Further lies - world renowned smirker Priti Patel has today stated that the Tories will 'reduce' immigration, but has carefully avoided any targets; which given that they failed year on year to deliver any of their previous 'targets' - is probably a wise move. She simultaneously used some more made-up figures about what migration would be under a Labour government, based on another set of fantasy projections from their busy fake news dept.

It's a woeful campaign by the Tories so far - their promises are being debunked almost before they make them.

Bren, if the Tories are blaming Labour for the NHS failure to hit it's targets, surely, the immigration numbers have to also be the fault of Labour









Despite calling the Election when they were 12-14 points ahead in the polls, they seem to running an increasingly desperate campaign.
The lies, smears and no shows are happening with increasing regularity and with Brexitcon alliance still in disarray, the election is wide open and it increasingly looks like we're heading for a hung Parliament.
At what point will Boris go and find a ditch or be put in one by his own party, when they realise that he is just as much of a wind bag as May, someone who at least tried to tell the truth.
You are right about how "well" their campaign is going - lets hope it carries on being so "effective".

Well before we a lovely Tory "fundamental rethink", how about we try spending as much as the average other civilised countries spend of their GDP on healthcare and see how it goes. The NHS, even with the excess bureaucracy built into it over years of target setting and rubbish like internal markets, is a remarkably efficient user of what resources we give it.

It's an important question. But to understand the answer, you need to understand why the EU was formed, the true ideology behind it, and where it is heading.

The key point for me is: the EU you see today is about as far removed from the ECSC/EEC 60 years ago as the EU wants to be in another 60 years. The goal is a true Federation of Europe, gradual removal of nation states and borders, and absolute centralised power in Brussels. Even in 1957 the ECSC was hailed as the "first step to a European federation" - and if you pay attention to the senior figures throughout the history of this European project, they have always hinted at this. Some have acknowledged it outright.

You people are quick to roll your eyes as if it isn't already happening (Maastricht, Lisbon, the Euro?) - but ask yourself, why have the EU always refused any truly meaningful reform? Simple: because watering down their 'pillars' means the goal cannot be achieved in full.

Since 2016 I've said if the EU had shown a willingness to meaningful reform I would have voted remain. But they have always slapped down any suggestion of true reform.

Despite the stark inevitable problems, they pursue the goal. The Eurozone has caused devastation across the Mediterranean nations, leading to mass unemployment and enormous levels of youth emigration. Indeed, massive movement of people across Europe (mainly from South/East to North/West) has caused economical and societal issues everywhere. You simply cannot throw 28 differing nations together without friction - the swing to the hard right across Europe being the direct consequence.

When confronted with a crisis, the EU invariably flounders and fails. The Balkans, Ukraine, the migrant/refugee crisis, the Eurozone crisis for example. That's before we even look at the creaking political and economic situations in countries such as Italy and France, or the weakening of Germany both economically and politically in the face of Merkel's idiotic migration policy - despite Merkel herself acknowledging almost 10 years ago that "multiculturalism has utterly failed". Something those of us not blinkered by a loony left-wing ideology have known for a long time.

Now - if you like the idea of all of that - great, vote to remain and join that bell-end with his EU hat and loudhailer outside Parliament. If not, you should seriously reconsider your options.

I've also always said we will take a hit after leaving, whatever the circumstances. I'm of the view it's worth it in the long run. The UK's economy has proven itself to be resilient and will succeed out of the EU.

If the EU had never existed and its current structure was proposed today, it would be laughed out of existence.

As I also mentioned its all about the long term - what will the EU be in 10,20,30 years.

Both sides are as bad - the fact you seem incapable of pointing out Labour's lies does your argument no favours. The £500m a day is an out and out lie when you consider on 10% of drugs come from the US.

Labour's issue on the NHS is the shadow minister - Ashworth is weak very weak

Time and again Labour will not commit to an immigration policy - you can't say whether the Tory figures are correct or not because Labour simply will not be honest about their policy. Laura Pidcock when asked by Neil in BBC2 and Robinson on R4 refuses to confirm if the vote at the conference would be in the manifesto - perhaps some honesty from Labour would help?

