DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived post-Murdoch era

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (6314 of them)

"More on the news that UKIP's candidate for Mayor of London, Lawrence Webb, was mistakenly listed on the ballot paper as Fresh Choice for London. It should have read "UKIP: A Fresh Choice for London". A "furious" Nigel Farage has admitted that the fault was at UKIP's end - they forgot to put their party name on the nomination paper."

Homosexual Satan Wasp (Matt DC), Friday, 4 May 2012 15:24 (five years ago) Permalink

might get more voters without the UKIP name?

Rosie 47 (ken c), Friday, 4 May 2012 15:29 (five years ago) Permalink

Disappointed they didn't accidentally put "A French Choice For London". That'd really have wound them up.

Just like you, except hot (ShariVari), Friday, 4 May 2012 15:31 (five years ago) Permalink

All the literature I'd had through the door had Fresh Choice For London on it, not UKIP, I even laughed that it was a stupid idea because their voters wouldn't be able to find who to vote for, so it's not like the dozy twats didn't have time to notice it before now.

The Eyeball Of Hull (Colonel Poo), Friday, 4 May 2012 16:34 (five years ago) Permalink

:-) xp

Pacific Trash Vortex (Nasty, Brutish & Short), Friday, 4 May 2012 16:59 (five years ago) Permalink

Ed Millibong

Keith pissed on my chips (onimo), Monday, 7 May 2012 16:08 (five years ago) Permalink


jed_, Monday, 7 May 2012 16:09 (five years ago) Permalink

The "previous comment" she made was even worse ("if you don't like it go back to where you came from") to someone with an Asian name.

Alba, Monday, 7 May 2012 18:32 (five years ago) Permalink

i saw that comment alluded to but not actually quoted in the news story - disgusting.

Bad Company's Drummer's Daughter (stevie), Monday, 7 May 2012 19:23 (five years ago) Permalink

ah c'mon kids some of ilx's most hardcore socialist's are repping for these oh hang on

like Joe Pasquale and Gandhi (Noodle Vague), Monday, 7 May 2012 22:24 (five years ago) Permalink

btw i'm not sure i've been sarcastic enough i hope you cunts die cheers

like Joe Pasquale and Gandhi (Noodle Vague), Monday, 7 May 2012 22:25 (five years ago) Permalink

cant believe some poujadist fuckheid from bournemouth expressed reactionary views on twitter

nakhchivan, Monday, 7 May 2012 22:26 (five years ago) Permalink

three weeks pass...

yes because to explain is to understand is to sympathise is to approve of. fuck this ignoramus, this intellectual maggot.

sorry. old story. been away.

the fey monster (ledge), Wednesday, 30 May 2012 10:41 (five years ago) Permalink

question cd probly be worded less o_Oly

korea opportunities (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 30 May 2012 10:43 (five years ago) Permalink

i'm sure it's pretty clear in the context of the syllabus. i find the kneejerk reaction of horror against "understanding" any kind of transgression, of any suggestion of an alternative to blind condemnation and punishment even more o_O tbh.

the fey monster (ledge), Wednesday, 30 May 2012 10:51 (five years ago) Permalink

not defending the responses but i know from my own experience of things that our Joel tells me that the RE syllabus is often worded quite tendentiously. at GCSE level accounting for a prejudice is not really the same as dissecting it

korea opportunities (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 30 May 2012 10:54 (five years ago) Permalink

like yes don't pretend anti-semitism doesn't exist but "list the greatest hits of anti-semitism" is a bit weird as a question in that context

korea opportunities (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 30 May 2012 10:55 (five years ago) Permalink

The question “plants suggestions and implies ideas that shouldn’t be instilled into students”.

honestly i just despair at this garden-of-eden knowledge is sinful bullshit.

the fey monster (ledge), Wednesday, 30 May 2012 11:01 (five years ago) Permalink

that was a rabbi not gove btw.

the fey monster (ledge), Wednesday, 30 May 2012 11:02 (five years ago) Permalink

Front page of the BBC site today = u-turn on charity tax, Jeremy Hunt at Leveson, Coulson charged with perjury = such a pleasing structure of interconnected disasters.

