UK British News Megathread - aka CWCissey's news thread

https://news.sky.com/story/row-over-new-greggs-vegan-sausage-rolls-heats-up-11597679 (https://archive.ph/5Ba6o)

A heated row has broken out over a move by Britain's largest bakery chain to launch a vegan sausage roll.

The pastry, which is filled with a meat substitute and encased in 96 pastry layers, is available in 950 Greggs stores across the country.

It was promised after 20,000 people signed a petition calling for the snack to be launched to accommodate plant-based diet eaters.


But the vegan sausage roll's launch has been greeted by a mixed reaction: Some consumers welcomed it, while others voiced their objections.

View image on Twitter


spread happiness@p4leandp1nk
https://twitter.com/p4leandp1nk/status/1080767496569974785

#VEGANsausageroll thanks Greggs

7
10:07 AM - Jan 3, 2019
See spread happiness's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy


Cook and food poverty campaigner Jack Monroe declared she was "frantically googling to see what time my nearest opens tomorrow morning because I will be outside".

While TV writer Brydie Lee-Kennedy called herself "very pro the Greggs vegan sausage roll because anything that wrenches veganism back from the 'clean eating' wellness folk is a good thing".

One Twitter user wrote that finding vegan sausage rolls missing from a store in Corby had "ruined my morning".

Another said: "My son is allergic to dairy products which means I can't really go to Greggs when he's with me. Now I can. Thank you vegans."

View image on Twitter


pg often@pgofton
https://twitter.com/pgofton/status/1080772793774624768

The hype got me like #Greggs #Veganuary

42
10:28 AM - Jan 3, 2019
See pg often's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy


TV presenter Piers Morgan led the charge of those outraged by the new roll.

"Nobody was waiting for a vegan bloody sausage, you PC-ravaged clowns," he wrote on Twitter.

Mr Morgan later complained at receiving "howling abuse from vegans", adding: "I get it, you're all hangry. I would be too if I only ate plants and gruel."

Another Twitter user said: "I really struggle to believe that 20,000 vegans are that desperate to eat in a Greggs."

"You don't paint a mustach (sic) on the Mona Lisa and you don't mess with the perfect sausage roll," one quipped.

Journalist Nooruddean Choudry suggested Greggs introduce a halal steak bake to "crank the fume levels right up to 11".

The bakery chain told concerned customers that "change is good" and that there would "always be a classic sausage roll".

It comes on the same day McDonald's launched its first vegetarian "Happy Meal", designed for children.

The new dish comes with a "veggie wrap", instead of the usual chicken or beef option.

It should be noted that Piers Morgan and Greggs share the same PR firm, so I'm thinking this is some serious faux outrage and South Park KKK gambiting here.

 

[AssignedEva]

You know, I was making a post in another thread but I figured this would be the better place for it. It's about pensions and the dependency ratio.
This is based on UK ONS statistics. The data set I'm using runs out in 2022 so I can't show anything more up to date.

Year	Working Age	65+	Ratio
1972	33,545,315	7,843,806	4.3
1982	35,059,128	8,564,671	4.1
1992	35,776,156	9,176,519	3.9
2002	37,234,089	9,381,976	4.0
2012	39,731,758	10,812,561	3.7
2022	41,307,896	12,546,659	3.3

Working age population is classed as 16-64, although the retirement age is no longer 65. The ratio shows you how many working age people there are to pension age people there are. That number is getting lower and is going to keep getting lower - the burden of paying in to support pensioners is spread between fewer and fewer people. The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that in 2070, there'll be 5 million extra pensioners but only 1 million extra workers, which spits out a dependency ratio of 2.4 workers per pensioner.

