The Reform Thread

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

Thanks for the answer. Personally, I think that as a nation we're better than housing people in tents. Somewhere between that and homes/hotels feels to be the right kind of balance for me - some sort of dormitory type system with proper amenities. 

I could get behind that. Optically housing them around the country in hotels is a disaster. Far better off investing in a large and secure dormitory type building and processed as quickly as possible. The important thing is to remove as much of the incentive as possible to come here so it reduces the numbers of people making the journey. 

[egg]

16 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Former Border force chief, someone who clearly knows his stuff, rather sceptical of Starmers “smash the gangs” approach. Seems to imply we’ll need to a Rwanda type scheme to have any hope of tackling this, and claims officers on the ground are frustrated but can’t speak out. 

 

 

I got bored with him after 7 minutes as he talks nonsense. Suggesting pro immigration bias by UK Judges is ridiculous. Those Judges enforce the law. His issue, plainly, is the law which he describes as archaic and wants to be 'smashed up'. He's a bloke with a view on immigration who blames laws which don't support his outlook. 

[egg]

11 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I could get behind that. Optically housing them around the country in hotels is a disaster. Far better off investing in a large and secure dormitory type building and processed as quickly as possible. The important thing is to remove as much of the incentive as possible to come here so it reduces the numbers of people making the journey. 

Unusually, we agree. Ultimately we will see asylum granted to many entrants so the numbers won't drop off hugely imo, but we seem to be very attractive for whatever reason. 

[egg]

24 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Bibby Stockholm?

Nah, needs to be outside space. 

Hope the recovery is going well, and that the class A's are taking the edge off the pain. 

[hypochondriac]

27 minutes ago, egg said:

Unusually, we agree. Ultimately we will see asylum granted to many entrants so the numbers won't drop off hugely imo, but we seem to be very attractive for whatever reason. 

Which is why we also need to reduce numbers of legal migration as well. We need to take more of a medium to long term view, increase wages for jobs that Brits 'won't do', massively increase training for important jobs that we need, incentivise greater integration by largely removing public spending on translators and only allow people to live here if they are contributing financially with employment that we actually need. 

Labour are doing some of the right things in my opinion by trying to slash waste in the NHS but people need to feel that things are improving, that health outcomes are better, that they are more likely to get a doctors or dentists appointment and that every single public service isn't over stretched and at breaking point. A big part of that is due to levels of immigration and that's before we start talking about low trust societies and cultural damage by the levels creating enclaves. 

[egg]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Which is why we also need to reduce numbers of legal migration as well. We need to take more of a medium to long term view, increase wages for jobs that Brits 'won't do', massively increase training for important jobs that we need, incentivise greater integration by largely removing public spending on translators and only allow people to live here if they are contributing financially with employment that we actually need. 

Labour are doing some of the right things in my opinion by trying to slash waste in the NHS but people need to feel that things are improving, that health outcomes are better, that they are more likely to get a doctors or dentists appointment and that every single public service isn't over stretched and at breaking point. A big part of that is due to levels of immigration and that's before we start talking about low trust societies and cultural damage by the levels creating enclaves. 

Pretty much my thoughts. Legal migration needs to be controlled, and based on our needs. Done well it'll solve lots of skills shortages, and address the concerns of the sensible public.

Net migration of circa 3/4 of a million is completely unsustainable. That's more than the population of Southampton, Portsmouth, and Eastleigh combined added to our population every single year. Frightening, and our infrastructure and public purse cannot deal with that. Illegal entry makes up only a small % of that though, and is much more difficult to police than legal entrants. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

22 hours ago, egg said:

I got bored with him after 7 minutes as he talks nonsense. Suggesting pro immigration bias by UK Judges is ridiculous. Those Judges enforce the law. His issue, plainly, is the law which he describes as archaic and wants to be 'smashed up'. He's a bloke with a view on immigration who blames laws which don't support his outlook. 

“Bloke with a view on immigration “ 😂 He was head of uk border force, I think he knows slightly more than you on the subject. 

He said he’s happy to be proved wrong over his criticism of “smash the gangs” policy, somehow I doubt he will be.

