oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,516
|
Post by oldie on Feb 20, 2024 9:50:48 GMT
Given that I appear to be the only one who thinks that Reform are a joke, given that nobody has articulated why they support them having said they do, other than because of their dislike for every other party, I thought I would have a look at their current published offer to voters.
It started badly and went downhill in a hurry.
Front Page
"Let's make Great Britain Great"
I thought this was a spoof, but no.
This is their intro
"As a nation we have so much potential, so much that we should be optimistic about. We can make Britain great again. To do this, reform is essential in the way our country is run and managed, so it works properly for the people. In many areas, just the application of basic common sense would be a good start! The nation faces many challenges, but we can overcome them. To succeed, we need to do Brexit properly and save the Union by protecting Northern Ireland. We must grow our way out of the crisis, we cannot tax our way out of it. We must stand up for our core democratic values, our civil liberties, our right to free speech. Let’s celebrate our pride in being British: our amazing culture, our unbreakable communities, our incredible heritage. Let’s stop all the woke nonsense that is holding us back. Let’s have a proper immigration policy that works for our country and protects our borders. This means net zero immigration so we can train and support our own people. It means zero illegal immigration. Together, let’s make great things happen!"
😂😂
I was disappointed there wasn't a backing track of the Twickenham crowd sing "Jerusalem"
Pure dog whistle Trumpian nonsense.
Then the economy
"1. Reform our Economy: To succeed faster growth is vital. Higher growth rates are the only way to better wages and more tax revenues that can be invested in better healthcare and other public services. Our bold economic vision frees up over 6 million people from paying Income Tax and frees up over 1.2 million small businesses and self-employed from paying Corporation Tax. We would also aim to remove a raft of other stifling taxes in a responsible, timely way. This will generate much faster growth than seen in recent decades. We must also stop wasting taxpayers’ money."
Right. So let me get this right. Slash tax revenues, cause huge increase in the PSBR, funded by who exactly? The bond markets will run a mile (remember Truss?).
Or will they slash public services?
Allegedly not
"2. Reform our Public Sector: We must be ambitious, seeking faster, more efficient public services that work better for us all. For example, with health, we should demand zero waiting lists and we have a bold plan to achieve this vision. Our police need to focus on preventing crime and catching criminals. Our schools must educate our children properly to prepare them for a competitive, challenging world, whilst protecting them from age inappropriate sex education"
😂😂
I could go on, but you get the story. Ill considered populist nonsense, full of dog whistle rhetoric which will not stand up to challenge.
And yet some on here would actually vote to inflict this on the country.
Unbelievable
|
|
|
|
Reform
Feb 20, 2024 10:13:24 GMT
Post by Nobbygas on Feb 20, 2024 10:13:24 GMT
"I was disappointed there wasn't a backing track of the Twickenham crowd sing "Jerusalem". They don't sing this at Twickers. You'll find they sing it at the cricket.
"1. Reform our Economy: To succeed faster growth is vital. Higher growth rates are the only way to better wages and more tax revenues that can be invested in better healthcare and other public services. Our bold economic vision frees up over 6 million people from paying Income Tax and frees up over 1.2 million small businesses and self-employed from paying Corporation Tax. We would also aim to remove a raft of other stifling taxes in a responsible, timely way. This will generate much faster growth than seen in recent decades. We must also stop wasting taxpayers’ money."
So, you are against freeing over 6 million low paid workers from paying taxes? In the overall scheme of things the lower paid do not contribute a vast amount of money to the Treasury through taxes. In fact, with Universal Credit etc making up their income this policy makes sense. Lower paid will have more money in their pockets to spend (helping the economy) and the government (ie. the taxpayer) wouldn't have to shell out so much to support those on lower incomes through schemes like Universal Credit etc. Currently, the government (ie. The Taxpayer) provide financial support to those on low incomes, while those same people then pay tax back to the government. It's ridiculous. Cost savings in the administration of this nonsense must be also taken into account.