This is a massive oversimplification, of course. There's other factors to consider like economic inactivity rate and unemployment rate of the working age population, plus not everyone of pension age has retired so they may still be paying in while drawing a pension (although pensioners don't pay national insurance). So factoring that in, plus the different retirement ages of men and women and recent changes:

Year	Working Age	%Inactive	%Unemployed	Workers	Pension age	Ratio
1972	31,971,920	24.9	4.3	22,636,119	8,769,449	2.6
1982	33,263,996	25.9	10.6	21,122,637	9,633,684	2.2
1992	34,506,734	23.5	10.1	22,912,471	10,080,854	2.3
2002	35,883,566	23.3	5.2	25,656,750	10,376,927	2.5
2012	40,566,588	22.7	7.8	28,193,779	9,736,979	2.9
2022	43,324,184	21.8	3.8	32,233,193	10,360,475	3.1

So the government futzing around with retirement age does appear to have actually helped to improve the dependency ratio. If they'd left pension ages at pre-2010 levels (60 for women, 65 for men) then there would have been 4 million more pensioners and the dependency ratio would have been 2.0 (two workers to every pensioner). If you plug the DWP figures into my crappy model and assume the proportion of economically inactive and unemployed people remains the same as today (a gamble, given AI and increasing rates of ill health in the working age), that's a dependency ratio of 1.8 workers per pensioner - and they've baked in the assumption that state pension age will increase to 68 by the 2040s;


But it's not just about the ratio, it's also about what taxable revenue you get. Wages have stagnated so there's less of a tax base and the economy basically hasn't grown since 2008. Which is why part of why state pension spending has gone from less than 4% of GDP to over 7% in the last 50 years, aided by pension increases (pension spending has increased by £50 billion since 2022). And that also comes with associated cost increases around health and social care as older people need more medical treatment and carers, which is why healthcare spending has also gone from under 4% to over 9% of GDP in the same period.

If you look behind the curtain like this, you start to understand why Governments have been acting how they do - they've got less money in the pot so they can't easily spend to grow the economy, and even cutting public services hasn't helped (and may have slowed economic growth). It's completely politically untenable to interfere with pensions; means testing the Winter Fuel Allowance and fiddling with inheritance tax on farmers have been unpopular because it's betraying the social contract for people who've paid in all their lives. Taking steps to increase salaries (and so get more of that GDP into our pockets) could be an improvement; a larger tax base to cover these costs - but big business doesn't like that since it hurts their profits, and we know they're always in the pocket of big business.

So the only lever they seem to think of pulling is immigration. More people in the country means more money changing hands. It doesn't actually move the dial on GDP per capita, though:

We've never got back to the same inflation adjusted GDP per capita as we had before 2008. Even if it had remained static, if GDP grows without GDP per capita growing, there's more money in the economy but the same amount in your pocket, which means the money in your pocket is worth less than it was. So it actively makes us, the taxpayer, poorer. But they don't know what else to do because they need to find a way to cover the increasing state expenditure obligations. And I think this does go part of the way to explaining why we saw the Boriswave, still see ludicrously high immigration and why successive governments seem to be running cover for the huge cultural issues they're causing.

Problem is, what do we actually do about it? I don't think there's any easy answer.

 

[Broadside]

Rapey migrants at it again. It was reported a while back that the migrants were placed near a school and would you believe it they are now targeting the children.

View attachment 6902495

View attachment 6902497

They really fucking said "ok but maybe the children were wearing clothes that ask for it?"

Let's hope this is an early redpill to all those teen girls who would otherwise grow up and let their heads be filled with liberal nonsense

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

Don’t worry Sadiq! I think he will be different from last time. He’s much more prepared

I do hope so. Signs are good thus far and the one thing most likely to make our idiots change their minds is America making them.

 

[Otterly]

I do hope so. Signs are good thus far and the one thing most likely to make our idiots change their minds is America making them.

I would love trump and whatever Rottweiler he has installed as outreach to our fair isle to simply turn up and vindictively bitch slap the entire administration into shape. I’d pay to see it.
Remember Khan’s trump baby blimp? Such disrespect - I cannot think of any other world leader getting even a hint of such treatment in the UK. Ffs we host genuine dictators and give them fancy dinners.

