From: Adrian on
"Man at B&Q" <manatbandq(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> The only people really against it are UK conservatives,

> Bollocks. Labour have had 13 years to do something about electoral
> reform. It's only when their back is against the wall that it becomes an
> issue.

*ding*
From: ChelseaTractorMan on
On Fri, 7 May 2010 05:05:53 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"
<manatbandq(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>> The only people really against it are UK conservatives,
>
>Bollocks. Labour have had 13 years to do something about electoral
>reform. It's only when their back is against the wall that it becomes
>an issue.

nope, labour would go along with it, the conservatives would not.
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: Adrian on
ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

>>> The only people really against it are UK conservatives,

>>Bollocks. Labour have had 13 years to do something about electoral
>>reform. It's only when their back is against the wall that it becomes an
>>issue.

> nope, labour would go along with it

Only because Gordon knows damn well that it's their only chance of not
having to move out...

You really think that if Labour had won a majority, they'd give the
slightest toss about it?
From: boltar2003 on
On 7 May 2010 11:37:53 GMT
Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> How about housing rents having gone up due to the shortage because of
>> the extra few million people?
>
>That's OK - the poor have them subsidised or paid entirely through
>benefits. They're not available to immigrants.

Oh well thats ok. As long as we reduce formerly working families down to
the poverty line and force them onto benefits thats good is it?

>> How about pay rates of some industries being forced down because some
>> immigrants can quite happily live on a low wage when sharing a caravan
>> with 5 others which a man with a family can't live on?
>
>That's OK - minimum wage still applies, and there's tax credits etc to
>top up for those whose incomes are inadequate. They're not available to
>immigrants.

Top ups won't cover you if you have a house you can sell to raise money or
other savings you hoped would see you through retirement but now you'll have
to raid to pay the rent/mortgage.

>> How about the extra strain on social services such as healthcare?
>
>The vast majority of migrants aren't entitled anyway.

Which vast majority would this be? EU ones? I've got news for you mate.

>Mmm. Because so many Brits who move abroad are fluent in the language of
>the country they choose to move to, aren't they?

A lot are. Yeah theres a load of bone idle ex-pats/cons on the costa brava
who expect england-on-sea but they're not exactly running into the millions.

>The fact is that "multi-culturalism" doesn't have the slightest bit of
>effect on you unless you want it to. Nobody else can tell you how to live
>your own life. It's merely a case of asking for that same respect to be
>extended to allow others to do likewise. Is that a problem for you?

My local enviroment is part of my life unless I was to never go out the house.
And yes, britain turning into a cut price united nations is a problem for me.
What is so wrong with wanting britain to remain british?

B2003

From: ChelseaTractorMan on
On 7 May 2010 12:01:51 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>> and now recognised as such
>
>By people with a rather unpleasant agenda.

nope, by many reasonable thinking people nowadays. Assimilation and
social integration are fast being seen as a better way of building a
society, especially in the face of home grown Islamic terrorism.
Netherlands for instance has officially reversed its multicultural
policy.

>> people need to become part of our society
>
>Society is people. You join it by living here. No more, no less.

Nope, society is more than people all in the same place. To be a
functioning society it needs things like a common language, some
shared values etc. Like Belgium doesn't seem to have.

>> not form ghettos.
>
>Even "white-brit-only" ones?

<sigh>

>> You realize you are proving the point I made about "racist" labeling
>> which you said was "bollocks".
>
>Where have I "labelled" anybody or anything? You seem to be the one
>trying to do so with "ghettos" and "join society".

You prove my point with everything you write.
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.