Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

America is going to the dogs – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,462
edited May 11 in General
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?

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • isamisam Posts: 41,553
    Oh blimey! All of a sudden macho man Sir Keir agrees with me that mass immigration undercuts the wages of British workers.

    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
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 30,516
    Cats are best, obviously. I'm not sure the President has expressed any views on pets.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,295
    Own a cat? Own a cat? What are you on @TSE?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,553
    edited May 11
    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 30,516
    Incidentally, I note there is now chilled pet food on sale.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,869
    DavidL said:

    Own a cat? Own a cat? What are you on @TSE?

    I did say slave to a cat as well.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,828
    There was a report the other day that in the UK we are heading towards CROSSOVER!!! between the number of dogs and cats.

    Apparently as a result of celebrities who have cats.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 30,516
    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    Daily Mail attacks Tory government shock.
  • what is going with dog owners?
    Trust me... this multiple dog owner wouldn't touch the orange turd with a ten foot pole or, indeed, anyone else's ten foot pole.

  • isamisam Posts: 41,553
    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
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,828

    Incidentally, I note there is now chilled pet food on sale.

    Food for chilled pets? Cool.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,525
    Good morning, everyone.

    We all know dogs are a man's best friend. Guide dogs, police dogs, sniffer dogs, mountain rescue dogs.

    Huzzah for canine companions!
  • TazTaz Posts: 18,030
    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,548

    Cats are best, obviously. I'm not sure the President has expressed any views on pets.

    Aside from their grabbability.
  • TazTaz Posts: 18,030

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    Daily Mail attacks Tory government shock.
    Labour actually, not Tory, and on this they aren’t wrong.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,970
    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    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.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 18,554

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    Daily Mail attacks Tory government shock.
    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.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,376
    edited May 11
    Obviously, this is correlation not causation.

    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
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,450
    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    Sunak already did something about it, raising the visa wage requirements for migrants and ending the right to bring dependents in
  • TazTaz Posts: 18,030
    edited May 11
    MaxPB said:

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    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
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 53,949
    MaxPB said:

    Dogs over cats. Anyone who says otherwise is suss.

    I've been bitten by a dog, never by a cat.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,541

    MaxPB said:

    Dogs over cats. Anyone who says otherwise is suss.

    I've been bitten by a dog, never by a cat.
    Another plus for the dog camp then :)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,823

    Incidentally, I note there is now chilled pet food on sale.

    My dog is very chilled, so why not?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,202
    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    Both Labour and Tories should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 53,949
    Omnium said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dogs over cats. Anyone who says otherwise is suss.

    I've been bitten by a dog, never by a cat.
    Another plus for the dog camp then :)
    Dog owners should be packed off to Rwanda :lol:
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,869

    MaxPB said:

    Dogs over cats. Anyone who says otherwise is suss.

    I've been bitten by a dog, never by a cat.
    I need to send a 'get well soon card' to the dog.

    (Channelling my inner Edwina Currie there.)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,376
    Also, by way of p.s., dog owners trend more male and cat owners more female, and there’s a significant gender split in party voting in the US.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,823

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    Daily Mail attacks Tory government shock.
    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.
    There's a lot of hunting in the US.

    Hunters use dogs for hunting, not cats. (Tigers tend to come home with a hunter in their jaws...)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,823
    malcolmg said:

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    Both Labour and Tories should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
    What swamp are you going to dredge for their replacements though?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,376
    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    A long and tormented road will do just fine; there doesn’t have to be any power at the end of it.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,970

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    Daily Mail attacks Tory government shock.
    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.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,970
    Taz said:

    MaxPB said:

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    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.
  • TazTaz Posts: 18,030

    malcolmg said:

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    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.


  • TazTaz Posts: 18,030
    MaxPB said:

    Taz said:

    MaxPB said:

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    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
  • TazTaz Posts: 18,030
    MaxPB said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    Daily Mail attacks Tory government shock.
    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.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,201
    edited May 11
    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.

    How to give a dog a pill
    1. Wrap it in bacon
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 30,516
    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    Daily Mail attacks Tory government shock.
    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.
  • TazTaz Posts: 18,030
    Interesting work from Dan Neidle on political parties renting office space to MPs who claim it back on expenses.

    Not illegal but certainly tax effficient.

    https://x.com/danneidle/status/1921480956285776198?s=61
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,696
    Uuu
  • TazTaz Posts: 18,030
    edited May 11

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    Daily Mail attacks Tory government shock.
    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. 😂😂😂😂
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 1,010
    edited May 11
    malcolmg said:

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    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!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,696
    Taz said:

    MaxPB said:

    Taz said:

    MaxPB said:

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    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.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 9,909
    Yawn… people who live in urban areas are less likely to support Trump…
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,442
    edited May 11
    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 9,909

    Incidentally, I note there is now chilled pet food on sale.