Homosexual Satan Wasp (Matt DC), Thursday, 31 May 2012 12:57 (five years ago) Permalink

With all the other hateful stuff they're doing, the government's approach to immigration hasn't really been scrutinised enough recently. Along with demolishing the student visa sector, this has to go down as one of the most stupidly spiteful things on their agenda:

Temporarily Famous In The Czech Republic (ShariVari), Saturday, 9 June 2012 13:39 (five years ago) Permalink

hopefully the government will introduce compulsory parenting classes for these sort of dysfunctional wastrels

'Last Moments Robot' Comforts You To Death (Noodle Vague), Monday, 11 June 2012 11:41 (five years ago) Permalink

Didn't see that immigration thing before, that is absolutely hateful. Presumably it would fall afoul o the same "right to family life" clause of the human rights act that the Tories are trying to dismantle so they can deport foreign lag once they have done their time.

American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Monday, 11 June 2012 13:11 (five years ago) Permalink

Sadly, it appears that it doesn't fall foul of the right to family life clause - it's something that was tested when they introduced the English-language requirements to get married.

I wonder if it could be interpreted as discriminatory on gender though, given the disparity in average salary between the sexes.

Temporarily Famous In The Czech Republic (ShariVari), Monday, 11 June 2012 13:18 (five years ago) Permalink

Vote Liberal Democrat

Tom D (Tom D.), Monday, 11 June 2012 13:22 (five years ago) Permalink

the immigration thing is one of those things you can't quite believe can actually happen - it almost reads like DON'T MARRY OUTSIDE OF YOUR NATION.

kanye kardashian (lex pretend), Monday, 11 June 2012 13:50 (five years ago) Permalink


kanye kardashian (lex pretend), Monday, 11 June 2012 13:50 (five years ago) Permalink

Poor people, don't you dare fall in love until you can afford it. I doubt this will ever become law.

Tom D (Tom D.), Monday, 11 June 2012 13:53 (five years ago) Permalink

it does seem like more of a headline-grabber than a well-thought-through plan: a coded message to Express readers, that the government's looking out for them by targeting those much-discussed immigrants from the subcontinent who bring their whole families here and live off the state and don't even bother to learn the language and etc etc etc, even though in actual fact migrants to the UK aren't eligible for benefits.

otoh, brooke magnanti made an interesting point about it here

The key to what these proposals really mean is in the election pledge: Cameron promised to reduce net migration. That's not the number of migrants total, that's the difference between migrants arriving and British citizens leaving. Sorry to break it to those who think the country is "packed full" or "under siege": the government is not interested in decreasing migration per se. They'd be as happy if immigration increased, as long as loads of Britons left. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mail readers.

Attacking the family route is the easiest way to do this. If a married couple cannot settle, not only has a migrant left, so has a UK citizen. This gets net migration down twice as fast as controlling other visas. The approach is crafted to appear successful to the rightwing without producing meaningful change for anyone.

dethklok piccalo (c sharp major), Monday, 11 June 2012 14:02 (five years ago) Permalink

If this law existed when I met my wife, we wouldn't have been able to live here. tbh, kinda ambivalent about that.

The Eyeball Of Hull (Colonel Poo), Monday, 11 June 2012 15:19 (five years ago) Permalink

I can't find the stats now but if I remember a significant number of people coming into the UK were coming to attend a UK university. They obviously pay full fees and aren't allowed to work more than 20 hrs or claim any bens. Stopping these 'study tourists' doesn't make any sense to me.

mmmm, Monday, 11 June 2012 15:44 (five years ago) Permalink

the problem was that people were coming in on tier 4 student visas and then... not actually studying, and working illegally. Sometimes people used forged college letters, sometimes the 'colleges' they were enrolled in were taking their student fees but not requiring attendance:

oddly tho the govt's response to this seems not to be "closer checks on educational institutions, e.g. requiring attendance records, etc" but "reduce the number of tier 4 visas available anywhere"

dethklok piccalo (c sharp major), Monday, 11 June 2012 16:11 (five years ago) Permalink

that's their MO across the board, isn't it - "oh there are people committing welfare fraud, well, instead of closing the loopholes let's CLOSE DOWN THE WELFARE SYSTEM"

kanye kardashian (lex pretend), Monday, 11 June 2012 16:13 (five years ago) Permalink

well, making the system work effectively would require that they train, employ and pay people to do a not-insignificant amount of work? and that's tantamount to encouraging red tape bureaucracy.

dethklok piccalo (c sharp major), Monday, 11 June 2012 16:16 (five years ago) Permalink

The old student visa regime was open to abuse but was much more tightly regulated than ten years ago. It's crazy that they're boasting about Q1 student visa applications being down 62% when universities and colleges are saying that the net cost to the country could be in the region of £5bn - £7bn. 62% of students weren't "bogus". They've sent out a message to legitimate students that the UK simply doesn't welcome them. The sensible thing to do would be to stop counting them as immigrants and start counting them as visitors.