If you bothered to listen to another point of view from someone who clearly has been there and done it, you’d have heard him say the only policy that has ever worked is Australian one, and eventually more and more countries will start adopting it. You just need bold Government to enforce it. Step forward Nigel…..

[egg]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

“Bloke with a view on immigration “ 😂 He was head of uk border force, I think he knows slightly more than you on the subject. 

He said he’s happy to be proved wrong over his criticism of “smash the gangs” policy, somehow I doubt he will be.

If you bothered to listen to another point of view from someone who clearly has been there and done it, you’d have heard him say the only policy that has ever worked is Australian one, and eventually more and more countries will start adopting it. You just need bold Government to enforce it. Step forward Nigel…..

If you listened to the first 7 mins you'll have heard his opinion of our laws. The bloke thinks he knows better than our lawmakers and has the audacity to allege judges as bias just because they don't support his view on immigration. He's not the authority on this issue that you think he is. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

24 minutes ago, egg said:

He's not the authority on this issue that you think he is. 

 

Clearly not…

Anthony John Smith CBE is a global border security consultant and former Director General of the UK Border Force. He was previously Gold Commander for the London 2012 Olympic Programme 

He was also Head of Border Control in the UK Immigration Servicebetween 2005 and 2007 and Head of Ports and Border Management in Citizenship and Immigration Canadabetween 2000 and 2003.^[1]

Smith retired from public service on 31 March 2013 after over 40 years with the Home Office.

 

Upon his retirement from public service Tony Smith became Managing Director of Fortinus Global Ltd, a Global Border Security Company.^[3]

He is a regular expert commentator on Global Border Management and Security Practices in UK media and chairs expert panels on border and immigration conferences around the world including the International Summit on Borders in Washington DC with former US CBP Commissioner Rob Bonner^[4] and at Secure Document World in London ^[5]

He became International Liaison Director at Borderpol in 2013^[6] but resigned in 2016.

Smith is the founder and chairman of the International Border Management and Technologies Association (IBMATA).

Tony Smith was appointed as a member of the Expert Panel to the Parliamentary Commission for Alternative Arrangements for the Irish Border in April 2019.^[7]

 

or 

 

 

 

[egg]

1 minute ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 

Clearly not…

Anthony John Smith CBE is a global border security consultant and former Director General of the UK Border Force. He was previously Gold Commander for the London 2012 Olympic Programme 

He was also Head of Border Control in the UK Immigration Servicebetween 2005 and 2007 and Head of Ports and Border Management in Citizenship and Immigration Canadabetween 2000 and 2003.^[1]

Smith retired from public service on 31 March 2013 after over 40 years with the Home Office.

 

Upon his retirement from public service Tony Smith became Managing Director of Fortinus Global Ltd, a Global Border Security Company.^[3]

He is a regular expert commentator on Global Border Management and Security Practices in UK media and chairs expert panels on border and immigration conferences around the world including the International Summit on Borders in Washington DC with former US CBP Commissioner Rob Bonner^[4] and at Secure Document World in London ^[5]

He became International Liaison Director at Borderpol in 2013^[6] but resigned in 2016.

Smith is the founder and chairman of the International Border Management and Technologies Association (IBMATA).

Tony Smith was appointed as a member of the Expert Panel to the Parliamentary Commission for Alternative Arrangements for the Irish Border in April 2019.^[7]

 

or 

 

 

 

I'll clarify. He's not the objective authority that you think he is. 

Do you think that someone who alleges bias on the part of our judiciary is objective and/or credible? He's a GB news type populist that people like you lap up because he supports your opinion. 

[whelk]

38 minutes ago, egg said:

I'll clarify. He's not the objective authority that you think he is. 

Do you think that someone who alleges bias on the part of our judiciary is objective and/or credible? He's a GB news type populist that people like you lap up because he supports your opinion. 

He’ll be quoting the Tax Payers Alliance on fiscal issues or the IEA as economic experts. Full disclosure didn’t listen to the bloke due to poster credibility.

 

[Gloucester Saint]

3 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

“Bloke with a view on immigration “ 😂 He was head of uk border force, I think he knows slightly more than you on the subject. 

He said he’s happy to be proved wrong over his criticism of “smash the gangs” policy, somehow I doubt he will be.

