Comments by "TruthWarrior" (@Truth-warrior-j3e) on "Nigel Farage DEBUNKS Labours BIGGEST Lie In SCATHING TAKEDOWN Speech!" video.
-
5
-
4
-
@melvinplant8637 Oxo cubes typically cost around £1 to £2 for a pack of 12 cubes in the UK, depending on the store and any ongoing promotions. Prices can vary slightly depending on the type of stock (beef, chicken, vegetable) and where you purchase them.
If you assume the lowest price, £1 then making a nutritious meal for £1 can be challenging, but it’s definitely possible by focusing on simple ingredients. Here’s a basic recipe for a hearty, budget-friendly lentil and vegetable soup that costs around £1 per serving.
Ingredients (serves 2–3):
• Red lentils (100g) - £0.25
• Carrot (1 medium) - £0.10
• Onion (1 medium) - £0.10
• Garlic (1 clove) - £0.05
• Vegetable stock cube (Oxo or similar) - £0.10
• Canned tomatoes (400g) - £0.30
• Salt, pepper, and any spices you have on hand (e.g., paprika, cumin) - £0.05
Total Cost: £0.95 for 2–3 servings (roughly £0.32–0.48 per serving).
Instructions:
1. Prep the vegetables: Peel and chop the carrot and onion, and mince the garlic.
2. Sauté the base: In a pot, add a little oil or water, then sauté the onion and garlic until softened.
3. Add the carrot and lentils: Add the chopped carrot and lentils, and stir everything together for a minute.
4. Add stock and tomatoes: Dissolve the stock cube in 500ml of boiling water, then pour it into the pot along with the canned tomatoes.
5. Simmer: Bring everything to a boil, reduce the heat, and let it simmer for 20–25 minutes until the lentils are tender.
6. Season: Add salt, pepper, and any spices you like for extra flavor.
7. Serve: Enjoy as a warm, filling meal.
You can add a slice of budget bread to make it a more complete meal. This soup is nutritious, filling, and stays within the £1 budget easily!
For a £2 meal, you can expand your ingredients and create a more substantial dish. Here’s a recipe for a vegetable and chickpea curry that can serve 2–3 people for around £2.
Ingredients (serves 2–3):
• Chickpeas (400g canned) - £0.50
• Potato (1 medium) - £0.15
• Carrot (1 medium) - £0.10
• Onion (1 medium) - £0.10
• Garlic (1 clove) - £0.05
• Canned tomatoes (400g) - £0.30
• Curry powder (1 tbsp) - £0.10
• Vegetable stock cube - £0.10
• Rice (150g dry) - £0.40
• Salt, pepper, and optional chili flakes - £0.05
Total Cost: £1.85 for 2–3 servings (roughly £0.62–0.92 per serving).
Instructions:
1. Prep the vegetables: Peel and chop the potato, carrot, and onion. Mince the garlic.
2. Cook the base: In a pan, sauté the onion and garlic in a little oil or water until softened.
3. Add spices: Stir in the curry powder and let it cook for a minute to release its flavor.
4. Add vegetables and chickpeas: Add the chopped potato, carrot, and drained chickpeas to the pan.
5. Add tomatoes and stock: Pour in the canned tomatoes and 200ml of water, dissolving the stock cube in it. Stir well.
6. Simmer: Let the curry simmer for about 20 minutes until the vegetables are tender.
7. Cook the rice: While the curry is simmering, cook the rice according to the package instructions.
8. Season and serve: Once the curry is done, season with salt, pepper, and chili flakes if you like it spicy. Serve the curry over the rice.
This dish is filling, nutritious, and flavorful, with plenty of protein from the chickpeas and a good balance of vegetables. It’s a perfect budget-friendly meal for £2 or less!
4
-
3
-
3
-
@jasoncdebussy well you can of course do that, but then you have to agree to all these consequences:
Cutting aid to all foreign countries by the UK could lead to several problems, both domestically and internationally:
1. Global Instability
• Humanitarian crises: Many developing nations rely on foreign aid to provide basic services such as healthcare, education, and food. Cutting aid could worsen humanitarian crises, leading to famine, disease outbreaks, and extreme poverty.
• Increased migration: Lack of support in impoverished regions can lead to mass migration, as people seek refuge in more stable countries, including the UK.
• Geopolitical instability: Reducing aid can destabilize regions where the UK has strategic interests, potentially increasing conflict and security threats.
2. Diminished Global Influence
• Loss of soft power: Aid is a crucial tool for exerting influence on the global stage. Cutting it would reduce the UK’s ability to shape international policies, resolve conflicts diplomatically, and build alliances.
• Reduced diplomatic leverage: Aid can help build partnerships, strengthen trade relationships, and foster cooperation in key global issues such as climate change, terrorism, and global security.
3. Economic Consequences
• Impact on UK businesses: Foreign aid often comes with trade agreements that benefit UK companies, creating jobs and boosting the economy. Cutting aid could reduce export opportunities and harm sectors that depend on international trade.
• Loss of investment in long-term growth: Aid is often directed towards building infrastructure, education, and economic growth in developing countries, which in turn helps create future markets for UK goods and services. Withdrawing aid risks slowing this process.
4. National Security Risks
• Terrorism and radicalization: Lack of development aid can leave power vacuums in fragile states, allowing extremist groups to gain influence and recruit members. This could increase the risk of terrorism, some of which could have repercussions for the UK.
• Instability in Commonwealth nations: Several countries in the Commonwealth depend on UK aid for development. Instability in these nations could pose direct risks to the UK’s security and international standing.
