My wife and I had savings before 2023 and they don't exist now. Just massive credit card bills to get us through the cost of living crisis.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
What was her point? That parents should foot the bill or that young people can't have something because she didn't have it?
Sorry to hear that. Yeah it’s really shite at the moment.
Pretty much. She had it bad so now no one can have it good.
It's times like this you wish we were a bit more like Ecuador.
I'd love to have had it as 'bad' as she did. Would happily swap all the wonderful perks I'm enjoying now for the house prices, cost of living and job security she had in her day.
always amazes me that people who complain about not having savings don’t just dip into their trust funds.
Incoming boomer redcafe attack force about to tell you of the horrors of bin strikes and outdoor toilets! Which tbf looking back at the past(60’s - 80’s)it does look fecking awful but that’s most because everyone was really racist and voted for Thatcher.
The baby boomers might be the first generation in a long time who actively don’t want the younger generations to be better off or even have the same as they did.
She only gets one (loud) clap.The food in the 60s and 70s must've fecking been awful, given how my nan used to either cook stuff in lard or boil it to death. They only had two or three TV channels as well.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
No sooner did I discover the InfoSys link, it became hugely obvious this was the end game.
Nice it's now becoming more public.
In the early 60s, there was nothing like as much food as now.
The food in the 60s and 70s must've fecking been awful, given how my nan used to either cook stuff in lard or boil it to death. They only had two or three TV channels as well.
And nothing like as much variety.
And nothing like as many obese people either.
The food was so awful you couldn't eat enough to get fat
Infosys is an $80 billion global conglomerate. Its hardly surprising to see them on a government supplier list.
There are plenty of examples of corruption but imo this isn't one of them.
they’re also not the only company in the world to
offer their kinds of services. as with any potential conflict of interest, it’s easier to just to walk away from it and choose someone else. of course they won’t though, because money.
There were some pretty horrible sights when mini-skirts came out. You didn't see hundreds of incredibly fit girls out running the same either.
But don't you think such conflicts of interest should be actively avoided regardless of how the deals came about? Do you believe Infosys are the only company who could have delivered the contracts they got?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
If this was the case previously , my family wouldn't have existed in the UK. On the plus side I would have moved to France 30 years earlier.
Other plusses - I can never return to the UK to live with my wife - excellent, best news of all.
Other possible plusses if implemented earlier - Patel and Braverman wouldn't exist.
Stop teasing us Paul, you know you would never come back!
No but if I wanted to I couldn't, there are others who may want to come back.Stop teasing us Paul, you know you would never come back!
So you think it's fine that British people can't live in their own country?
Didn't know they could be stopped, unless they had revoked/changed their nationality/passport.
With their partner who didn't satisfy the earnings level. That's the point of the story.
From what I've read it's just getting on a preferred supplier list which is really nothing. They still have to bid on any contract against oh the likes of Fujitsu. If they started winning contracts with subpar bids, then I'd be concerned.
If it were a private company with such a conflict of interest they'd be scrutinised heavily under the bribery act. Same standards don't seem to apply to government from what I can tell.
Ever heard the VIP Lane? Most bids that came through it were sub-par.
Mate, if you were proper British, you'd dump the foreigner and move back to Blighty so you can snaffle up an English Rose
Rather be single.
The foreigner also spent the majority of her life in the UK but can't live there any more. Brexit bonus!
You are so naive.
He’s not naive, he’s disingenuous because he’s a right winger that has to excuse everything a right wing government does because he hates that this predominantly left wing forum have absolutely no end in opportunities to criticise them.
OK I see, I thought you were talking just about British Nationals, who can come, but not their partners unless they meet certain criteria?
Does this relate to the 'non-Dom' issue Labour keep going on about?
You mean, not only are you banging a foreigner, she's a fricking immigrant? Talk about going over to the dark side!
Bleeding immigrants, coming over here, taking our wolves...
No, unless the British person plus the foreign partner combined earn above the earnings threshhold then the foreign partner cannot live in the UK.
In my case, when I first married, I was young and earnt very little. Now I'm retired we don't earn enough. In any case the earnings level proposed is less than what most British people earn.
There must be plenty of British people who are partnered or married in my situation who may want to return to the UK.
For younger people, like I was at the time, I would have had to move to France for us to be together.
I thought that is what you did?
Sorry, not following the plot here, my original response was that Brits can come and go as they please, but any foreign partner cannot. Unless that is, the partner earns a certain amount individually, or combined with their partners income. Then they can come, yes?
I can understand for someone in your position who is retired (and assume your partner is too) then this is a problem, should you ever want to come back.