If you bothered to listen to another point of view from someone who clearly has been there and done it, you’d have heard him say the only policy that has ever worked is Australian one, and eventually more and more countries will start adopting it. You just need bold Government to enforce it. Step forward Nigel…..

Step forward Nigel and destroy our economy like MAGA USA has just done.

[whelk]

23 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Step forward Nigel and destroy our economy like MAGA USA has just done.

All he’ll care about putting his tenant’s rent up

[hypochondriac]

49 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Step forward Nigel and destroy our economy like MAGA USA has just done.

If nigel gets in then labour and conservative will only have themselves to blame. Failing to adequately control immigration for years is entirely on them. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

If nigel gets in then labour and conservative will only have themselves to blame. Failing to adequately control immigration for years is entirely on them. 

Exactly. As Zia Yusuf said in the week, come 2029 you won’t need to wonder what will happen to immigration if you vote Labour-Con,  you’ll know…Both records will be there to see. 

[whelk]

4 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

If nigel gets in then labour and conservative will only have themselves to blame. Failing to adequately control immigration for years is entirely on them. 

You pushed line for Trump too. Obviously if the option isn’t appealing then parties lose but there are many super thick people who are responsible who just think there is a switch to milk and honey and vote simply. 
Good to see Cooper seemingly giving a tougher message as the penny needs to drop with Labour - it is not sustainable. But none of the parties are willing to have a bipartisan discussion to funding social care so we are in a spiral where voter can simply point to those in power and query why haven’t they sorted - valid question but far from simple

Edited May 11 by whelk

[hypochondriac]

14 minutes ago, whelk said:

You pushed line for Trump too. Obviously if the option isn’t appealing then parties lose but there are many super thick people who are responsible who just think there is a switch to milk and honey and vote simply. 
Good to see Cooper seemingly giving a tougher message as the penny needs to drop with Labour - it is not sustainable. But none of the parties are willing to have a bipartisan discussion to funding social care so we are in a spiral where voter can simply point to those in power and query why haven’t they sorted - valid question but far from simple

I don't disagree but pretty lazy just to point at the electorate and call them thick because you don't like how they voted. I personally don't think Reform will do much at all if they ever get in power but I do want waste to be cut in the NHS and wider society. Labour's hope is that they can make a tangible difference over the next couple of years so that people won't feel betrayed with them like they do now. 

[sadoldgit]

To be fair, the studies have found that Reform voters in general do have a lower than average IQ.

[Weston Super Saint]

22 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

To be fair, the studies have found that Reform voters in general do have a lower than average IQ.

If I lived in an area where Reform had a stonking majority, this isn't something I'd shout about

[Patrick Bateman]

On 10/05/2025 at 10:53, egg said:

I got bored with him after 7 minutes as he talks nonsense. Suggesting pro immigration bias by UK Judges is ridiculous. Those Judges enforce the law. His issue, plainly, is the law which he describes as archaic and wants to be 'smashed up'. He's a bloke with a view on immigration who blames laws which don't support his outlook. 

I lasted 20 seconds. 

[Gloucester Saint]

Clearly there is public concern about the rising migration numbers over the last 25 years. This has accelerated support for hard right and populist parties since the financial crisis of 2008 and particularly the austerity of 2010 onwards. A lot of people, especially just above minimum wage/benefits, or a hybrid of the two, feel poorer and that their living standards have declined since the 2000s. Actually, it has, they are not just feeling it.

Part of the issue is that wealth inequalities are unsustainable, along with the pressure on public services. Migration curbs by themselves will not make the difference the public wants to key public services. The very wealthiest have to contribute more and that’s another reality all political parties need to face.

Also, do you want our relatives in respite, end of life or other forms of social care looked after by trained people with the emotional competences to give them the experience they deserve or do you want Tiffany or Tony forced by welfare sanctions who don’t give a fuck? Leading to far more scandals like this https://www.hughjames.com/blog/doncaster-care-homes-child-abuse-scandal/

Because with an ageing population that’s the choice being made. The birth rate is not going to rise unless work and jobs are made a lot more secure and people feel a lot more confident to plan family lives together.

Universities will also recruit less numbers from China and elsewhere if they are actually allowed to be the market organisations the Browne Review anticipated them to be, by putting fees up by at least inflation, and more if needed. 

