Comments by "robs2020" (@sbor2020) on "“Pathetic, It’s Ludicrous” | Labour’s Immigration Policy BLASTED By Ben Habib" video.

You mean Donald Tusk? The man all Brexiteers hate. When President of the European Council, in February 2019, during the Brexit negotiations. Tusk said, I've been wondering what that special place in hell looks like, for those who promoted Brexit, without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it out safely .
4
GB News ...erm...
4
@g.m.4877 How can you extrapolate from two Turkish people you met? But you right-wingers love to tar with the same brush.
2
@MrTangolizard While Donald Tusk has recently reinforced Poland's strict immigration policies since taking office, he did not create them. His administration's approach is largely a continuation of the previous government's policies, particularly those of the PiS. Tusk's current strategies include a tough stance on asylum seekers, including plans to temporarily suspend asylum rights in response to illegal border crossings from Belarus. This reflects a significant shift in rhetoric from his opposition days but aligns with broader public sentiment in Poland favouring strict immigration control. Source: Deutsche Welle: Poland: Tusk plans to suspend right to asylum / Politico: EU faces migration rebellion as Poland vows to block asylum-seekers
2
Here are the main points of the Labour Government's first 100 days in office: Fiscal Responsibility Act: 🔹 Ensures that events like Liz Truss’s economic crisis won’t happen again. Energy and Environment Initiatives: 🔹 Established GB Energy, lifted the moratorium on onshore wind, and invested in carbon capture and storage. 🔹 Created a national wealth fund to support green projects. 🔹 Introduced measures to reduce river pollution and set ambitious housebuilding targets. Housing and Renter Reforms: 🔹 Ended no-fault evictions and enhanced rights for renters. Public Transport and Infrastructure: 🔹 On the way to moving railways back into public ownership. 🔹 Launched initiatives for improved bus services across the country. Healthcare and Safety: 🔹 Ended doctors' strike to reduce waiting lists. 🔹 Followed through on "Martyn’s Law" for better safety measures. Education and Policing: 🔹 Eliminated one-word Ofsted ratings. 🔹 Set up a Border Security Command and acted swiftly on riots. Prison System and Government Integrity: 🔹 Addressed the prison crisis left by the previous administration. 🔹 Tightened MPs’ second-job rules and initiated reforms in Parliament, including plans for House of Lords modernization. Although not a Labour Party voter or supporter, these actions signal the Labour Government's commitment to change across various sectors, focusing on sustainability, social justice, and governmental accountability.
1
Here are the main points of the Labour Government's first 100 days in office: Fiscal Responsibility Act: 🔹 Ensures that events like Liz Truss’s economic crisis won’t happen again. Energy and Environment Initiatives: 🔹 Established GB Energy, lifted the moratorium on onshore wind, and invested in carbon capture and storage. 🔹 Created a national wealth fund to support green projects. 🔹 Introduced measures to reduce river pollution and set ambitious housebuilding targets. Housing and Renter Reforms: 🔹 Ended no-fault evictions and enhanced rights for renters. Public Transport and Infrastructure: 🔹 On the way to moving railways back into public ownership. 🔹 Launched initiatives for improved bus services across the country. Healthcare and Safety: 🔹 Ended doctors' strike to reduce waiting lists. 🔹 Followed through on "Martyn’s Law" for better safety measures. Education and Policing: 🔹 Eliminated one-word Ofsted ratings. 🔹 Set up a Border Security Command and acted swiftly on riots. Prison System and Government Integrity: 🔹 Addressed the prison crisis left by the previous administration. 🔹 Tightened MPs’ second-job rules and initiated reforms in Parliament, including plans for House of Lords modernization. Although not a Labour Party voter or supporter, these actions signal the Labour Government's commitment to change across various sectors, focusing on sustainability, social justice, and governmental accountability.
1
Hansard is censored, evidence is censored, Lucy Powell's PoO is censored. Right-wing scummerati.
1
Your claim that the Government "takes £300 from pensioners for winter fuel payments and gives migrants £4,000–£50,000 annually" is inaccurate. Winter Fuel Payments for Pensioners: According to Age Concern, If you are over State Pension age and receive a qualifying benefit, you could get £200 towards your bills. If you are over 80, you could get £300 to help with your bills in winter this year. Payments are made to the person claiming the benefit and are for the household. Support for Migrants: While the UK government does allocate funding for asylum seekers and refugees to cover basic needs such as housing, food, and healthcare, these amounts are far less than £50,000 per individual per year. Asylum seekers typically receive a weekly allowance and accommodation, with recent figures indicating support equating to approximately £40 per week for essentials, in addition to provided accommodation. This support is designed to ensure basic living conditions, not to provide a high income In summary, the government provides means tested winter support to pensioners and asylum support is much lower than the claim.
1
@hopeful1123 You deny the facts, do you? As you right-wingers say, "facts don't care about your feelings".
1
@janetblackford8450 Four years after the Brexit vote, which ended our participation in the Dublin Accord that allowed for returning migrants to other EU countries, we’re seeing the direct effects of that choice. For almost five years, the Tory government – one that many Brexit supporters, including yourself perhaps, voted for – failed to create a workable immigration system. They ignored opportunities to speed up processing, set up processing points in France, establish bilateral agreements, or create safe and legal routes for asylum seekers. Instead, they let the situation deteriorate, knowing they could later pass the blame to the next government and shift responsibility onto Labour without ever acknowledging their own role. As for claims that “migrants have priority” over housing, healthcare, and other support, this doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Yes, asylum seekers are given basic provisions while they wait for their claims to be processed, as per international law, but it’s a far cry from the comfortable life many assume. Housing is usually in temporary, often overcrowded accommodations, with limited support to cover essentials – hardly a luxury or priority treatment. Meanwhile, the government has allowed working families to struggle by failing to address the root causes of housing and cost-of-living issues. For instance, there’s been no meaningful investment in affordable housing, no policies to address low wages, and no effective support for those on the brink of poverty. If working families are struggling, that’s the result of years of government neglect, not because refugees are receiving basic support. That’s the reality .
1
@janetblackford8450 I understand if you see things differently, but I want to clarify that these are not just opinions; they’re grounded in factual information about policies and decisions over recent years. If there’s a specific point you believe is inaccurate, I’d be glad to hear which one and provide evidence to back it up. For example, it’s a documented fact that the UK left the Dublin Accord post-Brexit, which has complicated returns of asylum seekers. Similarly, the previous government’s choice not to set up safe routes or processing centres in France is well-known. Let’s look at these issues with the facts in hand – if anything here sounds a bit dodgy to you, let’s discuss it. I’m open to a factual, evidence-based exchange.
1
@janetblackford8450 Brexit ended the UK's participation in the Dublin Accord, and since then, the government has failed to establish a workable immigration system, leaving asylum seekers unsupported. While working families face economic hardships, these issues stem more from government inaction on housing and wages than from asylum seeker support. Regarding my last comment, of the dozen or so facts, which ones do you challenge?
1
@g.m.4877 I don't know. You claim to know. But isn't that what the asylum process is for? To establish an individual's status.
1
@g.m.4877 🤣You started with a massive gneralisation, didn't you? Right-wing 🤡🤣
1
@rikkiit452 Taxes are not "our" personal money; they are a collective contribution raised within the economy to fund public services and infrastructure that benefit everyone.
1
@CaroleCloke Studies suggest that individuals with right-wing or conservative views may have a stronger sensitivity to disgust because it is linked to a heightened desire for order, purity, and protection from perceived threats, which align with their core values.
1
@christinefrossard7983 You seem to be raising concerns about government overreach and restrictions on democratic expression, which are important issues. Your point about democracy and the “will of the people”, I think the key question is how we balance majority rule with protecting minority rights and ensuring that all voices can be heard. It’s a complex issue, especially when it comes to protests – governments need to maintain public order, but they must also safeguard the right to dissent. And no I’m not a civil servant, but a concerned citizen like yourself.
1
@ske1598 Surely not, because Tarczynski is an MEP, and former exorcist, rather than a politician in the Sejm, and has never been the Prime Minister. Nice try! He means Tusk!
1
What compelling evidence do you have to support this claim?
1
@TheTekraver Farage's sado-populism is lapped up by sado-masochistic culture warriors. The populist rage is crack to you.
1
@HenryWilkinson-c5n I have not seen any compelling evidence to support this claim. Over to you big man!
1
@HenryWilkinson-c5n It seems you have no idea about political decision making. Were you educated on Twitter, by any chance? The claim that the UK government (Labour or otherwise) is "following WEF orders" is a common talking point often found on social media, but it doesn’t align with how political decisions are actually made.
1
Thanks for that. I understand there's a lot of debate around organizations like the WEF, and it’s easy to see why questions about their influence get attention. To clarify, my point is that government policies are typically shaped by a range of domestic considerations, elected representatives, and public consultations – not by directives from external forums (/fora). I’m open to discussing specific evidence if you have any credible sources to share that show the WEF is directly controlling UK policy decisions. This kind of evidence would help to create a more grounded conversation about real influence vs. speculation. There’s actually no substantive evidence that the WEF directly influences or dictates UK government policies. The WEF hosts annual forums where global leaders discuss shared challenges, but it has no legislative or governing power. Decisions on UK policy are made within its own government, involving Parliament, advisors, and public consultations. In practice, policies that may overlap with WEF topics, like environmental or economic reforms, reflect common global concerns rather than ‘orders’ from the WEF. Numerous independent reviews and political analyses confirm that there’s no mechanism through which the WEF could enforce its views on the UK – or any country. This makes it more likely that claims of 'WEF control' stem from misinterpretations or a misunderstanding rather than documented facts. Were you to actually substantiate your claim instead of resorting to name-calling, it would help put the matter to bed.
1
It’s funny that none of those of you calling me “sleepy” or “stupid” can provide a single piece of evidence to support your claims. You have nothing – no facts, no proof. This is classic C - behaviour, fitting right into the pattern of right-wing populist radicalisation. It’s all about creating narratives, not truth.
1
Funny how those who label me “sleepy” or “stupid” never seem able to back it up with any actual evidence. It’s just empty talk – no facts, no proof. This kind of baseless labeling mirrors typical conspiracy thinking, driven by a need to promote divisive narratives rather than the truth.
1
This kind of false narratives that you lot create and spread led to the imprisonment and death of Peter Lynch.
1