I think most would suggest the waste in the NHS is huge as is the abuse of the service by its customers. Perhaps a reduction of both would help the funds go further. The question is are we all willing to be taxed higher to support it or would we better investing in insurance to get treatment when we want it outside of the service?

I see your Priti Patel and raise you Emily Thornberry.




Hmm. Let's take a look.
[url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50412772Priti Patel...would not set "arbitrary" targets.[/url
[url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50423622Jeremy Corbyn rules out 'arbitrary' immigration target.[/url

At the Labour Conference back in September, members passed a motion for freedom of movement to be maintained [uand extended[/u after Brexit. Diane Abbott even tweeted about Labour's "commitment" to it today a couple of times.

Yet Corbyn today said it "doesn't necessarily form part of the manifesto." In April he even confirmed Labour policy was that freedom of movement would end with Brexit. Asked repeatedly about it, Laura Pidcock simply ignored the question.

So, someone is lying. Corbyn or Abbott? Abbott isn't clever enough so I'd say Corbyn, again. Labour, again, in a complete policy u-turn in a desperate appeal for votes, but against the wishes of the electorate.

Tell me, if Labour "maintain and EXTEND" freedom of movement, do you think immigration numbers go up or down. [i[size=85(Hint: if you give more people to right to move here...they will)[/size[/i. Now, tell me again about Priti Patel's "lies".

It's the whole irony of Priti Patel berating immigration which I find astounding, the same immigration which allowed her parents to move here from Uganda. Still, if they'd have stuck around for a few more years, Idi Amin would have booted them out anyway. Or worse.

You do realise a great many immigrants voted leave, precisely due to excessive immigration? Some strong leave areas such as Luton for example, areas where 'white British' are the minority.

Being an immigrant doesn't automatically mean you're daft enough to think immigration can continue in the numbers of the last 20-25 years.

No-one is 'berating' immigration. Just calling for sensible controls. Even Len McCluskey is sticking his neck out in the face over overwhelming opposition from Labour members - he sees the problems mass immigration causes. But he'll undoubtedly be shouted down by 'progressives'.

You've said this about "abuse" before, it's been challenged before and you didn't explain what you meant. Please can you do so this time? The "waste" doesn't stand up to much scrutiny either - like many nationalised industries it's ridiculously lean.

I certainly would support higher taxes, and I imagine most of the public is as well. Certainly compared to making people go down the insurance route which is a profoundly unpopular with the British public - and would cost significantly more. I can't see any benefit to it apart from an ideological one.

Some also voted leave to reduce immigration from the EU hoping we'd take more immigration from Asia and Africa. Some also voted leave to 'raise the drawbridge'. My feelings are that Patel is of the latter group.

That's the problem with a binary referendum where the unknown is anybody's guess. It means so many different things to so many different people. It's why Johnson's "get Brexit done" is a complete fantasy. What does 'done' actually look like? What does controlled immigration look like? Is it one in one out? Do we only invite people when there are job vacancies to fill? Do Russian oligarchs count, or is that not immigration?

I know one thing for certain. We'll still be debating what controlled immigration looks like in 5, 10, 25 years time.

Utter rubbish. Don't make things up.


Which is exactly the opposite of what she (and other Tories) said today.


It's quite simple. We allow people who are needed to move here. We look at essential jobs gaps, assess whether they can be filled within the UK and if not, offer them out on a points-based system. Plenty of other countries have robust immigration policies like this in place, yet for some odd reason it's a problem when we suggest it for the UK.

We don't let anyone who thinks the UK looks like a cushty place to move, settle here - which is what is basically happening right now and simply cannot continue. A basic grasp of global geopolitical and climate events will explain why.

The rich will always move where they like, because they are rich. That's just how it is, and how it has always been. But they're not really the issue.

I usually think that, whether I agree or disagree with your posts, you usually put forward well reasoned comments.
However, the whole immigration issue is just bloody toxic.