Tice is a 🤡 though saying ‘net zero immigration’. Zero thought for the country’s future needs more like, and as bad as their pathetic budget plans published in the last election shredded by the IFS. As for the Tories, they spent ten years plus setting arbitrary targets without any planning for why those figures were what was needed, and missing every single one. They have not learned a single thing. And their hard Brexit cut the economy by an eye watering 6%, hitting middle and lower and middle earners hardest and enriching their donors and hedge fund friends who shorted the market (see Crispin Odey’). A thin levelling up agenda didn’t touch the sides or come anywhere near what EU regional structural funds had offered.

In response to someone else, the NHS is undergoing from what I discern from outside looking in far harder cuts than anything the Tories did as the wasteful Lansley set up is demolished. Hunt wanted to do it but politically couldn’t which is understandable.

As a Lib Dem, I’m less fussed about migration but clearly people are so trying to meet them in the middle. But there are tough decisions to be made, I’m not sure I trust Labour with them tbh. But I trust the Tories even less as they did nothing but enrich their donors through asylum accommodation as numbers soared and Reform couldn’t run a bath as UKIP have proved every time they’ve led a council, let alone anything national. 

Edited May 12 by Gloucester Saint

[whelk]

14 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't disagree but pretty lazy just to point at the electorate and call them thick because you don't like how they voted. I personally don't think Reform will do much at all if they ever get in power but I do want waste to be cut in the NHS and wider society. Labour's hope is that they can make a tangible difference over the next couple of years so that people won't feel betrayed with them like they do now. 

Yes a lazy stereotype but social media has made it so much easier to influence the less curious and so compounded the issue of idiots voting for clowns. Do any of the Reform voters take notice of what Truss’s mini budget did to the economy? And realise Reform are far more extreme? Pub bores moaning about immigration doesn’t translate to smart economists. 

[hypochondriac]

46 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Clearly there is public concern about the rising migration numbers over the last 25 years. This has accelerated support for hard right and populist parties since the financial crisis of 2008 and particularly the austerity of 2010 onwards. A lot of people, especially just above minimum wage/benefits, or a hybrid of the two, feel poorer and that their living standards have declined since the 2000s. Actually, it has, they are not just feeling it.

Part of the issue is that wealth inequalities are unsustainable, along with the pressure on public services. Migration curbs by themselves will not make the difference the public wants to key public services. The very wealthiest have to contribute more and that’s another reality all political parties need to face.

Also, do you want our relatives in respite, end of life or other forms of social care looked after by trained people with the emotional competences to give them the experience they deserve or do you want Tiffany or Tony forced by welfare sanctions who don’t give a fuck? Because with an ageing population that’s the choice being made. The birth rate is not going to rise unless work and jobs are made a lot more secure and people feel confident to plan family lives together.

Universities will also recruit less numbers from China if they are actually allowed to be the market organisations the Browne Review anticipated them to be, by putting fees up by at least inflation, and more if needed. 

Tice is a 🤡 though saying ‘net zero immigration’. Zero thought for the country’s future needs more like, and as bad as their pathetic budget plans published in the last election shredded by the IFS. As for the Tories, they spent ten years plus setting arbitrary targets without any planning for why those figures were what was needed, and missing every single one. They have not learned a single thing. And their hard Brexit cut the economy by an eye watering 6%, hitting middle and lower and middle earners hardest and enriching their donors and hedge fund friends who shorted the market (see Crispin Odey’). A thin levelling up agenda didn’t touch the sides or come anywhere near what EU regional structural funds had offered.

In response to someone else, the NHS is undergoing from what I discern from outside looking in far harder cuts than anything the Tories did as the wasteful Lansley set up is demolished. Hunt wanted to do it but politically couldn’t which is understandable.

As a Lib Dem, I’m less fussed about migration but clearly people are so trying to meet them in the middle. 

All of your analysis is entirely based on finance. Does the line from Starmer today about being an island of strangers not resonate with you at all? That's about more than money, it's a values thing and a concern that the pace of change and rate of immigration is damaging society. 

