the saved entrance money being the lunch budget.
I think that as the Lib Dems make further progress we will see a lot more of this. However as the power of mass media continues to decline it is an open question as to how effective it will be. I think the Lib Dems will live to see the body of Murdoch floating past down the stream as they have several other of their enemies of recent years.
Cameron also set out to destroy them. Witney is now a Lib Dem seat.
To get to the area I needed to visit I had to pass several scrap or apparently similar, yards, all guarded by apparently half starved Alsatian or similar dogs. In an open-topped car it was quite alarming, even though the fences were high.
The road was a cinder track so one had to go slowly.
I find Tough Sir Keir’s Twitter persona exceptionally cringe, but it does show how much they have realised this issue is hurting them. They might however be better served at quietly getting on with it rather than trying to get into a measuring contest as to who can sound tougher on immigration (because Farage will always, always win that one).
I think the Telegraph may be slightly out of touch.
https://archive.is/20250511035344/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/70s-tv-we-loved-and-lost-channel-5/
It's the same as for Labour switchers to Reform - the Tories that were going to switch to the Lib Dems have already done so.
I would have thought Reform voters would be more put off by the blatant hypocrisy from the nations leading Human Rights lawyer, who signed letters preventing criminals who went on to commit murder being deported recently, as well as campaigning for a second referendum and promising to fight for FOM