 

[BrightonAndHoveAlbion]

Problem is, what do we actually do about it? I don't think there's any easy answer.

I would raise wages first thing. So many unproductive jobs in this country which don't add any value to anyone, those would disappear if you increased minimum wage to something reasonable like say, £16 an hour. It would send unemployment up and inflation but frankly there isn't any other solution long term in a country which is mostly a service based economy. We are almost at the point where jobs exist for the sake of it.

The UK has shockingly low wages for jobs across all sectors, I could have earned near enough double what my earning potential was in the UK by moving to the US, western EU or Australia. People are obsessed with the idea that earning £30K should be seen as a normal salary which nets you about £2000 after tax a month which is simply not enough. This should be considered the absolute minimum. Business can't afford it ? Then you've got a shit business just wasting resources.

I think there is no answer which doesn't result in immediate and severe short term pain. But in my opinion everything starts at raising wages to a decent level.

 

[Otterly]

I think there is no answer which doesn't result in immediate and severe short term pain.

The wrong people will be experiencing it,
We need to raise wages. We need to immediately stop spending millions a day putting foreign fighting age criminals up n hotels. We need to escort every single one of them over the border. We need to enforce the laws and order wrt criminality - actual criminality not opinions.
Then medium term we need to start making stuff again. We can’t compete maybe with the lower end but we can and should be a pharma powerhouse, and an R and D centre. We have multiple universities who are excellent technically and we need incubator centres to link up the people inventing stuff with the people who can bring it to market. We need to build more nuclear, and open some of the mothballed pits.

 

[BrightonAndHoveAlbion]

We need to escort every single one of them over the border.

Once upon a time I worked as a delivery driver in a really rough area, full of massive 60+ flat tower blocks. The names on the parcels were always Mohammed this Mohammed that. I just had a moment one day where I thought, these flats were built in the 50s/60s for white working class people whose homes had been destroyed or cleared. Now, foreigners get housed in them for free or very cheap while natives are forced to pay extortionate rents. This was my 'wake up' more than anything else.

So many social problems in the UK have this invasion at their root. The whole area was unsafe, I got paid a premium because I didn't care and everyone else refused to deliver in that area. I'm not saying native Brits don't commit crimes, however it is simply not on the scale of these filth.

 

[AssignedEva]

I would raise wages first thing. So many unproductive jobs in this country which don't add any value to anyone, those would disappear if you increased minimum wage to something reasonable like say, £16 an hour. It would send unemployment up and inflation but frankly there isn't any other solution long term in a country which is mostly a service based economy. We are almost at the point where jobs exist for the sake of it.

The UK has shockingly low wages for jobs across all sectors, I could have earned near enough double what my earning potential was in the UK by moving to the US, western EU or Australia. People are obsessed with the idea that earning £30K should be seen as a normal salary which nets you about £2000 after tax a month which is simply not enough. This should be considered the absolute minimum. Business can't afford it ? Then you've got a shit business just wasting resources.

I think there is no answer which doesn't result in immediate and severe short term pain. But in my opinion everything starts at raising wages to a decent level.

I suppose the question's more "what can we realistically expect the Government to do about this". Any party that attempted to brute force correct the last decade and a half of wage stagnation would be completely pilloried in the press - labelled as socialists intent on crashing the economy. Because they would literally be indistinguishable from socialists for doing this, and they would indeed crash the economy (although I do agree with your assessment that it needs to happen to address all the zombie companies we've got). The fallout would likely be mass redundancies, various industries that are on a knife edge margin (like pubs) shuttering, a giant recession and quite possibly the collapse of several pension funds as their investments fall apart.