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, whelk said:

Yes a lazy stereotype but social media has made it so much easier to influence the less curious and so compounded the issue of idiots voting for clowns. Do any of the Reform voters take notice of what Truss’s mini budget did to the economy? And realise Reform are far more extreme? Pub bores moaning about immigration doesn’t translate to smart economists. 

The point though is that the public have consistently called for lower levels of immigration. If Labour fail to achieve that during this term then I can hardly blame someone voting for Reform. People have voted continuously for the two main parties and they've all failed to address it so far. That's on them, regardless of how educated the average Reform voter is. 

[whelk]

46 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

The very wealthiest have to contribute more and that’s another reality all political parties need to face.

I do think that is the key factor. Obviously they will have all the lobbyists telling everyone that they will leave the country etc etc.

we have not addressed that industry has changed and still relying on income as main source of tax when wealth gap is widening by the day. So many companies are avoiding tax, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix when we used to collect revenue from newspapers, shops and cinema. 
 

fuck know why we can’t put a digital tax of 10% on every sale Amazon makes in the UK? Services need funding and key factor of the Labour win was the public want better public services - good luck with that with Reform

 

[whelk]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

The point though is that the public have consistently called for lower levels of immigration. If Labour fail to achieve that during this term then I can hardly blame someone voting for Reform. People have voted continuously for the two main parties and they've all failed to address it so far. That's on them, regardless of how educated the average Reform voter is. 

“I didn’t like that <insert party name > didn’t solve immigration issues so I voted Nazi. In no way is it my fault, it’s on them” 

[whelk]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

The point though is that the public have consistently called for lower levels of immigration. If Labour fail to achieve that during this term then I can hardly blame someone voting for Reform. People have voted continuously for the two main parties and they've all failed to address it so far. That's on them, regardless of how educated the average Reform voter is. 

Think we all agree immigration is a problem that needs priority but there were many other factors in why people voted Labour - not ideological but they hoped society and the country would be better

[hypochondriac]

Just now, whelk said:

Think we all agree immigration is a problem that needs priority but there were many other factors in why people voted Labour - not ideological but they hoped society and the country would be better

Yes I know but if loads of people at the next election go to reform due to the failure of the main parties to tackle immigration then that's the fault of the main parties. 

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, whelk said:

“I didn’t like that <insert party name > didn’t solve immigration issues so I voted Nazi. In no way is it my fault, it’s on them” 

Come on you're better than that. 

[whelk]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Come on you're better than that. 

I knew you’d like that one😀

[hypochondriac]

32 minutes ago, whelk said:

I do think that is the key factor. Obviously they will have all the lobbyists telling everyone that they will leave the country etc etc.

we have not addressed that industry has changed and still relying on income as main source of tax when wealth gap is widening by the day. So many companies are avoiding tax, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix when we used to collect revenue from newspapers, shops and cinema. 
 

fuck know why we can’t put a digital tax of 10% on every sale Amazon makes in the UK? Services need funding and key factor of the Labour win was the public want better public services - good luck with that with Reform

 

At least in part though that's because loads of public services were set up before we had a giant influx of new people wanting to use the service, some of whom have never contributed to it. 

[Gloucester Saint]

50 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

All of your analysis is entirely based on finance. Does the line from Starmer today about being an island of strangers not resonate with you at all? That's about more than money, it's a values thing and a concern that the pace of change and rate of immigration is damaging society. 

Not all of it was, for example I’d prefer to have the best technical and emotional skills working with our most ill/vulnerable society members and my experience of how my relatives have been cared for is that some cultures are outstanding at that. So Labour is making me uncomfortable there.

But yes, it’s an unarguable fact that this issue has surged in public opinion since the financial crisis stalled living standards for most people and public services degraded by ongoing austerity. Migration has an impact services but research shows most legal migrants are here younger, working/studying and take the qualifications back to their nation of origin and start families there without drawing on the NHS etc. And if they stay long-term, pay tax and contribute to our communities then they should recognised after a decade.

Asylum is where we meet in the middle and where we have a global and national issue. Geneva does need a review as countries fragment and climate change kicks in. Some nations - Albania, Vietnam, Turkey etc where there isn’t an active conflict should be on the first plane back out. Afghanistan is tricky due to how many people worked with UK and US vs Taliban. 