And seriously, why should small businesses and self-employed pay Corporation Tax? This tax was designed to make large companies pay, not the small people.
You consider it "populist nonsense" when in reality it makes sense.
and yet some on here want to continue with the same tired old policies that have been inflicted on this country for the last 30 years.
Unbelievable.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,516
|
Reform
Feb 20, 2024 10:39:02 GMT
via mobile
Post by oldie on Feb 20, 2024 10:39:02 GMT
"I was disappointed there wasn't a backing track of the Twickenham crowd sing "Jerusalem". They don't sing this at Twickers. You'll find they sing it at the cricket. "1. Reform our Economy: To succeed faster growth is vital. Higher growth rates are the only way to better wages and more tax revenues that can be invested in better healthcare and other public services. Our bold economic vision frees up over 6 million people from paying Income Tax and frees up over 1.2 million small businesses and self-employed from paying Corporation Tax. We would also aim to remove a raft of other stifling taxes in a responsible, timely way. This will generate much faster growth than seen in recent decades. We must also stop wasting taxpayers’ money." So, you are against freeing over 6 million low paid workers from paying taxes? In the overall scheme of things the lower paid do not contribute a vast amount of money to the Treasury through taxes. In fact, with Universal Credit etc making up their income this policy makes sense. Lower paid will have more money in their pockets to spend (helping the economy) and the government (ie. the taxpayer) wouldn't have to shell out so much to support those on lower incomes through schemes like Universal Credit etc. Currently, the government (ie. The Taxpayer) provide financial support to those on low incomes, while those same people then pay tax back to the government. It's ridiculous. Cost savings in the administration of this nonsense must be also taken into account. And seriously, why should small businesses and self-employed pay Corporation Tax? This tax was designed to make large companies pay, not the small people. You consider it "populist nonsense" when in reality it makes sense. and yet some on here want to continue with the same tired old policies that have been inflicted on this country for the last 30 years. Unbelievable. ""I was disappointed there wasn't a backing track of the Twickenham crowd sing "Jerusalem". They don't sing this at Twickers. You'll find they sing it at the cricket." Well, this suggests you are wrong my old friend On the rest I am all for tax reform, but I would like to see double entry bookkeeping. As I said, how do we fund the immediate impact on the fiscal defect. Not theoretical arguments, but taking our current position and showering the cash flow going forward |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,516
|
Reform
Feb 20, 2024 10:39:43 GMT
via mobile
Post by oldie on Feb 20, 2024 10:39:43 GMT
Deficit obviously
|
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Feb 20, 2024 10:48:34 GMT
"I was disappointed there wasn't a backing track of the Twickenham crowd sing "Jerusalem". They don't sing this at Twickers. You'll find they sing it at the cricket. "1. Reform our Economy: To succeed faster growth is vital. Higher growth rates are the only way to better wages and more tax revenues that can be invested in better healthcare and other public services. Our bold economic vision frees up over 6 million people from paying Income Tax and frees up over 1.2 million small businesses and self-employed from paying Corporation Tax. We would also aim to remove a raft of other stifling taxes in a responsible, timely way. This will generate much faster growth than seen in recent decades. We must also stop wasting taxpayers’ money." So, you are against freeing over 6 million low paid workers from paying taxes? In the overall scheme of things the lower paid do not contribute a vast amount of money to the Treasury through taxes. In fact, with Universal Credit etc making up their income this policy makes sense. Lower paid will have more money in their pockets to spend (helping the economy) and the government (ie. the taxpayer) wouldn't have to shell out so much to support those on lower incomes through schemes like Universal Credit etc. Currently, the government (ie. The Taxpayer) provide financial support to those on low incomes, while those same people then pay tax back to the government. It's ridiculous. Cost savings in the administration of this nonsense must be also taken into account. And seriously, why should small businesses and self-employed