So in other words no party is going to get close to suggesting it, because the client media will ensure they're made out to be public enemy number one and so they'd not get elected - and if they did try anyway after leaving it out of their manifesto, it'd probably get derailed by the Lords... and big business wouldn't let it happen. The markets would get spooked, and increasingly the Government has to do whatever the markets want, because otherwise the markets won't lend to the Government. The only way it could maybe happen is crossbench support akin to the Post War Consensus, but political parties now more than ever seem primarily focused on winning seats and holding onto power than they do about actually governing the country they live in - middle management asset strippers, basically. They've got no motivation to work together on this sort of thing when they could just use opposing it as a political point scoring tactic in the hopes of "winning" amidst the ashes.

 

[Karen of Human Resources]

I would raise wages first thing. So many unproductive jobs in this country which don't add any value to anyone, those would disappear if you increased minimum wage to something reasonable like say, £16 an hour. It would send unemployment up and inflation but frankly there isn't any other solution long term in a country which is mostly a service based economy. We are almost at the point where jobs exist for the sake of it.

The UK has shockingly low wages for jobs across all sectors, I could have earned near enough double what my earning potential was in the UK by moving to the US, western EU or Australia. People are obsessed with the idea that earning £30K should be seen as a normal salary which nets you about £2000 after tax a month which is simply not enough. This should be considered the absolute minimum. Business can't afford it ? Then you've got a shit business just wasting resources.

I think there is no answer which doesn't result in immediate and severe short term pain. But in my opinion everything starts at raising wages to a decent level.

You have two very realistic problems with this, with a further subset within

1: Capacity

There are some services that can only be rendered within the UK. Hairdressing, Construction etc. The moment you mandate a new wage, you place a new pressure on a buisness. Now I know we like to all complain about Bezos, but Britian was (until relatively recently) and in many parts still is a nation of shopkeepers. Many owners don't turn massive profits and don't live in luxury villas. They actually don't earn that much more than their employees not infrequently with a lot of extra responsibility.

They've got two options to make ends meet.

The first, is the most obvious. Cut staff. Demand more for less.

The second is far worse for all of us, "Can I do this job somewhere cheaper?". There comes a point where patriotism or comfort gives way to pragmatism, and as we've seen with the national insurance hike we've lot huge numbers of employers and millionaire tax payers to the likes of Ireland, the United Arab Emirates etc

You increase the wages outside of natural supply and demand, and you prompt employers to consider if they're better off making their shitty product in Riyadh rather than Cardiff.

2: Demand

Pay is a race to the bottom.

It isn't always. Some employers will consider ability, reliability and quality but pay is always on their radar. Without good cause, most HR and line managers will choose a cheaper candidate over a more skilled one and this is true of both the public and private sector. It's why pay points in schools or government don't work either, it comes a point for a book keeper where experience becomes too expensive and you'll go for cheaper fresh meat.

In a less open economy, this demand can be moderated. With a limited labour supply, employers can be motivated to get into a price war with each othe. Admittedly sometimes it does just motivate them to form pacts not to hire each others employees, but there are laws against this.

The UK is now less of a country than a United Nations with a larger land area. If you don't want to wait tables on a zero hour contract, someone else will. Employees at all levels here are not only fighting with their peers for a shrinking number of jobs, but also with illegal migrants and legal workers from abroad willing to take less pay in return for a sponsorship.

This won't be fixed in any of our lifetimes, the balance will take decades (if even that) to settle. Pay will never increase sufficiently, because there's almost always at least 300 other people willing to do your job for the same, or potentially even less, pay.

Minimum wages only work in closed social democracies. The UK is a come-one-come-all society, and financial regulation like that cannot work (as poorly as it does when functional) in fully open societies.

What would need to happen is for the work force to shrink, and for technology not to be able to fill the gap. The population is set to rise further, technology continues to render workers superfluous in addition to employers fleeing the current tax regime who likely will never return.

The damage is done, and may take centuries to heal. But there's no appetite to stop doing the things that make the situation worse either.