However Paul, have you not made it clear many times you would not come back, especially after Brexit?
I can see such 'obstacles' arising more and more in the next two decades, from many governments as migration, in particular to Europe, including the UK, is going to get more difficult to sustain as the demand (climate driven if nothing else) rises. Any form of migration is likely to become 'hindered' by such developments as these, at least until the powers that be wake up to the potential size of the problems that will occur and to the internal resistance that will grow (is growing) and start to plan properly for the surge in migration that has yet to come in Tsunami style. In such a context this kind of restriction, is punitive, but is still only at what might be called the 'sandbag filling' stage of migration policy development.
Yes, which was the point of the article, restricting whom British people can love or not love and whether they can live or not live in the Uk with their partner.
When I first married we lived in the UK and she lived in the UK for 32 years. She wouldn't have been able to do that under the new rules and Brexit. We left in 2007 and have lived in France since. With absolutely zero intent of ever going back.
I'm not worried about myself, just giving my situation as an example. I'm speaking from a general perspective. It's a horrendous policy.
The problem was the Brexit vote which started this and has exactly the opposite effect of what was intended. But we knew that. But they wouldn't listen. The Uk are just hoping they are so far away at the edge of Europe and all the foreigners and refugees will go elsewhere. Not going to happen.
Exactly, bad as we are , Brexit or no Brexit, people are still wanting to come(*) to the UK... go figure!
(*Some risking their lives)
As I said, these measures are punitive and I suspect will get worse over time, (even with a Labour government), the migration Tsunami, has yet to occur, but its coming over the next two/three decades. In future even British nationals may well find returning is a problem and have to sign away their right to such a return, if they decided to emigrate.
The governments current punitive 'sand-bagging' policy making, will start to become a 'perimeter defence' policy making activity, and so on, right up to 'raising the drawbridge stage' actions and finally the 'man-the- barricades'.
Not an endearing thought, is it?
Because the UK is considerably better, safety wise, economically wise than the countries people are leaving. To be a complete deterrent the UK would have to become worse than the countries that the people are leaving. They're getting there.
What is misleading by the British media towards the Uk electorate is that they're told that they're all going to the UK whereas the majority are already going elsewhere. And that there isn't enough space or funding to support further immigration. It's complete and utter nonsense. It's because the infrastructure , building and labour force isn't there. The fault of governments and exasperated by Brexit.
They probably said the same when the population of Britain was 2 million.
A Brexit bonus, perhaps!!
I think it's more to do with the public's perceptions of mixing of asylum seekers with economic migrants.
The UK public is told that where people who are purporting to be seeking asylum are passing through perfectly safe countries, simply because they want to come to the UK, they are therefore in effect illegal entrants. If they are real asylum seekers, they should stay in the country in which they first arrive, then apply for movement further afield. When economic migrants purport to be asylum seekers, the water gets muddied, the rhetoric more diverse, the solutions further deferred and the political landscape ( in some cases dangerously) change.
The reality is that migration all over Europe is becoming a problem that won't go away and nobody really knows what to do about it, it's 'another can kicked into the long grass'.
Last edited:
This has been repeated over and over again. Still the British media and the government trot the lies out.
The UK do not allow for legal routes (other than to look good for propaganda-eg Ukraine or obliged to - Hong Kong). They can't apply to go to the UK because the UK have deliberately set it up to be so. They are not illegal immigrants.
The same thing is repeated over and over again. Do the British object to the 1.2 million people (gross figure - not the net figure of 745k) who have immigrated into the UK last year or the 40,000 (3%) who came as asylum/refugees of whom on average about 70% have a legal claim.
Where are these immigrants supposed to go, the first country nearest where they come from? Therefore Rwanda can't be acceptable because they were in the UK first, unless the Uk is classed as an unsafe country. It's not the first safe country that has to deal with the people - it's a fallacy and lie invented by the British government.
An asylum seeker is by definition is not an illegal immigrant
Just on this point - it is not a legal requirement. In fact, if it were, it would be a very, very bad rule to have, which is why international refugee law does not require it.
Very sick country.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...0882759182a9b9#block-65c10b178f0882759182a9b9
SNP condemns Sunak's £1,000 Rwanda bet as 'grotesque, callous and downright cruel'
Section 1.3 of the ministerial code is clear that:
f. Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests;
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...0882759182a9b9#block-65c10b178f0882759182a9b9
SNP condemns Sunak's £1,000 Rwanda bet as 'grotesque, callous and downright cruel'
Section 1.3 of the ministerial code is clear that:
f. Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests;