Further lies - world renowned smirker Priti Patel has today stated that the Tories will 'reduce' immigration, but has carefully avoided any targets; which given that they failed year on year to deliver any of their previous 'targets' - is probably a wise move. She simultaneously used some more made-up figures about what migration would be under a Labour government, based on another set of fantasy projections from their busy fake news dept.

It's a woeful campaign by the Tories so far - their promises are being debunked almost before they make them.

Bren, if the Tories are blaming Labour for the NHS failure to hit it's targets, surely, the immigration numbers have to also be the fault of Labour

Despite calling the Election when they were 12-14 points ahead in the polls, they seem to running an increasingly desperate campaign.
The lies, smears and no shows are happening with increasing regularity and with Brexitcon alliance still in disarray, the election is wide open and it increasingly looks like we're heading for a hung Parliament.
At what point will Boris go and find a ditch or be put in one by his own party, when they realise that he is just as much of a wind bag as May, someone who at least tried to tell the truth.
You are right about how "well" their campaign is going - lets hope it carries on being so "effective".

Well before we a lovely Tory "fundamental rethink", how about we try spending as much as the average other civilised countries spend of their GDP on healthcare and see how it goes. The NHS, even with the excess bureaucracy built into it over years of target setting and rubbish like internal markets, is a remarkably efficient user of what resources we give it.

It's an important question. But to understand the answer, you need to understand why the EU was formed, the true ideology behind it, and where it is heading.

The key point for me is: the EU you see today is about as far removed from the ECSC/EEC 60 years ago as the EU wants to be in another 60 years. The goal is a true Federation of Europe, gradual removal of nation states and borders, and absolute centralised power in Brussels. Even in 1957 the ECSC was hailed as the "first step to a European federation" - and if you pay attention to the senior figures throughout the history of this European project, they have always hinted at this. Some have acknowledged it outright.

You people are quick to roll your eyes as if it isn't already happening (Maastricht, Lisbon, the Euro?) - but ask yourself, why have the EU always refused any truly meaningful reform? Simple: because watering down their 'pillars' means the goal cannot be achieved in full.

Since 2016 I've said if the EU had shown a willingness to meaningful reform I would have voted remain. But they have always slapped down any suggestion of true reform.

Despite the stark inevitable problems, they pursue the goal. The Eurozone has caused devastation across the Mediterranean nations, leading to mass unemployment and enormous levels of youth emigration. Indeed, massive movement of people across Europe (mainly from South/East to North/West) has caused economical and societal issues everywhere. You simply cannot throw 28 differing nations together without friction - the swing to the hard right across Europe being the direct consequence.

When confronted with a crisis, the EU invariably flounders and fails. The Balkans, Ukraine, the migrant/refugee crisis, the Eurozone crisis for example. That's before we even look at the creaking political and economic situations in countries such as Italy and France, or the weakening of Germany both economically and politically in the face of Merkel's idiotic migration policy - despite Merkel herself acknowledging almost 10 years ago that "multiculturalism has utterly failed". Something those of us not blinkered by a loony left-wing ideology have known for a long time.

Now - if you like the idea of all of that - great, vote to remain and join that bell-end with his EU hat and loudhailer outside Parliament. If not, you should seriously reconsider your options.

I've also always said we will take a hit after leaving, whatever the circumstances. I'm of the view it's worth it in the long run. The UK's economy has proven itself to be resilient and will succeed out of the EU.

If the EU had never existed and its current structure was proposed today, it would be laughed out of existence.

As I also mentioned its all about the long term - what will the EU be in 10,20,30 years.

Both sides are as bad - the fact you seem incapable of pointing out Labour's lies does your argument no favours. The £500m a day is an out and out lie when you consider on 10% of drugs come from the US.

Labour's issue on the NHS is the shadow minister - Ashworth is weak very weak

Time and again Labour will not commit to an immigration policy - you can't say whether the Tory figures are correct or not because Labour simply will not be honest about their policy. Laura Pidcock when asked by Neil in BBC2 and Robinson on R4 refuses to confirm if the vote at the conference would be in the manifesto - perhaps some honesty from Labour would help?