5. Reputation Damage
• Loss of international goodwill: The UK has been seen as a leader in providing foreign aid, and cutting it would damage its reputation as a global humanitarian actor. This could reduce trust in UK leadership on global issues.
• International criticism: The UK could face backlash from global organizations like the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, affecting its international standing.
6. Moral and Ethical Concerns
• Failure to meet global commitments: Cutting aid could mean the UK fails to meet international commitments, such as the United Nations’ target of spending 0.7% of gross national income on foreign aid, which could diminish its moral authority.
• Ethical responsibility: Some argue that wealthier countries have a responsibility to help poorer nations combat issues like poverty, inequality, and climate change. Abandoning foreign aid could be seen as neglecting this duty.
These challenges suggest that foreign aid serves not only as a humanitarian tool but also as a strategic asset for the UK, with wide-reaching implications if it were cut entirely.
Of course you can cut all aid to all countries. But anyone who does that needs a lot of good luck!
2
-
2
-
You are right in that the UK’s national debt reached 100% of its GDP in August 2024, marking the first time since the 1960s that this level has been reached. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) provisionally estimated that public sector net debt (excluding public sector banks) had risen to this level, driven by factors such as increased public spending, benefits, and public sector wages, which outpaced government revenue from taxes  .
This rise in debt, while significant, reflects broader economic challenges, including higher borrowing costs and pressures on public services. If the Bank of England’s debt is excluded, the figure stands at 92% of GDP . Managing this debt will be a central issue in the upcoming budget, as the government looks to balance fiscal responsibility with public service demands .
2
-
Well it’s your opinion and you are welcome to it. Maybe you are right. It is however a complex issue: • Private Ownership: Consumers may face higher prices due to profit margins, but might benefit from greater efficiency.
• Public Ownership: Consumers might enjoy lower prices, but the service could suffer from underinvestment or inefficiencies.
• Foreign Ownership: Pricing and service quality can vary. Consumers might worry about foreign influence, but they could also benefit from better infrastructure or services, depending on the investment strategy of the foreign owner.
Ultimately, the success of any model depends on factors like regulatory oversight, competition, and the specific context of the utility in question. Strong regulation can mitigate some disadvantages, such as monopolistic practices in private or foreign ownership, while weak regulation can amplify them. It’s all a matter of opinion, and how old you are to remember!
2
-
@PLeon-kd1yd well, whether train drivers are overpaid or not is a matter of your opinion for which you and I have a right to hold. However, lazy is a very misleading and unfair accusation simply based on the facts: Train drivers are not lazy. Their job requires a high level of responsibility and focus, as they are in charge of operating heavy machinery, ensuring passenger safety, and adhering to strict schedules. They often work long hours, deal with high stress due to safety concerns, and sometimes have to respond to emergencies. Like any profession, there may be individual differences, but train driving as a career demands considerable skill and dedication. Like any profession there will be a minority of lazy workers but you can be thankful that the next time you travel by train the overwhelming probability (based on statistical fact) is that you will have a dedicated, skilled, and professional train driver looking after your safety.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ABM750 except that good does come from it:
1. Workforce Participation:
• According to a 2020 report by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), migrants (including undocumented ones) are overrepresented in low-skilled sectors like hospitality (30%), construction (14%), and social care (17%). These sectors often rely on migrant labor due to difficulties in recruiting UK-born workers.
• In sectors like agriculture, illegal immigrants are often crucial to maintaining the workforce, with up to 20% of labor in some industries (like fruit picking) being performed by undocumented workers.
2. Economic Contribution via Consumption:
• Even if not directly contributing through income tax, undocumented migrants still contribute to VAT. The average UK household pays around £5,800 annually in VAT (per Office for National Statistics). If even a fraction of the estimated undocumented population (ranging from 800,000 to 1.2 million) spends at this rate, they contribute billions to the economy.
3. Overall Migrant Contributions:
• While illegal immigration data is scarce, studies on legal immigration may provide a useful proxy. A 2018 study from the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics showed that immigration as a whole has little to no negative impact on wages or employment for UK-born workers and actually has a small positive effect on the economy.
• According to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), EU migrants (which could include some undocumented workers) have made a net positive fiscal contribution of £2,300 per head annually. Non-EU migrants make a smaller but still positive net contribution.
4. Tax Contributions from Undocumented Workers:
• While many illegal immigrants work in the informal economy, some studies suggest that undocumented workers in some sectors are actually paying taxes. In the United States, for example (which has parallels to the UK situation), it’s estimated that undocumented immigrants contribute around $11.74 billion annually in state and local taxes. While direct UK figures aren’t as easily available, similar mechanisms are likely in place.
5. Demographic and Workforce Support:
• The UK’s aging population presents a challenge to the labor market. According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), by 2050, almost one in four people will be aged 65 or over. Migrants, including illegal immigrants, are typically younger and of working age, which helps balance out the workforce and supports pension systems indirectly by sustaining economic activity.
6. Healthcare and Public Services:
• A 2020 report by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) suggests that while there are costs associated with providing healthcare and education to undocumented migrants, the overall fiscal impact is often overstated. The NHS, for example, spends a small percentage of its budget on treating undocumented migrants, who also contribute to the system through indirect taxes like VAT.
7. Cost of Deportation:
• There are significant costs associated with deporting undocumented immigrants. The UK Home Office’s estimates from 2019 suggest that deporting a single individual costs around £12,000 to £25,000, not including legal fees, detention, and ongoing enforcement costs. These costs are considerably higher than any assumed fiscal burden undocumented immigrants may place on public services in many cases.
1