pay Corporation Tax? This tax was designed to make large companies pay, not the small people. You consider it "populist nonsense" when in reality it makes sense. and yet some on here want to continue with the same tired old policies that have been inflicted on this country for the last 30 years. Unbelievable. ""I was disappointed there wasn't a backing track of the Twickenham crowd sing "Jerusalem". They don't sing this at Twickers. You'll find they sing it at the cricket." Well, this suggests you are wrong my old friend On the rest I am all for tax reform, but I would like to see double entry bookkeeping. As I said, how do we fund the immediate impact on the fiscal defect. Not theoretical arguments, but taking our current position and showering the cash flow going forward Using the quote you provided, "We would also aim to remove a raft of other stifling taxes in a responsible, timely way.". You said, "Right. So let me get this right. Slash tax revenues, cause huge increase in the PSBR, funded by who exactly?" The quote quite clearly mentions that this is something that will have to evolve and will not result in a 'slashing of tax revenue'. You try to compare this to the Truss policies, when in reality they are totally different. Truss was all about slashing things now. Reform are saying that it will be conducted in a "responsible, timely way", so you being disingenuous to even suggest the comparison. Once again, you are happy to continue with the policies of the last 30 years, which is what both Labour and the Tory's will provide? |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,516
|
Post by oldie on Feb 20, 2024 19:34:06 GMT
""I was disappointed there wasn't a backing track of the Twickenham crowd sing "Jerusalem". They don't sing this at Twickers. You'll find they sing it at the cricket." Well, this suggests you are wrong my old friend On the rest I am all for tax reform, but I would like to see double entry bookkeeping. As I said, how do we fund the immediate impact on the fiscal defect. Not theoretical arguments, but taking our current position and showering the cash flow going forward Using the quote you provided, "We would also aim to remove a raft of other stifling taxes in a responsible, timely way.". You said, "Right. So let me get this right. Slash tax revenues, cause huge increase in the PSBR, funded by who exactly?" The quote quite clearly mentions that this is something that will have to evolve and will not result in a 'slashing of tax revenue'. You try to compare this to the Truss policies, when in reality they are totally different. Truss was all about slashing things now. Reform are saying that it will be conducted in a "responsible, timely way", so you being disingenuous to even suggest the comparison. Once again, you are happy to continue with the policies of the last 30 years, which is what both Labour and the Tory's will provide? Long day Back at you tomorrow. Of course, instead of relying on you Nobby, the self confessed Reform voters on here could actually argue their case. No? Of course not. Perhaps they are not working class and are terrified of being exposed. 🤔😂 |
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,600 
|
Post by eppinggas on Feb 24, 2024 9:02:07 GMT
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,516
|
Post by oldie on Feb 24, 2024 12:41:00 GMT
But it's immigration stupid 😂😂 "Fresh research released on Friday by the More in Common thinktank underlined how it is Farage, and not Tice, who is attracting voters to Reform. The polling also showed that, unlike other voter cohorts, the single issue of immigration was why people supported Reform. For six-in-10 Reform UK voters, its policies on immigration were a top reason for voting for that party. A quarter of Reform UK voters back the party out of support for Farage – while just 7% are doing so to support Tice." Well, there's a thing🤔🤔🤔😉 |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,516
|
Reform
Feb 24, 2024 12:46:26 GMT
via mobile
Post by oldie on Feb 24, 2024 12:46:26 GMT
I read a bit of that. But had to stop. So basically nobody pays tax, inheritance tax is abolished and stamp duty is also abolished. Let's say any of that is remotely doable...would it not be the case that without supply side reforms (excuse the pun) this would lead to hyper inflation? Yes/No? Anyone? |
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,600
|
Reform
Feb 25, 2024 13:49:44 GMT
Post by eppinggas on Feb 25, 2024 13:49:44 GMT
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,516
|
Post by oldie on Feb 25, 2024 15:15:18 GMT
This seems to be the only reason, the only credible reason, to vote Reform.