There is no short or long term fix. There is long term agony ahead to be endured in the hope that some day things may morph into some new equilibrium if, and only if, we stop doing stupid shit.

 

[Help I'm A BritFag]

Don’t worry Sadiq! I think he will be different from last time. He’s much more prepared

I love how none of the solutions are ‘find the men attempting to abduct children and remove them with extreme prejudice’ and how ALL the measures are the responsibility of the children. We bleat about victim blaming, but here it is writ large. It’s the kids fault, for wearing school blazers and walking to school, clearly.
It was altrincham where the migrants were offered private healthcare as well. Clearly being protected, at the expense of innocent children

Only a matter of time before they start insisting on girls wearing burkhas over their school uniform "so as not to offend our new arrivals".

 

[Tony Martin's Force Ghost]

The problem is the UK's issues have all become an entwined mess. You simply can't fix one because it will pull and strain the other. The same applies to our services too like the DWP, and HMRC etc they all prop each other and when one falls, the rest will follow in quick succession. Deportation is one of the easier currently but the police and border patrol are so corrupt that it will not be done to maximum results. I feel this is what Labour wanted in the first place because a lot of these problems stem from them. The thing that pisses me off too is how they sneak these migrants into small towns because I have seen so many pop up. The exception though was the Ukrainian refugees. The family came to our church and said thank you for the hospitality and over the last year their English has improved greatly but you can sense their gratitude.

 

[teriyakiburns]

Any party that attempted to brute force correct the last decade and a half of wage stagnation would be completely pilloried in the press - labelled as socialists intent on crashing the economy.

The single reason why wages are so suppressed is because there is a huge surplus population. Workers who demand good wages are easily replaced by workers who will accept a pittance. This should be where unions come in, but they were long ago subverted to waste all their time agitating about political causes abroad and advocating for endless immigration on behalf of their corporate and political masters, while inducing shiftless and venal attitudes in their members at home. Beneath it all is the peculiarly English belief that raising a fuss about money is somehow rude, unless you're in a big crowd and chanting about a revolution you know will never come.

Given wages are suppressed by this excess population, any party that wanted to force wages to increase would get the best results through population reduction.

 

[EddyRooney]

The problem is the UK's issues have all become an entwined mess. You simply can't fix one because it will pull and strain the other. The same applies to our services too like the DWP, and HMRC etc they all prop each other and when one falls, the rest will follow in quick succession. Deportation is one of the easier currently but the police and border patrol are so corrupt that it will not be done to maximum results. I feel this is what Labour wanted in the first place because a lot of these problems stem from them. The thing that pisses me off too is how they sneak these migrants into small towns because I have seen so many pop up. The exception though was the Ukrainian refugees. The family came to our church and said thank you for the hospitality and over the last year their English has improved greatly but you can sense their gratitude.

You say the exception was the Ukrainian refugees. Could that be because they were genuine refugees - i.e. escaping a war zone. I'm convinced in my own cynical mind that at least 80% of the people claiming asylum here aren't genuine refugees, they're economic migrants gaming the system. People that are economic migrants aren't going to be grateful, they're just going to want as many handouts as they can get. The problem is traitors such as Piggy Four Eyes Starmer have created this situation by elevating the economic migrants' rights above those of the indigenous popultaion.

Given wages are suppressed by this excess population, any party that wanted to force wages to increase would get the best results through population reduction.

A sure sign that we're overpopulated is the fact that there is a supposed requirement for minimum wage legislation. If you have a country that is well run, there should be no need, the market should set the wage for every job. It's just an inflationary placebo for economically illiterate people who naively think the state cares.

 

[BrightonAndHoveAlbion]

A sure sign that we're overpopulated is the fact that there is a supposed requirement for minimum wage legislation. If you have a country that is well run, there should be no need, the market should set the wage for every job. It's just an inflationary placebo for economically illiterate people who naively think the state cares.

Good point in fairness. That's what I meant by shit businesses in a sense - so much waste on unproductive ventures. Root cause being too many people.