Personally, as long as people wanting to come to the UK are fundamentally decent people, who are happy to work (reasonably) hard and make a contribution to our society, there shouldn't be a "points" system.

It's a little like chucking people on the scrap heap because they dont have 8 GCSE's and a couple of A levels.
We should be looking beyond bits of paper and certificates.

Also, you rubbish the point about a particular section of the electorate voting Brexit, in order to try and improve the chances of increasing immigration from elsewhere, really ?? Sorry but, on this issue you are just wrong.

How do you test if they are 'fundamentally decent people'? You can't. It's a ridiculous suggestion. So you rely on other measures.

Question: how much is too much? Net migration for the last 10 years has been *roughly* 270k per annum. Last year 612,000 people migrated to the UK and 385,000 people emigrated, a net migration figure of 226,000. How long do you can that continue? I have NEVER heard an advocate of open immigration answer.

The fact is, if we open the doors too much, we will be overwhelmed. Millions want to come here. Many millions. We are creaking at the seams as it is in terms of infrastructure and public services, without even considering our increasing elderly population and the vastly higher birth rates of most immigrants. We are a small island with limited land and resources. How many more towns, roads, etc are we prepared to build?

Immigration is only toxic if you make it so - which is what the left do without fail if anyone questions immigration. For me it's a numbers game: if you don't control the numbers, the numbers get out of hand. You can't play the 'cosy progressive' game forever at this - the numbers don't stack up. At some point the brakes MUST come on and that point isn't too far off. Control it; slow it down.

I sometimes think the left's obsession with the wonders of mass immigration is mainly because the right oppose it. It makes so little sense they're either vastly stupid or so ideologically driven they can't see sense.

I've said it many times and it was repeated on QT tonight: how can you plan for housing and public services (or indeed, anything) if you can't control how many people are about to move in?


So you think non-EU immigrants voted Brexit to reduce EU immigration so non-EU immigration could increase? Just saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so. Prove to me that a significant number voted tactically in this way. Not just hearsay or some statistically irrelevant percentage: show me solid evidence.

I'll just leave this here

The NHS is incredibly efficient but underfunded, please evidence the so called waste and abuse.

Only the richest 5% (earning more than £80,000) will pay slightly more tax under Labour, and corporations whose tax will go to 26% which is very reasonable and will still be taxed at a lower rate than France and Germany, when Labour reverse some of their tax cuts.

Quote ="Cronus"Utter rubbish. Don't make things up.'" Don't you remember Priti Patel's pre-referendum message to “save our curry houses”? https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 1.html?amp Then 3 years later, the anger at the lie. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-industry

Quote ="Cronus"Utter rubbish. Don't make things up.'" Don't you remember Priti Patel's pre-referendum message to “save our curry houses”? https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 1.html?amp Then 3 years later, the anger at the lie. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-industry

Amazing you accuse other people of being stupid yet you can't understand the link between A and B here.

The immigration stuff is a desperate attempt to energise the Tory base of racists and xenophobes - and it appears to be having some effect.

Priti Patel's announcement was much ado about nothing - but it had enough anti-immigrant sentiment to draw out those people for whom it is a massive issue; and despite that, as ever, the issues facing the UK are everything to do with swingeing cuts to public services, and nothing at all to do with immigrants, who any fule kno, make a net contribution to the economy and are more likely to work in the NHS, than use it.

We need immigration - not least to counter the twin phenomenon of ageing population and falling birth rates, and I can't wait to see the reaction of the racist gammon when they see that in a post-Brexit, swashbuckling free trade world, those countries we want free trade deals with will insist that visas are part of the package; so whilst EU migration may reduce, there'll be lots more black and brown people, which will really boil their pi$$.

Yeah, Farage has always been a Marxist.
He and his friends certainly helped make immigration toxic though.