It's not the best way of undermining the political establishment though, is it.
The best way is to not vote at all. If we, the voters, could get the total number of votes down to 40% of total eligible voters that would cause a bit of a constitutional crisis. Better than risking these numb nuts getting a foothold
|
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Feb 26, 2024 8:41:10 GMT
This seems to be the only reason, the only credible reason, to vote Reform. It's not the best way of undermining the political establishment though, is it. The best way is to not vote at all. If we, the voters, could get the total number of votes down to 40% of total eligible voters that would cause a bit of a constitutional crisis. Better than risking these numb nuts getting a foothold Not really. Look at what UKIP did with Brexit. The amount of votes they were picking up forced all the other parties to include a Referendum in their manifesto's. Those votes played a major part in forcing change. As for another credible reason, and you don't seem to want to answer this question as I have asked you repeatedly, but you must be happy with the status quo in UK politics at the moment? You must be happy for things to continue as they have for the last 30 years? |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,516
|
Post by oldie on Feb 26, 2024 13:20:39 GMT
This seems to be the only reason, the only credible reason, to vote Reform. It's not the best way of undermining the political establishment though, is it. The best way is to not vote at all. If we, the voters, could get the total number of votes down to 40% of total eligible voters that would cause a bit of a constitutional crisis. Better than risking these numb nuts getting a foothold Not really. Look at what UKIP did with Brexit. The amount of votes they were picking up forced all the other parties to include a Referendum in their manifesto's. Those votes played a major part in forcing change. As for another credible reason, and you don't seem to want to answer this question as I have asked you repeatedly, but you must be happy with the status quo in UK politics at the moment? You must be happy for things to continue as they have for the last 30 years? To answer your question directly, no, personally I am absolutely not happy for things to carry on. But voting for a bunch of semi literate wannabe libertarians is not the answer. Let's have some radical change. Let's disrupt the lazy establishment. Let's abolish the monarchy and the House of Lords. They represent no one |
|
|
|
Reform
Feb 26, 2024 16:44:33 GMT
Post by Nobbygas on Feb 26, 2024 16:44:33 GMT
Not really. Look at what UKIP did with Brexit. The amount of votes they were picking up forced all the other parties to include a Referendum in their manifesto's. Those votes played a major part in forcing change. As for another credible reason, and you don't seem to want to answer this question as I have asked you repeatedly, but you must be happy with the status quo in UK politics at the moment? You must be happy for things to continue as they have for the last 30 years? To answer your question directly, no, personally I am absolutely not happy for things to carry on. But voting for a bunch of semi literate wannabe libertarians is not the answer. Let's have some radical change. Let's disrupt the lazy establishment. Let's abolish the monarchy and the House of Lords. They represent no one Sorry, but you are barking up the wrong tree with abolishing the Monarchy. That would be yet another vote you will lose. I agree with getting rid of the House of Lords. If you are not happy with things, then why are you so resistant to a group that want to change things. Why bad mouth them as this just appears that you do accept the way things are. |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,516
|
Reform
Feb 26, 2024 22:22:18 GMT
via mobile
Post by oldie on Feb 26, 2024 22:22:18 GMT
To answer your question directly, no, personally I am absolutely not happy for things to carry on. But voting for a bunch of semi literate wannabe libertarians is not the answer. Let's have some radical change. Let's disrupt the lazy establishment. Let's abolish the monarchy and the House of Lords. They represent no one Sorry, but you are barking up the wrong tree with abolishing the Monarchy. That would be yet another vote you will lose. I agree with getting rid of the House of Lords. If you are not happy with things, then why are you so resistant to a group that want to change things. Why bad mouth them as this just appears that you do accept the way things are. Bad mouth them? I respond only to what they say and publish. That's not bad mouthing them, that's being critical. I didn't claim that my views on a undemocratic monarchy would carry the majority vote. Just as you support Reform knowing full well they will lose. Your question was not what I support, it was whether I am happy with the status quo. Which I answered. For our gambling friend and your fellow supporter of "Reform" (an oxymoron if ever there was one) what are the odds of the idiotic Tory, Lee Anderson, joining this equally idiotic political party, Reform? What a state. |
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,600
|
Reform
Feb 27, 2024 17:15:34 GMT
Post by eppinggas on Feb 27, 2024 17:15:34 GMT
Lee Anderson could well join Reform by the looks of things. I don't think that will dent their existing support. The lefties will continue to froth at the mouth, but support for them looks like it is set to continue. In fact watching James O'Brien self implode at the thought that they might hold a degree of political influence is surely enough to increase their popularity.