Given that they're happy to significantly harm the economy by restricting student visas in pursuit of headlines, i can't imagine mere human feeling will get in their way on spouse visas.

Temporarily Famous In The Czech Republic (ShariVari), Monday, 11 June 2012 16:22 (five years ago) Permalink

May defended the 550,000 individual requests for data each year made by security officials as a vital tool to catch serious criminals and terrorists.

She told the Sun: "I just don't understand why some people might criticise these proposals. I have no doubt conspiracy theorists will come up with some ridiculous claims about how these measures are an infringement of freedom. But without changing the law, the only freedom we would protect is that of criminals, terrorists and paedophiles."

too cool graham rix listening to neu (nakhchivan), Thursday, 14 June 2012 13:30 (five years ago) Permalink

May has been going great guns in the race to overhaul Osborne as most hateful member of the Cabinet.

Matt DC, Thursday, 14 June 2012 13:40 (five years ago) Permalink

its a hell of a queue waiting for a head on a pike in that cabinet.

are terrorists and paedophiles not crims?

Smothered, Covered and Chunked!!! (a hoy hoy), Thursday, 14 June 2012 13:43 (five years ago) Permalink

if you mean "convicted of a crime" then not necessarily in the go-go British justice system of the 21st century

Mexès Coleslaw Massacre (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 14 June 2012 13:44 (five years ago) Permalink

fuckin ell, a couple of years ago I sent a letter to my MP about the possibly discriminatory under-25 benefit laws of the time (altruistically too late for myself as I had already spent the previous two years not being able to afford heating in winter, and had then thankfully turned 25, but I didn't receive anything in response anyway), nothing has changed, so I guess if you can get away with it you may as well run with it.

Merdeyeux, Sunday, 24 June 2012 14:25 (five years ago) Permalink

He's just trying to look like a hard man for the Tory right, he won't do it. This is more despicable:">David Laws calls for deeper tax and spending cuts. Dishonest lying money-grabbing little cunt.

Too Busy Thinking About Mr. Abie (Tom D.), Sunday, 24 June 2012 14:57 (five years ago) Permalink

Cut benefits for the poorest people in the poorest areas aka non Tory seats.
Cut benefits for those least able to find work.
Cut benefits for poor people daring to have children.
Lose your council house if you ever manage to earn enough to live in it without claiming benefits.

Will the "Liberal" Democrats ever bite back on any of this?

onimo, Monday, 25 June 2012 15:45 (five years ago) Permalink

well 'the opposition' don't seem to give a shit so i don't see why the coalition partners would bother

Just saying. (stevie), Monday, 25 June 2012 15:58 (five years ago) Permalink

The opposition gets to do what all oppositions do, mouth off in protest and fire a few zings. The liberal part of this coalition can actually prevent this shit.

onimo, Monday, 25 June 2012 16:01 (five years ago) Permalink

the opposition in this instance seem to be so focused on placating Daily Mail Island with anti-immigration machismo that any response they've made to this latest foofaraw has been woefully negligible IMHO

Just saying. (stevie), Monday, 25 June 2012 16:20 (five years ago) Permalink

decided it's too depressing for an ILX poll, but that list in full.

Benefits rates may depend on where you live
Reduce the amount of benefit paid to people over time
Expecting people on benefits to be able to read, write and count
Out-of-work benefits linked to wages rather than inflation, if wages are lower
A cap on the amount people can earn and still live in a council house
Reduce the current £20,000 housing benefit limit
Stopping the out of work being better off by having children
Consider paying some benefits "in kind" rather than in cash
Expecting parents on income support to prepare for work while children have free nursery care
Getting the physically able to do full-time community work after a period out of work
Sickness benefit claimants should take steps to improve their health

thomasintrouble, Monday, 25 June 2012 16:30 (five years ago) Permalink

"take steps to improve their health", well shiiit i bet they wish they'd thought of that.

Merdeyeux, Monday, 25 June 2012 16:31 (five years ago) Permalink

they should just bring back the workhouses and have done with it.

Arvo Pärt Chimp (Neil S), Monday, 25 June 2012 17:49 (five years ago) Permalink

ahem debate ideas for workhouse reintroduction prior to the drafting of the next manifesto tax what tax

stet, Monday, 25 June 2012 18:02 (five years ago) Permalink

This thread has been locked by an administrator

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.