    My dog is very chilled, so why not?
    Really? I prefer them fricassee
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,696
    Sean_F said:

    Taz said:

    MaxPB said:

    Taz said:

    MaxPB said:

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    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.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 30,516
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    Daily Mail attacks Tory government shock.
    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.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,705
    Taz said:

    malcolmg said:

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    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.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,696

    Taz said:

    malcolmg said:

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    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.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 5,362
    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 .

  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 30,516
    Taz said:

    Interesting work from Dan Neidle on political parties renting office space to MPs who claim it back on expenses.

    Not illegal but certainly tax effficient.

    https://x.com/danneidle/status/1921480956285776198?s=61

    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.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 18,554
    Sean_F said:

    Taz said:

    malcolmg said:

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    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.
    As was Boris.

    And, if it comes to it, Farage is likely to be.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,060
    edited May 11
    Good morning everyone.

    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.)
  • TimSTimS Posts: 15,205
    Sean_F said:

    Taz said:

    malcolmg said:

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    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.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 15,034
    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
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,442
    Wow, I hadn't realised the Telegraph put the anti-semitic tweet thing from 2023 on their front page.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,794
    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?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,794
    MaxPB said:

    Dogs over cats. Anyone who says otherwise is suss.

    Dogs and cats, living together.

    Total anarchy.
  • 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.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,333
    Taz said:

    malcolmg said:

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    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.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,705
    Cookie said:

    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.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,696

    Taz said:

    malcolmg said:

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    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.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,060

    Cookie said:

    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.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,794
    On topic, I suspect this is a correlation not causation thing.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,780
    Cats are better because they clean up after themselves.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,202

    malcolmg said:

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    Both Labour and Tories should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
    What swamp are you going to dredge for their replacements though?
    That is a mystery for sure
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,823
    MattW said:

    Cookie said:

    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.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,202
    MattW said:

    Cookie said:

    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.
    though we tend to get dog crap everywhere
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,442
    MattW said:

    Cookie said:

    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.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,702
    Owners of hunting dogs and junkyard dawgs will be firmly in the Trump demographic.
  • Andy_JS said:

    Cats are better because they clean up after themselves.

    Then why do I have to pick their crap up out of my garden, and hose their piss off the front of my van?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,548
    Sean_F said:

    Taz said:

    malcolmg said:

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    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.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,060
    Eabhal said:

    Wow, I hadn't realised the Telegraph put the anti-semitic tweet thing from 2023 on their front page.

    That's a "never accept a police caution without specific legal advice" cautionary tale, if the report is accurate.
    https://www.frontpages.com/g/2025/05/10/the-daily-telegraph-230450943.jpg
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,702

    MaxPB said:

    Dogs over cats. Anyone who says otherwise is suss.

    Dogs and cats, living together.

    Total anarchy.
    Ours get on ok. Although the cat is smaller, she has sharper claws!
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,702
    Sean_F said:

    Taz said:

    malcolmg said:

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    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.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,060
    edited May 11
    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Cookie said:

    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? :smile:

    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.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,588
    edited May 11
    MattW said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wow, I hadn't realised the Telegraph put the anti-semitic tweet thing from 2023 on their front page.

    That's a "never accept a police caution without specific legal advice" cautionary tale, if the report is accurate.
    https://www.frontpages.com/g/2025/05/10/the-daily-telegraph-230450943.jpg
    I would go further and say "never talk to the police without specific legal advice"


  • eekeek Posts: 29,987

    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
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,462

    Taz said:

    malcolmg said:

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    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.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,705

    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.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,410
    isam said:

    Oh blimey! All of a sudden macho man Sir Keir agrees with me that mass immigration undercuts the wages of British workers.

    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

    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).
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,060
    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.

    https://archive.is/20250511035344/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/70s-tv-we-loved-and-lost-channel-5/
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,702
    MattW said:

    Cookie said:

    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.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 77,207

    Andy_JS said:

    Cats are better because they clean up after themselves.

    Then why do I have to pick their crap up out of my garden, and hose their piss off the front of my van?
    They've heard of your reputation, and are returning the antipathy ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 77,207
    Gadfly said:

    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.

  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,453
    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.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,702
    Cicero said:

    Taz said:

    malcolmg said:

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    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.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,548

    isam said:

    Oh blimey! All of a sudden macho man Sir Keir agrees with me that mass immigration undercuts the wages of British workers.

    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

    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.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,794
    I can't really remember anything I learnt in my degree anyway.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,702

    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.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,548
    edited May 11
    Nigelb said:

    Gadfly said:

    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.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,702

    I can't really remember anything I learnt in my degree anyway.

    What was the subject? PPE?
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,588
    Cicero said:

    Taz said:

    malcolmg said:

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    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
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,442
    Cicero said:

    Taz said:

    malcolmg said:

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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?


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14699325/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Labour-change-spots-immigration.html

    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.

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency
    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.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,705

    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.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,588

    I can't really remember anything I learnt in my degree anyway.

    My physics degree is similar. it's only the stuff I had to teach in school which remains prominent now.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,553

    isam said:

    Oh blimey! All of a sudden macho man Sir Keir agrees with me that mass immigration undercuts the wages of British workers.

    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

    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
Sign In or Register to comment.