Suella Braverman has gone further in her criticism of Islamic extremists and their influence. So I wonder what happens to her? Are senior Tories worried about removing the whip from her? Or do they secretly agree with what she's saying?
Nigel Farage still holding all the cards and keeping them close to his chest. Interesting times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Feb 27, 2024 23:32:54 GMT
Lee Anderson could well join Reform by the looks of things. I don't think that will dent their existing support. The lefties will continue to froth at the mouth, but support for them looks like it is set to continue. In fact watching James O'Brien self implode at the thought that they might hold a degree of political influence is surely enough to increase their popularity. Suella Braverman has gone further in her criticism of Islamic extremists and their influence. So I wonder what happens to her? Are senior Tories worried about removing the whip from her? Or do they secretly agree with what she's saying? Nigel Farage still holding all the cards and keeping them close to his chest. Interesting times. This is the elephant in the room isn't it. You only have to mention Islam and immediately you are labelled as a racist, or it's Islamophobia! Questions do need answering. Why do Police arrest anybody who is protesting against the Palestinian mobs in London? Why are the Police allowing these Palestinian protesters to openly declare hatred and racism on our streets? Why, as a society, do the authorities appear to protect a religion/view/opinion that is totally against women's rights and LGQBT+, and please, let's be honest and open. Islam does not support these issues. Why do we allow schools and teachers to be threatened over 'rumours'? Islam is treated by the authorities with soft gloves. We have seen this with the countless cases of grooming in the UK. Am I racist for saying these things? Is what I am saying Islamophobia? No, they are not, but these are issues that need discussing without the rent-a-mob shouting you down. Islam is a problem. The values and teachings of Islam are not conducive with our culture. Why on earth can't the authorities recognize this? A few years back Angela Merkel in Germany stated that multi-culturalism had failed in Germany. Less than two years later she opened the borders to any immigrants ! "We can do this" she proclaimed to the German people. It was a huge error for the German people. It won't be long before we see an Islamic political party in the UK, and of course Muslims will vote for them. This has already happened in Germany. There it started at the local level and it is now growing with the first national Islamic party already formed. Look at the recent acid attack in London. For days all we knew were that the Police were looking for a man from Newcastle. They didn't release his name or mention his ethnic background. The Police obviously knew all this, so why didn't they share that info? There was no mention of him being an immigrant for days. You can guarantee if it were a white bloke, ex-army with tattoos, his name, photos and description would have been plastered over the news. Why was this? Are the authorities scared to release the real information? For many years good Police work has relied on co-operation from the public. The public are an important source of information for the Police. You just know that if an incident happens and there is no real description of the person the Police are looking for, it's either a migrant or a Muslim. In Parliament last week, we had MP's and the Speaker bending over backwards so as not to offend Muslims. Harriet Harmen even called today for MP's to be allowed to Work From Home so that they avoid intimidation when they go to Parliament. Who is doing this intimidation? What are the Police doing about it? I think we all know the answer to those questions. As a society we have to have a mature discussion about how we want our country to progress and develop. Lee Anderson has been dropped by the Tory Party, but in reality nothing he said was racist. He may have been a bit blunt in his choice of words but in truth he was only saying what a lot of people are thinking. If only we had politicians who spoke openly eh? Instead we have politicians who speak with the proverbial forked tongue. Why does Farage have such a following? It's because he is not afraid to say what the man (or woman) on the street are thinking. It's why Johnson won an 80 seat majority at the last election. The silent majority made themselves heard with the Brexit vote. The current politicians of Labour and Tory appear to pamper to the loud minorities. The silent majority are desperate for someone to speak up for them. |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,516
|
Reform
Feb 28, 2024 2:40:45 GMT
via mobile
Post by oldie on Feb 28, 2024 2:40:45 GMT
That needs responding to Nobby.
