Parties, who are they and what exactly do they stand for?

We used to discuss politics all the time in school based on what tripe we heard on TV, but what some people really need is in layman terms to understand what each party exactly stands for and what it means to change if elected/gains majority?

I decided to educate myself whilst bored so next time I go to vote I'm giving it to the party which serves my interests

From what I can see

Tory: Your social standing is according to what your net worth, your recognised for your achievements, money is power, old school English traditionals eh, being enterprising pays, controlling immigration on a points system so stringently regulating who comes in and judging applications on merits rather than simply accepting every tom, dick and harry, picking and choosing what trade agreements are good for us?

Labour: Everyone should be equal? The many not the few, advocates free university, free this, free that, people with more worth pay more tax,

SNP: Independance for Scotland

Green Party: No idea

Lib Dem
: No idea
 
We used to discuss politics all the time in school based on what tripe we heard on TV, but what some people really need is in layman terms to understand what each party exactly stands for and what it means to change if elected/gains majority?

I decided to educate myself whilst bored so next time I go to vote I'm giving it to the party which serves my interests

From what I can see

Tory: Your social standing is according to what your net worth, your recognised for your achievements, money is power, old school English traditionals eh, being enterprising pays, controlling immigration on a points system so stringently regulating who comes in and judging applications on merits rather than simply accepting every tom, dick and harry, picking and choosing what trade agreements are good for us?

Labour: Everyone should be equal? The many not the few, advocates free university, free this, free that, people with more worth pay more tax,

SNP: Independance for Scotland

Green Party: No idea

Lib Dem: No idea
Tory immigration:
controlling immigration on a points system so stringently regulating who comes in and judging applications on merits

Either they don’t put that into practice or the Daily Mail and Farage are lieing.
The conservatives have been in government for 10 years, though half of that was in coalition.

Labour taxation:
people with more worth pay more tax
That’s common to all parties - income tax is on a percentage of income, so the more you have coming in the more you pay. Cross over a threshold and a higher percentage rage is applied to the extra

The parties have different underlying principles, but if in government they have to make decisions on what is going on.
Party principles can’t be read as black and white, you need to read the manifesto at the time of a general election (and don’t be swayed by the selective soundbites)
 
Big clue in the proper name of the Tories - Conservatives. Their policies are mostly conservative, with a small “c”. Not sure I agree with the money/social standing thing, you can be Conservative in outlook without being wealthy. In fact, QED at the last election. Some impoverished ex-mining communities voted Tory to keep the Labour Party out.

A simple way to think of their ideologies:

Conservative: small government, less state help, lower taxes.

Labour: Larger government, more state help, higher taxes.

Another way to think of it is that the Conservatives put people educated at Eton and Oxford up to run the government, while the Labour Party put people with such poor grasp of life skills that they literally can’t even put their shoes on properly up for the same jobs.

The others are an irrelevance, unless you live in Scotland.
 
You don't necessarily need to know what the parties stand for, it's all down to your newspaper choices;

The Times is read by the people who run the country.
The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country.
The Guardian is read by the people who think they ought to run the country.
The Morning Star is read by the people who think the country ought to be run by another country.
The Independent is read by people who don’t know who runs the country but are sure they’re doing it wrong.
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country.
The Financial Times is read by the people who own the country.
The Daily Express is read by the people who think the country ought to be run as it used to be run.
The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who still think it is their country.
And the Sun’s readers don’t care who runs the country providing she has big tits.

With apologies to 'Yes, Prime Minister'
 
Big clue in the proper name of the Tories - Conservatives. Their policies are mostly conservative, with a small “c”. Not sure I agree with the money/social standing thing, you can be Conservative in outlook without being wealthy. In fact, QED at the last election. Some impoverished ex-mining communities voted Tory to keep the Labour Party out.

A simple way to think of their ideologies:

Conservative: small government, less state help, lower taxes.

Labour: Larger government, more state help, higher taxes.

Another way to think of it is that the Conservatives put people educated at Eton and Oxford up to run the government, while the Labour Party put people with such poor grasp of life skills that they literally can’t even put their shoes on properly up for the same jobs.

The others are an irrelevance, unless you live in Scotland.
Let's look at things one way, I have a big problem with mass illegally immigration, not because I'm racist but because I don't like the idea of people fleeing from warzones coming here for handouts when France is a viable country to seek asylum in.

I like the idea for knowing who is coming here and for what purpose, fairly controlled and regulation, dishing out freebies to non-UK nationals is also a no-no.

I'd prefer if it these immigrants do wind up here illegally than simply leave them alone, deny them benefits etc once the pot has run dry and they are starving than basically you **** off where the grass is greener.

I know quite alot of hard working Europeans whom work their backsides off as well.

I also don't like the idea of donating so much money abroad in foreign aid and giving so much to the EU.