Unfortunately with this topic nationally, the nuance in discussion shown on this thread will not appear. 

Edited May 12 by Gloucester Saint

[hypochondriac]

Fascinating to see the change in rhetoric from Starmer and his government on immigration. They are using words and phrases they would have dismissed as racist and dog whistle politics just a year ago. That's politics for you I suppose. 

[Gloucester Saint]

14 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Fascinating to see the change in rhetoric from Starmer and his government on immigration. They are using words and phrases they would have dismissed as racist and dog whistle politics just a year ago. That's politics for you I suppose. 

As a liberal (small and large L), I don’t like it honestly. But it’s not totally incongruous to Labour historically though. More people remember Blair era and openness, pro-EU but in the 1970s Labour were far more socially conservative and if you ask our parents generation the trade unions were protectionist with their closed shops, in pockets outright racist. 

[ecuk268]

26 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

More people remember Blair era and openness, pro-EU but in the 1970s Labour were far more socially conservative and if you ask our parents generation the trade unions were protectionist with their closed shops, in pockets outright racist. 

The Unions also discriminated against religion (at least in Scotland). 

A company I worked for had a chemical plant in Grangemouth. An ex-Works Manager told that, if he tried to hire a Catholic, he'd have the Shop Stewards in his office "requesting" that he changed his mind.

[egg]

54 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Fascinating to see the change in rhetoric from Starmer and his government on immigration. They are using words and phrases they would have dismissed as racist and dog whistle politics just a year ago. That's politics for you I suppose. 

A reminder Hypo that the masses support policies not personalities. 

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

A reminder Hypo that the masses support policies not personalities. 

Sure.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Sure.

You highlight yourself that there's a labour policy shift, to appeal to the masses, but won't have it that politics is mostly about policies. Daft as. 

[RedArmy]

12 hours ago, Patrick Bateman said:

I lasted 20 seconds. 

Happens to the best of us. 
 

Give it a little tug about an hour before next time. 
 

 

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

You highlight yourself that there's a labour policy shift, to appeal to the masses, but won't have it that politics is mostly about policies. Daft as. 

I've never denied that policies are an important part of politics. 

[Gloucester Saint]

9 minutes ago, RedArmy said:

Happens to the best of us. 
 

Give it a little tug about an hour before next time. 
 

 

👏 

[Gloucester Saint]

34 minutes ago, ecuk268 said:

The Unions also discriminated against religion (at least in Scotland). 

A company I worked for had a chemical plant in Grangemouth. An ex-Works Manager told that, if he tried to hire a Catholic, he'd have the Shop Stewards in his office "requesting" that he changed his mind.

Sadly not a surprise. A former boss of mine worked in one of the Motherwell plants in the 1970s and he decided to move the family to a new life and job in Southampton after his little daughter came home and asked ‘Daddy, what is a Feinian?’.

[aintforever]

18 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I've never denied that policies are an important part of politics. 

Except elections are 100% a popularity contest.

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Except elections are 100% a popularity contest.

Which they are. That includes the popularity of the policies being presented as well as the personalities of those in government. This isn't difficult stuff. 

[LuckyNumber7]

At last Starmer/Labour seem to be talking tough on immigration, but the proof will be in the pudding.

Trouble is, it's shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. The fabric of this country has changed forever over the last 20 odd years and it can't be reversed.

[aintforever]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

That includes the popularity of the policies being presented as well as the personalities

Except "Every single election in my lifetime has been decided based on personalities. "  

[Turkish]

13 hours ago, Patrick Bateman said:

I lasted 20 seconds. 

enough about the bedroom what did you think of the video?

Edited May 12 by Turkish
beaten to the obvious gag by @redarmy

[egg]

13 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Except "Every single election in my lifetime has been decided based on personalities. "  

Quite!! He's MLG esque on this. Elections are won and lost mostly on policy, with the personalities who sell/front the policies being responsible for wooing the public. 

 

[hypochondriac]

18 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Except "Every single election in my lifetime has been decided based on personalities. "  

They have. They are two different statements which don't contradict each other. 

[hypochondriac]

I wonder if stats like this have anything to do with Reform's surge in the polls?

Edited May 13 by hypochondriac