aintforever

Of course it would, we would have complete control of our borders. We could make net migration zero if we wanted.

Luckily we will soon have the chance to leave the EU and put a stop to this madness.

:lol: :lol: I think kicking a ball slowly in a straight line is mastered in the first few lessons of Soccertots, maybe they should book a few of their players in for a refresher. The thing is, as Saints fans we have never had to watch football that sh!t. We throw the term "sh!t" around, for example "Kelvin Davis is sh!t at crosses" but we don't really understand how sh!t some teams are. Through our whole history we have never been at Pompey's current level of sh!tness - and this is their best team in years. I guess to come close we have to think of the worst ever Saints team you have watched. I guess from our 2009/10 season in League One. Then think of the worst player in that side, on their worst day. Imagine them a bit sh!tter - then you probably have the equivalent of Pompey's current best player.

A bit harsh considering we ****ed up the whole region by starting the war in Iraq, then helped overthrow the government of Libya and encouraged the people of Syria to fight against Assad.

I think by 'career improved' he might have meant actually playing better football. Puncheon is the only one of those who clearly has.

I've never had a problem with any money. You hand over bits of paper or coins and get stuff in return, a very simple concept, hard to go wrong.

I don't get the Tory Blair thing, all we heard about before the election was how The Blair/brown government spent recklessly and left the country broke - doesn't sound very Tory to me. Apart from the Iraq war (ok a big **** up) and not having a crystal ball to predict the world banking crisis I don't think they did a lot wrong.

Didn't the Tories say sh!t like that about about the minimum wage when Labour introduced it?

Parasites is probably a but strong but Buy To Let is not doing anything but hinder young people trying to buy a house. My generation and my parents have been lucky enough to ride the housing bubble yet many young people today can't get a mortgage even though they work hard and have a decent job. When I got my first mortgage I didn't have a penny to my name, got a 101% and made 30K in a few years despite making the property worse. My parents have ended up with 4 properties yet didn't even have decent jobs. It's not fair and older people sat on massive equity (thanks to the housing bubble that caused the crash) and hoovering up all the affordable property to rent them out at profit is just wrong. It's not rewarding hard work it is just letting lucky people take the p!ss.

We wouldn't need more people to invest in buy to let if more people could buy, it's not rocket science. People who buy to let are just parasites, forcing prices up out of the reach of first time buyers and making money from them being forced to rent.

How can getting renters to buy make the housing shortage worse? It will reduce the houses available to rent but also reduce the people looking to rent at the same time.

This. He is unelectable at the moment but if the next banking crash happens before the next election there will be little appetite for the conservatives to use our money to bail the banks out again and impose more austerity.

To be honest I would prefer a left of centre party without all the baggage of Labour and the unions. As much as I despise Conservatives I think unions are a thing of the past.

They really are a ****ing mess, it's all they deserve though for taking the country to war in Iraq. It's good that there is a real difference between the partys now, I expect the Lib Dems will also be celebrating.

It's not the same problem because the war zone between Iraq and Syria is not part of the jurisdiction for the UK police and there is no means to get them arrested by a local police force and deported. It's a clear and obvious difference between IS and the IRA.

Because they lived and carried out their crimes in an area with law and order. If arresting and convicting these guys was possible it would have been done.

Yeah, in hindsight there was obviously enough time but these situations can change very quickly. Personally I would prefer it if people did what they are told by the hostesses instead of getting their suitcase out of the locker if my life was on the line.

This. People are much less pro Royal now than my Nan's generation. People are happy with the Queen because they have grown up with her and that's all they have ever known. You just have to look at these Royal events, all old grannies and swivel eyed loons.

I'm sorry but that is nonsense, the people getting their luggage are selfish and/or stupid. Unless you are an expert in aeroplane construction you would not know how quickly that type of fire could spread, or how close the whole plane is to exploding. It's not just a time issue either, luggage can create unnecessary hazards in those situations.

It's great that she's politicly neutral, incorruptible, and less prone to undue influence. But she is just a ****ing face on a stamp and someone to wheel out at special occasions - it's not like she actually runs the country.

I'm not anti-royal because they do add a fair amount to the British brand. Face it, no one visits Britain for the weather or beaches, our main USP is our history and traditions and I expect the Queen more than makes up for what she costs. But, all the lesser/unknown royals should be stripped of their wealth and forced to sweep the streets. And all this 'duty', 'performed admirably' stuff is nonsense though, for the amount of cash she has got, the least she should do is do her ****ing job.

A bit of a coincidence he had to make this decision the same week he performed a massive u-turn on the Syrian immigration issue.

At the current supply/demand situation I really don't think spending billions to get back the IS controlled fields is of any importance to the U.S.

Of course it was. They wanted rid of Saddam yes but if there was no oil there there would have been no war. The U.S. are not going to spend billions removing a dictator unless there is a prize at the end of it, that is obvious.

Maybe, but if the area they control had any significant strategic importance to the West it would be regained with ease. I'm not saying it's an easy situation to sort out, it's far from that. But militarily IS are nothing. Fact is the Western governments don't give a flying **** about who controls the villages, desert and **** hole towns in Norther Iraq. The only importance is containng the threat of terrorism, and now sorting out the refugee problem. We all know the only reason for the Iraq war was oil, all the crap about Saddam was to justify it politically.