Before I do, are those your words Nobby? Or have you copied something into your post?
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,600
|
Reform
Feb 28, 2024 7:49:56 GMT
Post by eppinggas on Feb 28, 2024 7:49:56 GMT
Lee Anderson could well join Reform by the looks of things. I don't think that will dent their existing support. The lefties will continue to froth at the mouth, but support for them looks like it is set to continue. In fact watching James O'Brien self implode at the thought that they might hold a degree of political influence is surely enough to increase their popularity. Suella Braverman has gone further in her criticism of Islamic extremists and their influence. So I wonder what happens to her? Are senior Tories worried about removing the whip from her? Or do they secretly agree with what she's saying? Nigel Farage still holding all the cards and keeping them close to his chest. Interesting times. This is the elephant in the room isn't it. You only have to mention Islam and immediately you are labelled as a racist, or it's Islamophobia! Questions do need answering. Why do Police arrest anybody who is protesting against the Palestinian mobs in London? Why are the Police allowing these Palestinian protesters to openly declare hatred and racism on our streets? Why, as a society, do the authorities appear to protect a religion/view/opinion that is totally against women's rights and LGQBT+, and please, let's be honest and open. Islam does not support these issues. Why do we allow schools and teachers to be threatened over 'rumours'? Islam is treated by the authorities with soft gloves. We have seen this with the countless cases of grooming in the UK. Am I racist for saying these things? Is what I am saying Islamophobia? No, they are not, but these are issues that need discussing without the rent-a-mob shouting you down. Islam is a problem. The values and teachings of Islam are not conducive with our culture. Why on earth can't the authorities recognize this? A few years back Angela Merkel in Germany stated that multi-culturalism had failed in Germany. Less than two years later she opened the borders to any immigrants ! "We can do this" she proclaimed to the German people. It was a huge error for the German people. It won't be long before we see an Islamic political party in the UK, and of course Muslims will vote for them. This has already happened in Germany. There it started at the local level and it is now growing with the first national Islamic party already formed. Look at the recent acid attack in London. For days all we knew were that the Police were looking for a man from Newcastle. They didn't release his name or mention his ethnic background. The Police obviously knew all this, so why didn't they share that info? There was no mention of him being an immigrant for days. You can guarantee if it were a white bloke, ex-army with tattoos, his name, photos and description would have been plastered over the news. Why was this? Are the authorities scared to release the real information? For many years good Police work has relied on co-operation from the public. The public are an important source of information for the Police. You just know that if an incident happens and there is no real description of the person the Police are looking for, it's either a migrant or a Muslim. In Parliament last week, we had MP's and the Speaker bending over backwards so as not to offend Muslims. Harriet Harmen even called today for MP's to be allowed to Work From Home so that they avoid intimidation when they go to Parliament. Who is doing this intimidation? What are the Police doing about it? I think we all know the answer to those questions. As a society we have to have a mature discussion about how we want our country to progress and develop. Lee Anderson has been dropped by the Tory Party, but in reality nothing he said was racist. He may have been a bit blunt in his choice of words but in truth he was only saying what a lot of people are thinking. If only we had politicians who spoke openly eh? Instead we have politicians who speak with the proverbial forked tongue. Why does Farage have such a following? It's because he is not afraid to say what the man (or woman) on the street are thinking. It's why Johnson won an 80 seat majority at the last election. The silent majority made themselves heard with the Brexit vote. The current politicians of Labour and Tory appear to pamper to the loud minorities. The silent majority are desperate for someone to speak up for them. I could have written that, but sadly I'm not as articulate. A debate needs to be had about the increasing influence of Muslim extremism in our society. Calling for that debate is not racist. There is only one party willing to discuss this problem (and yes, it is a problem) - Reform. |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,516