It's interesting that we have a different take on this, probably due to our political differences, although I'm not 100% certain.
I do actually agree that there has to be some control on free movement, which has only become a major factor since the inclusion of some of the old Eastern Bolc Nations, whose economies are significantly weaker than those countries that have been members of the EU for30+ years and although the "freedom of movement" has been a fundamental pillar of membership of the EU, the disparity in wealth between the older member nations and some of the more recent additions needed to be handled differently.
Of course, over time, the gap in wealth will reduce and the clamour to come to the UK, Germany, France will stagnate and then reverse.

The attempted clamp down on controlled immigration hasn't worked and we now have more people arriving from outside the EU than from within it so and this on it's own is significantly higher than the governments "new" target for controlled immigration, which would suggest that a long line of home secretaries have either been incompetent or just wishful thinkers.

You are right to point towards creaking public services. However, you are wrong to blame this on EU immigration.
We've had 10+ years of austerity, cutting every public service to the bone and I suggest that THIS is the real reason for your creaking public services but, of course, the narrative of blaming someone else, especially immigrants, is rather more palatable than admitting that austerity cut have largely been to blame for most of the difficulties.

As for some of the ethnic groups voting Brexit to try and help improve the chances of their families coming over from Asia, I dont know if these figures exist. However, as you are aware, I'm pretty keen to absorb as much information as possible on the Brexit issue and I'm happy to put this forward as being correct.

If I'm wrong on this, I will happily hold my hands up and admit it but, I dont believe this will be necessary

That's an interesting one.

A genuine picture from the Slovenian border during the crisis of 2015 - shortly after Angela Merkel announced she would open Germany's borders.

In the words of [url=https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/jun/22/jeff-mitchells-best-shot-the-column-of-marching-refugees-used-in-ukips-brexit-campaign[uJeff Mitchell[/u[/url, the photographer who took this shot, the Slovenians were utterly unprepared and it was literally a flood; thousands upon thousands arriving on train after train..."it was endless"..."a conveyor belt".

He tells us it was mainly Syrians, but many Afghans, Turks and others, almost without exception young men, almost all heading for Germany. No checks, no borders.

That's also what Farage tells us. His attack is aimed directly at the EU for failing to manage this crisis; for Merkel inviting this influx. There is nothing about the poster and the issue which is inaccurate or untrue.

It was crude, it was crass - the image is of course inflammatory, but it's a genuine image from the actual crisis - but the problem is (to borrow a line) [iwe can't handle the truth[/i. Our politicians, media and left-wing jumped on it in a hostile attack, an opportunity to cry outrage and attack Farage (I'm not particularly a fan, BTW) - and it became even more a toxic issue. Never mind that he showed us the true situation, that doesn't matter, it was too blunt for our delicate sheltered Western minds.

I dare say some snowflakes will find my comments above outrageous because "racism though".

Quote ="King Street Cat"Don't you remember Priti Patel's pre-referendum message to “save our curry houses”? https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 1.html?amp Then 3 years later, the anger at the lie. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-industry'" Might be my age but I don't remember it. That tells me what a huge part of the campaign it must have been. I do recall reports of an urgent shortage of 'curry' chefs, which was clearly jumped upon. It's a fair point: EU workers can walk in while non-EU often jump through hoops. Neither should be able to walk in; both should be subject to checks and controls. Anyway, that doesn't prove a statistically significant number voted [ifor that reason[/i.

Quote ="King Street Cat"Don't you remember Priti Patel's pre-referendum message to “save our curry houses”? https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 1.html?amp Then 3 years later, the anger at the lie. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-industry'" Might be my age but I don't remember it. That tells me what a huge part of the campaign it must have been. I do recall reports of an urgent shortage of 'curry' chefs, which was clearly jumped upon. It's a fair point: EU workers can walk in while non-EU often jump through hoops. Neither should be able to walk in; both should be subject to checks and controls. Anyway, that doesn't prove a statistically significant number voted [ifor that reason[/i.

Not at all. Despite being a purposely inflammatory poster from knock-off Nige, if you take a closer look, you can't help but notice there is a distinct lack of women and kids. This may be as it was, it may also be creative cropping.