I want to see the UK establish itself strongly.
 

endure

GCM
Big clue in the proper name of the Tories - Conservatives. Their policies are mostly conservative, with a small “c”. Not sure I agree with the money/social standing thing, you can be Conservative in outlook without being wealthy. In fact, QED at the last election. Some impoverished ex-mining communities voted Tory to keep the Labour Party out.
My grandad (RIP) would vote for a balloon on a stick as long as it was red but he was actually a small c conservative without actually realising it.
 

endure

GCM
Let's look at things one way, I have a big problem with mass illegally immigration, not because I'm racist but because I don't like the idea of people fleeing from warzones coming here for handouts when France is a viable country to seek asylum in.

I like the idea for knowing who is coming here and for what purpose, fairly controlled and regulation, dishing out freebies to non-UK nationals is also a no-no.

I'd prefer if it these immigrants do wind up here illegally than simply leave them alone, deny them benefits etc once the pot has run dry and they are starving than basically you **** off where the grass is greener.
One of the problems is that asylum seekers in the UK are not allowed to work while their applications are being considered thus they have no option but to rely on the £37.35 a week and a room in a hostel in a town not of their choosing that we generously give them.

Allowing them to work while they wait would alleviate a lot of problems.
 
One of the problems is that asylum seekers in the UK are not allowed to work while their applications are being considered thus they have no option but to rely on the £37.35 a week and a room in a hostel in a town not of their choosing that we generously give them.

Allowing them to work while they wait would alleviate a lot of problems.
The solution would be simply to deny even that if they are here illegally.

Once Brexit has occurred I'm hoping Pretty Patel and Boris will actually enforce more stringent control without worrying about the woes of the ECJ and ECHR (do we need to worry about recipricol agreements???)
 

endure

GCM
The solution would be simply to deny even that if they are here illegally.

Once Brexit has occurred I'm hoping Pretty Patel and Boris will actually enforce more stringent control without worrying about the woes of the ECJ and ECHR (do we need to worry about recipricol agreements???)

Asylum seekers, by definition, are not here illegally until their claim for asylum has been decided...
 

endure

GCM
The solution would be simply to deny even that if they are here illegally.

Once Brexit has occurred I'm hoping Pretty Patel and Boris will actually enforce more stringent control without worrying about the woes of the ECJ and ECHR (do we need to worry about recipricol agreements???)

The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. It's a totally separate organisation which is part of the Council of Europe

Council of Europe:

The Council of Europe is a pan-European body that promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

It includes all EU members plus another 20 European countries, including Russia, Switzerland and the UK, with the likes of Canada and the US observer members.

This is not an EU institution, and should not be confused with either the European Council or the Council of the European Union.
 
Asylum seekers, by definition, are not here illegally until their claim for asylum has been decided...
Without wanting to drift the thread further it seems conversatives did adamently want to show they would do something to stem the tide of the influx on constant immigration, one of their key pointers they rave about
 

endure

GCM
Let's say Mr. X has transitted from FRANCE where obviously they could have claimed asylum... why should we not simply turn them around?

Because they're claiming asylum in the UK.
 

endure

GCM
So why not simply deny it on the basis they could have claimed in another EU country? Is that not a good enough reason? It's not like France is that crap to live in (for them)
These are the conditions you have to satisfy to claim asylum in the UK. How you got here is, legally, irrelevant.

Eligibility
To stay in the UK as a refugee you must be unable to live safely in any part of your own country because you fear persecution there.
If you’re stateless, your own country is the country you usually live in.
This persecution must be because of:
  • your race
  • your religion
  • your nationality
  • your political opinion
  • anything else that puts you at risk because of the social, cultural, religious or political situation in your country, for example, your gender, gender identity or sexual orientation
You must have failed to get protection from authorities in your own country.
Your claim might not be considered if you:
  • are from an EU country
  • have a connection with another country you can claim asylum in, for example if you’ve claimed asylum in an EU country before arriving in the UK
 
How you got here is, legally, irrelevant.
Not quite true

"The Dublin III Regulation (No. 604/2013) was approved in June 2013, replacing the Dublin II Regulation, and applies to all member states except Denmark. It came into force on 19 July 2013. It is based on the same principle as the previous two, i. e., that the first Member State where finger prints are stored or an asylum claim is lodged is responsible for a person's asylum claim.

In July 2017, the European Court of Justice upheld the Dublin Regulation, declaring that it still stands despite the high influx of 2015, giving EU member states the right to transfer migrants to the first country of entry to the EU."
 

XPara Mugg

War Hero
Not quite true

"The Dublin III Regulation (No. 604/2013) was approved in June 2013, replacing the Dublin II Regulation, and applies to all member states except Denmark. It came into force on 19 July 2013. It is based on the same principle as the previous two, i. e., that the first Member State where finger prints are stored or an asylum claim is lodged is responsible for a person's asylum claim.

In July 2017, the European Court of Justice upheld the Dublin Regulation, declaring that it still stands despite the high influx of 2015, giving EU member states the right to transfer migrants to the first country of entry to the EU."

All very true, until the end of the transition period when, "the right to transfer migrants to the first country of entry to the EU", expires. From that point UK has no mechanism for transferring such people to an EU country. Our rights of action, as allowed under the Dublin Regulations lapse as we are no longer an EU member state.

We've left the EU, so we get to keep them all.
 

Latest Threads

Top