|
Reform
Feb 28, 2024 8:17:06 GMT
via mobile
Post by oldie on Feb 28, 2024 8:17:06 GMT
This is the elephant in the room isn't it. You only have to mention Islam and immediately you are labelled as a racist, or it's Islamophobia! Questions do need answering. Why do Police arrest anybody who is protesting against the Palestinian mobs in London? Why are the Police allowing these Palestinian protesters to openly declare hatred and racism on our streets? Why, as a society, do the authorities appear to protect a religion/view/opinion that is totally against women's rights and LGQBT+, and please, let's be honest and open. Islam does not support these issues. Why do we allow schools and teachers to be threatened over 'rumours'? Islam is treated by the authorities with soft gloves. We have seen this with the countless cases of grooming in the UK. Am I racist for saying these things? Is what I am saying Islamophobia? No, they are not, but these are issues that need discussing without the rent-a-mob shouting you down. Islam is a problem. The values and teachings of Islam are not conducive with our culture. Why on earth can't the authorities recognize this? A few years back Angela Merkel in Germany stated that multi-culturalism had failed in Germany. Less than two years later she opened the borders to any immigrants ! "We can do this" she proclaimed to the German people. It was a huge error for the German people. It won't be long before we see an Islamic political party in the UK, and of course Muslims will vote for them. This has already happened in Germany. There it started at the local level and it is now growing with the first national Islamic party already formed. Look at the recent acid attack in London. For days all we knew were that the Police were looking for a man from Newcastle. They didn't release his name or mention his ethnic background. The Police obviously knew all this, so why didn't they share that info? There was no mention of him being an immigrant for days. You can guarantee if it were a white bloke, ex-army with tattoos, his name, photos and description would have been plastered over the news. Why was this? Are the authorities scared to release the real information? For many years good Police work has relied on co-operation from the public. The public are an important source of information for the Police. You just know that if an incident happens and there is no real description of the person the Police are looking for, it's either a migrant or a Muslim. In Parliament last week, we had MP's and the Speaker bending over backwards so as not to offend Muslims. Harriet Harmen even called today for MP's to be allowed to Work From Home so that they avoid intimidation when they go to Parliament. Who is doing this intimidation? What are the Police doing about it? I think we all know the answer to those questions. As a society we have to have a mature discussion about how we want our country to progress and develop. Lee Anderson has been dropped by the Tory Party, but in reality nothing he said was racist. He may have been a bit blunt in his choice of words but in truth he was only saying what a lot of people are thinking. If only we had politicians who spoke openly eh? Instead we have politicians who speak with the proverbial forked tongue. Why does Farage have such a following? It's because he is not afraid to say what the man (or woman) on the street are thinking. It's why Johnson won an 80 seat majority at the last election. The silent majority made themselves heard with the Brexit vote. The current politicians of Labour and Tory appear to pamper to the loud minorities. The silent majority are desperate for someone to speak up for them. I could have written that, but sadly I'm not as articulate. A debate needs to be had about the increasing influence of Muslim extremism in our society. Calling for that debate is not racist. There is only one party willing to discuss this problem (and yes, it is a problem) - Reform. So Epping "As a society we have to have a mature discussion about how we want our country to progress and develop. Lee Anderson has been dropped by the Tory Party, but in reality nothing he said was racist." Do you believe that Sadiq Khan, as Mayor of London and democratically elected as such, is under the control of Islamists? Do you believe that indeed London itself is controlled by Islamists? That is the claim made by Lee Anderson. |
|
