JayClay

Som nam na Pheu Thai

Saying "they're all the same" is lazy and a cop out. Net Zero is not being pushed against the will of the people. It has widespread support amongst the electorate. I don't know why you think mass immigration is a bad thing, anyway? We have a declining population and a worforce with too few members to meet our productivity needs. It sounds to me that you are sad that there's a not a party quite nasty enough to support your particular political views. Well tough luck, that's how democracy works. I suggest you vote tory because they are the nastiest party who can realistically form a government (well, not that realistically, but anyway...) I have the same problem. There's not a party progressive or compationate enough to support my views. So I will have to vote Labor in the next election as they are the ones who are closest to my position. If you want to be able to vote for a party nastier than the tories and have it make an actual difference, join a campaign for implementing Proportional Representation... That way both the left and the right can vote in any way they like, and have their vote make a genuine impact on the governnent or opposition which is subsequently formed.

I have no issue with the figures you quoted, so I don't understand the point of your rant. It's a lot of money and it doesn't need to be being spent, I agree. Although I don't believe you really understand what a "hotel" actually is, in this particular context. In your last paragraph you, however, have dismissed all the points I made in the post you quoted saying that I "believe its that easy". For the record, yes, I believe it's that easy. If you disagree then please lay out an equally logical argument for why the current position (not processing claims, letting the backlogs pile up, and therefore paying more money to house the pending claimants) is better than the proposal of processing the applications then deporting the failed ones and introducing the successful ones to a desperately understaffed national work force. I'm genuinely interested to hear a reasonable argument. (edit.... The bold text has nothing to do with me)

Please provide a link quoting a member of the opposition objecting to deporting failed asylum applications. If there are many, that should be an easy task.

I'm not trying to blame the tories. I'm just saying you would have been far better off picking an example of a Labour policy that the conservatives opposed, rather than one they supported. I understand reading comprehension isn't one of your strong points, but I'm really not sure how to be any clearer.

I was also against the war, as was the majority of the public. If I could see through the lies at the time, whilst having no access to the government, why wouldn't the tories be able to figure it out ????

It's not a good idea to choose like the one policy that was supported by the tories at the time to use as an example... ????????‍♂️

When I read the comment from @placeholder, I thought that he really should bolden or italicize "and" betwen "The UK economy has been been hurt by events outside of its contral" and "by the self-inflicted damage which is the result of Brexit". I thought I was just nit-picking, but it seems that people really do have poor enough reading comprehension to require it. Well done.

He'll be playing the Jeremy Corbyn card next ????. While Tories continue to torch the UK, all that their supporters can do is clutch on to errors made in the past. Never mind the current chancellor of the UK stating that prices should be going down in shops because inflation has fallen! The idea that Labour, or any other party could do worse than the current bunch is laughable. I don't know how people can say it with a straight face. They either have a financial interest in this lot staying in power (shares in BP or Themes water perhaps?) or.... well the alternative is pretty obvious.

Well I already prepared a statement for you in the post you quoted ????‍♂️ Incidentally, aren't you the same guy who failed to answer my question about naming some of the EU laws you wanted to see abolished?

Nope. It's the ignorance of people like you who don't understand three simple concepts: 1 - Failed applicants are deported 2 - Successful applicants can be put to work in one of the many industries that have been struggling to fill vacancies since brexit, thus boosting productivity and tax revenues than could be spent on funding the pension and homeless issues 3 - If you choose to not process claims, as the current government is doing, then the cost of housing the pending applicants will continue to increase. It's so simple, I'm always surprised that anybody ever falls for it. Lucky the amount of people in the UK that are getting taken in is statistically irrelevant these days. They seem to be overly represented on this forum, for some reason. It's fine to be angry. But please just do the most basic level of research, try applying just a tiny amount of critical thinking, and channel your anger at the correct people.

Typical Daily Mail... full of lies.

or... get shot?

Oh. That makes it okay then...

Algeria doesn't even feature in the top 5, by the way... (https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-uk)

Taken from https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-uks-asylum-backlog/ The dark blue bar indicates new arrivals in any given quarter. The light blue indicates the total amount outstanding. While there has been a small spike in new arrivals recently, mostly due to the issues in Hong Kong and Ukraine, it's clear to see that the reason we are spending so much money housing refugees is because the claims are not being processed! If you don't like the idea of paying 7 million per day to house pending applicants, vote in a government that will process the claims, deport the failed applicants, and put the successful applicants to work in one of the many industries that are currently desperately understaffed.

If you're spending $5000 on an intimate date whilst in the USA rather than waiting until you're next in Thailand, I have a funny feeling you'll end up spending way more than you think you will over here. I doubt you'll save money. You may (or may not...) have a more enjoyable time with the money you do spend, but just be careful you don't end up blowing the lot.

I stand corrected.

That would make it one 75-day report followed by a series of consecutive 90 day reports if you do it two weeks early every time. That's providing the next due date doesn't change when you report early, which I am relatively sure is the case. (Edit.... I was apparently wrong about this. Sorry!)

Why would he need to see a road number if he already knows what the road is called??

????????‍♂️ What if he doesn't know the name of the road number he's looking at? Presumably that's the whole reason he's zooming in; so he can read the road number!

Huh?? If they wanted to sell to both markets they would have had to apply for two sets of standards certification. Now they won't have to. The rest of your post I agree with 100%. But there's still a lot of pain to come with the rest of the implementation of Brexit. Dropping the UKIP certification requirement was a good step, but there's more pain to come which won't be u-turned on, unfortunately.

50 + 50 doesn't add up to 100?

No it has no impact on that. If companies want to sell into the EU they have to have the CE mark. So any company exporting to the EU will build their products to EU standards anyway. If companies want to sell in the UK they need the CE mark or the UKCA mark. Under the change companies wanting to sell to both markets would need both certifications. And that would have meant that companies in the EU would have to get the UKCA mark if they wanted to continue to sell to the UK, which would have lead to price increases by the manufacturers, and some companies no longer selling to the uk as it would not be financially viable. Now the change has been scrapped, neither UK businesses wanting to sell internally nor EU businesses wanting to sell to the UK need pay the extra costs for dual certification. So in summary, no changes to standards requirements as companies will always make products to the standards required to the markets they sell to. The climbdown just means that businesses won't have any additional costs and paperwork, and consumers won't have to worry about price increases and products becoming unavailable.

Again... The OP has never mentioned using the map while driving. As others have pointed out, just because you only use Google Maps for navigation, other people use it for other things.