 

[Otterly]

Pay will never increase sufficiently, because there's almost always at least 300 other people willing to do your job for the same, or potentially even less, pay.

Then deport the illegals.
Pay can rise fast if there’s fewer people. During Covid, we had a lot of the women who do similar jobs to mine, in the USA, jobs in this rough field, simply quit. It’s a demanding job, and they’re usually fairly smart and capable. Which means they tend to be married to men who earn ok. What I saw happen during Covid was that it was either:
1. the women quitting because the kids had been sent home from school. They couldn’t do the job and hime school kids so they quit, and realised they could manage in one wage
Or
2. Healthcare sector, as above, or forced out due to not taking the food shots.
Net result? In the states, and to a lesser but still significant degree here, wages almost doubled. I was getting ten plus serious job approaches a week at one point. It was insane.

It’s supply and demand. We’ve got a billion third worlders willing to live twenty to a shed and employers love that. We get rid of the excess at that end and the low end of the market stabilises. Wages for the worst paid go up. Things flow up, as well as down. When you can earn a decent albeit modest wage doing Macdonalds, there’s pressure on wages just above that. And up, and up.
Nothing will get better while there’s an imported serf underclass, who depress wages and leech benefits. They have to go. The hotels are full of them which is killing tourism. They’re a drain on all services from sewerage to the nhs. We have to get rid of them.

 

[AssignedEva]

If you have a country that is well run, there should be no need, the market should set the wage for every job.

The UK only got a national minimum wage in 1999, but before that there were things called "Wage Councils", which set the minimum wage in specific industries through discussions with employers, employees and unions. Employers that didn't cough up could be fined by a magistrate's court and forced to pay arrears to all impacted workers.
That goes back to Churchill bringing in their precursor, the "Trade Boards", which targeted "sweated industries" that got away with paying a pittance like lacemaking or mining. To quote his parliamentary speech in 1909 -

It is a serious national evil that any class of His Majesty's subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions. It was formerly supposed that the working of the laws of supply and demand would naturally regulate or eliminate that evil. The first clear division which we make on the question to-day is between healthy and unhealthy conditions of bargaining. That is the first broad division which we make in the general statement that the laws of supply and demand will ultimately produce a fair price. Where in the great staple trades in the country you have a powerful organisation on both sides, where you have responsible leaders able to bind their constituents to their decision, where that organisation is conjoint with an automatic scale of wages or arrangements for avoiding a deadlock by means of arbitration, there you have a healthy bargaining which increases the competitive power of the industry, enforces a progressive standard of life and the productive scale, and continually weaves capital and labour more closely together. But where you have what we call sweated trades, you have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst; the worker, whose whole livelihood depends upon the industry, is undersold by the worker who only takes the trade up as a second string, his feebleness and ignorance generally renders the worker an easy prey to the tyranny; of the masters and middle-men, only a step higher up the ladder than the worker, and held in the same relentless grip of forces—where those conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress, but a condition of progressive degeneration.

The rationale was always that workers need support in order to effectively engage in collective bargaining, as otherwise employers will conspire with each other to suppress wages across an entire field in order to maximise profits. Thatcher undermined the unions and Major completely abolished Wage Councils in 1993, which is why New Labour deliberately brought in the National Minimum Wage. They'd run with it on their manifesto in 1992 but it had been seen as a bad thing - that story changed after the Wage Councils went away.

A well run country that lets the free market exclusively decide salary will often trend towards poverty wages. Unless you think people earning round about a pound a week while the CEOs have champagne jacuzzies is a desirable situation, you should support measures that protect British workers. The market having such a say is why we've seen wage stagnation for the last 15 years and wage compression where only the lowest earners have seen meaningful pay rises, and the market's influence is one of the main reasons immigration is so high and we now have ethnic enclaves forming that engage in targeted mass rape of our little girls. "The market" does not care if it destroys the country as long as line go up. Unhindered, the CEOs will very happily plunge everyone into extreme poverty while filling their pockets, and when the country is so awful that their gated communities are no longer tenable - because they're surrounded by violent crime filled dystopian slums that would make a Gilded Age Robber Baron blush - they'll depart for somewhere nicer, because they are rootless globalists as at home in Dubai or Singapore.