I think most would suggest the waste in the NHS is huge as is the abuse of the service by its customers. Perhaps a reduction of both would help the funds go further. The question is are we all willing to be taxed higher to support it or would we better investing in insurance to get treatment when we want it outside of the service?

bren2k wrote:Further lies - world renowned smirker Priti Patel I see your Priti Patel and raise you Emily Thornberry. Quote:...Priti Patel has today stated that the Tories will 'reduce' immigration, but has carefully avoided any targets; which given that they failed year on year to deliver any of their previous 'targets' - is probably a wise move. She simultaneously used some more made-up figures about what migration would be under a Labour government, based on another set of fantasy projections from their busy fake news dept. It's a woeful campaign by the Tories so far - their promises are being debunked almost before they make them. Hmm. Let's take a look. Priti Patel...would not set "arbitrary" targets. Jeremy Corbyn rules out 'arbitrary' immigration target. At the Labour Conference back in September, members passed a motion for freedom of movement to be maintained and extended after Brexit. Diane Abbott even tweeted about Labour's "commitment" to it today a couple of times. Yet Corbyn today said it "doesn't necessarily form part of the manifesto." In April he even confirmed Labour policy was that freedom of movement would end with Brexit. Asked repeatedly about it, Laura Pidcock simply ignored the question. So, someone is lying. Corbyn or Abbott? Abbott isn't clever enough so I'd say Corbyn, again. Labour, again, in a complete policy u-turn in a desperate appeal for votes, but against the wishes of the electorate. Tell me, if Labour "maintain and EXTEND" freedom of movement, do you think immigration numbers go up or down. (Hint: if you give more people to right to move here...they will). Now, tell me again about Priti Patel's "lies".

bren2k wrote:Further lies - world renowned smirker Priti Patel I see your Priti Patel and raise you Emily Thornberry. Quote:...Priti Patel has today stated that the Tories will 'reduce' immigration, but has carefully avoided any targets; which given that they failed year on year to deliver any of their previous 'targets' - is probably a wise move. She simultaneously used some more made-up figures about what migration would be under a Labour government, based on another set of fantasy projections from their busy fake news dept. It's a woeful campaign by the Tories so far - their promises are being debunked almost before they make them. Hmm. Let's take a look. Priti Patel...would not set "arbitrary" targets. Jeremy Corbyn rules out 'arbitrary' immigration target. At the Labour Conference back in September, members passed a motion for freedom of movement to be maintained and extended after Brexit. Diane Abbott even tweeted about Labour's "commitment" to it today a couple of times. Yet Corbyn today said it "doesn't necessarily form part of the manifesto." In April he even confirmed Labour policy was that freedom of movement would end with Brexit. Asked repeatedly about it, Laura Pidcock simply ignored the question. So, someone is lying. Corbyn or Abbott? Abbott isn't clever enough so I'd say Corbyn, again. Labour, again, in a complete policy u-turn in a desperate appeal for votes, but against the wishes of the electorate. Tell me, if Labour "maintain and EXTEND" freedom of movement, do you think immigration numbers go up or down. (Hint: if you give more people to right to move here...they will). Now, tell me again about Priti Patel's "lies".

It's the whole irony of Priti Patel berating immigration which I find astounding, the same immigration which allowed her parents to move here from Uganda. Still, if they'd have stuck around for a few more years, Idi Amin would have booted them out anyway. Or worse.

You do realise a great many immigrants voted leave, precisely due to excessive immigration? Some strong leave areas such as Luton for example, areas where 'white British' are the minority.

Being an immigrant doesn't automatically mean you're daft enough to think immigration can continue in the numbers of the last 20-25 years.

No-one is 'berating' immigration. Just calling for sensible controls. Even Len McCluskey is sticking his neck out in the face over overwhelming opposition from Labour members - he sees the problems mass immigration causes. But he'll undoubtedly be shouted down by 'progressives'.