What doesn't help is the influx of immigrants which - as I must repeatedly stress - is the result of letting the market have a say. They'll always want unskilled immigrants who will accept being peons in slums. I was on the tube earlier and I noticed that almost all of the TfL staff they have helping people with directions or advising with station closures have thick Indian accents, and have clearly arrived here recently. Why the hell do we need to import people for that job? It requires no special skills, and you'd benefit from being from the area so you've got more of a working knowledge of the transport network. The answer is the market wanted more unskilled immigrants, and once they're here, they'll just filter into whatever jobs they find going (even if it's not directly benefitting those globalists - they just want a cheap labour pool).

 

[Karen of Human Resources]

Then deport the illegals.
Pay can rise fast if there’s fewer people. During Covid, we had a lot of the women who do similar jobs to mine, in the USA, jobs in this rough field, simply quit. It’s a demanding job, and they’re usually fairly smart and capable. Which means they tend to be married to men who earn ok. What I saw happen during Covid was that it was either:
1. the women quitting because the kids had been sent home from school. They couldn’t do the job and hime school kids so they quit, and realised they could manage in one wage
Or
2. Healthcare sector, as above, or forced out due to not taking the food shots.
Net result? In the states, and to a lesser but still significant degree here, wages almost doubled. I was getting ten plus serious job approaches a week at one point. It was insane.

It’s supply and demand. We’ve got a billion third worlders willing to live twenty to a shed and employers love that. We get rid of the excess at that end and the low end of the market stabilises. Wages for the worst paid go up. Things flow up, as well as down. When you can earn a decent albeit modest wage doing Macdonalds, there’s pressure on wages just above that. And up, and up.
Nothing will get better while there’s an imported serf underclass, who depress wages and leech benefits. They have to go. The hotels are full of them which is killing tourism. They’re a drain on all services from sewerage to the nhs. We have to get rid of them.

I wholeheartedly agree.

There are factors that do muck my theory a bit to varying degrees. In your sector, refusing the jabs led to pay rises but I know refusing the covid jabs in adult care in the UK had no impact on pay. For every Brit that refused the job, there were hundreds of migrants willing to step in.

I have been thrilled to hear today that Trump has managed to negotiate repatriation of 18,000 illegal Indian migrants in return for not having punative tarrifs placed, which considering he can place the tarrifs any time they stop accepting them seems to be a green light for deportations.

Unfortunately, most Brits are just too wet to do this. We still have the economic clout to do this, even if we had to resort to pulling foreign aid rather than simply ordering them to follow existing guidelines on repatriation, but Labour won't.

We have drank far more deeply of the cup of Multiculturalism than any other for far longer, and it really shows.

 

[Otterly]

Unfortunately, most Brits are just too wet to do this.

Wait u til America has been doing it for a year and the chorus of ‘why can’t we do that..?’ Gets loud

 

[FedPostalService]

Wait u til America has been doing it for a year and the chorus of ‘why can’t we do that..?’ Gets loud

Agreed, American is going from a she/they nation and growing their balls back. They’re going to jettison all the gay shit and get wealthier and safer. There will become a point when even the Germans and French will ask “why aren’t we doing this?”

Expect four years of demoralisation and diversity is strength from the media. All you can do in the mean time is tell any friends who vote Labour no matter what to stop being paedophile loving faggots.

 

[teriyakiburns]

Wait u til America has been doing it for a year and the chorus of ‘why can’t we do that..?’ Gets loud

Unless we're nudged into loudly proclaiming how terrible it is out of a fear of social ostracism.