+ Visit Rotherham United FC Mad for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results

Page 13 of 53 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 1041

Thread: O/T - general election 2019

  1. #241
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,488
    Quote Originally Posted by great_fire View Post
    Wrong.

    The motion referred to everyone, the whole world.
    You read the wrong papers. Propaganda eh. How did Priti Patal get the figure of 850,000 extra immigrants under Labour when details of the motion has not been finalised or confirmed as policy.

    You bet your life that after the right wing press does their work it will be fact by the morning.

  2. #242
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,250
    Quote Originally Posted by WanChaiMiller View Post
    You read the wrong papers. Propaganda eh. How did Priti Patal get the figure of 850,000 extra immigrants under Labour when details of the motion has not been finalised or confirmed as policy.

    You bet your life that after the right wing press does their work it will be fact by the morning.
    What do you think "maintain and extend movement rights" means?

    Which is what was passed at conference.

    And "maintain and expand free movement" as shown here?

    Name:  EFTdjf8WwAAEA7V.jpg
Views: 123
Size:  82.5 KB
    Last edited by great_fire; 14-11-2019 at 11:46 PM.

  3. #243
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    1,982
    It's still not in the manifesto gf. There's a ' Clause V ' meeting on Saturday about what's going into the Manifesto as regards immigration.
    If Len McCluskey gets his way it will be watered down.
    Wouldn't mind being a ' fly on the wall ' when Abbott and McCluskey start chit-chat across the table..

    Time to trash it / agree with it is when it's in the Manifesto, same goes for Tories Immigration policy.
    Last edited by CASPER-64-FRANK; 15-11-2019 at 12:09 AM.

  4. #244
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,488
    Quote Originally Posted by great_fire View Post
    What do you think "maintain and extend movement rights" means?

    Which is what was passed at conference.

    And "maintain and expand free movement" as shown here?

    Name:  EFTdjf8WwAAEA7V.jpg
Views: 123
Size:  82.5 KB
    The article I copief is a report of conference written up on the Labour party website. Why not read it.

    This relates to continuing free movement to the UK from EU countries after we leave the EU. You can say it relates to the rest of the world all you like but you are wrong.

  5. #245
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    1,982
    Quote Originally Posted by rolymiller View Post
    We can agree on that gfire. Good summing up...
    @ roly, a question for you.

    Three consecutive victories for Blair / Brown......who voted for them three times ?
    They can't all have been neoliberal / Blairites that voted them in three times. Left-Wingers like Jeremy were in that Government as well even if he did vote against at times.
    Last edited by CASPER-64-FRANK; 15-11-2019 at 06:25 AM.

  6. #246
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,077
    Quote Originally Posted by ragingpup View Post
    Its a double pronged problem. Firstly that previous elections where a party has proposed that we all pay a penny more to fund services has tended not to be elected. Plus, as you say, even this penny or two wouldn't really cut it in solving the problem.

    So what to do? We can ask the public if they're willing to fund it and take their answer on electing the party that doesn't offer to do this as a reason to do nothing and keep services underfunded.

    Our we could ask if people democratically favour a progressive tax system where people that can afford it pay more than the present amount and enough to make a significant difference in creating the kind of towns we'd really like to live in. If we accept this as a democratic decision to actually do something different, instead of always getting more of the same, then the question is just how many do we collectively feel aye in scope? 80k 100k?etc. And how much?

    I completely accept that this means that it is the majority are asking the minority to pay for improvement. Its not ideal and I wish that the majority could be pursuaded to elect a party where they also chose to pay a little more themselves. Most of us would be happy to do so but then wimp out somehow in the polling booth as you've said. But not sure we should abandon increased progressive taxation just because of this, simply as I don't see any other way of raising money, and that's for the tories spending plans as well as labour's.
    We already have a progressive taxation system with the higher paid paying significantly more not the system (whilst almost certainly taking far less out). What you are proposing (and presumably selling on the doorstep) is that the public be asked' do you think that somebody other than you should pay more to fund the public services that you want to be better funded?' I can see why you like that question.

    The problem with your question is that it is based upon a flawed and dishonest proposition, which is that there are enough wealthy people around to be able to tax to a sufficient degree to make a difference. There aren't. As I said, the clue is in the Labour catchphrase 'For the many not the few’.

    I think that the major parties should start telling the truth, Raging. And if one won't do it the other should. I think that preferable to wringing our hands and saying ‘the electorate don’t like the truth so let’s sell then lies instead’.

  7. #247
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,077
    Quote Originally Posted by rolymiller View Post
    Not really Kerr. I can tolerate anyone who is centre/ left of centre on here.And as Pup said a lot of the Green party's policies are arguably more left than Labours. Blummin heck I even find myself agreeing with you at times partuicularly on issues of race but then you let yourself down by not challenging some of the views of people like gfire. You challenge my political views but not his for some reason and yet you don't appear to agree with him.You are a contrary Mary if I may say so!
    Not sure which post this is aimed at, Roly.

    I can tolerate people from across the political spectrum with the exception of the extremes, Roly. It is sad to read that you are so intolerant.

    I tend to ignore gf because he is an irrelevance - background noise if you will - and I only tend to respond when he says something particularly stupid.

  8. #248
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,077
    Quote Originally Posted by WanChaiMiller View Post
    The article I copief is a report of conference written up on the Labour party website. Why not read it.

    This relates to continuing free movement to the UK from EU countries after we leave the EU. You can say it relates to the rest of the world all you like but you are wrong.
    I agree that we need to wait for the Labour manifesto (I'll have a small wager that it will be very vague on immigration), but the conference motion tells you where the mood of the party is.

    I don't agree that the motion referred only to the EU. How could you extend EU free movement? And why the reference to immigration detention centres, which are only used for higher risk illegal immigrants as opposed to EU citizens?

  9. #249
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,628
    Quote Originally Posted by KerrAvon View Post
    We already have a progressive taxation system with the higher paid paying significantly more not the system (whilst almost certainly taking far less out). What you are proposing (and presumably selling on the doorstep) is that the public be asked' do you think that somebody other than you should pay more to fund the public services that you want to be better funded?' I can see why you like that question.

    The problem with your question is that it is based upon a flawed and dishonest proposition, which is that there are enough wealthy people around to be able to tax to a sufficient degree to make a difference. There aren't. As I said, the clue is in the Labour catchphrase 'For the many not the few’.

    I think that the major parties should start telling the truth, Raging. And if one won't do it the other should. I think that preferable to wringing our hands and saying ‘the electorate don’t like the truth so let’s sell then lies instead’.
    I'd personally prefer it if everyone over 20k would be in the picture for a progressive rise upwards to the suggested plans. But whenever that comes up, the media have historically used it to help persuade people to vote against it (even though the majority say they are willing to give it). I know you'll disagree and say that it isn't anything to do with the media, that people are making up their own minds but we'll just have to agree to disagree about that. So we have to find other ways.

    Of course even these plans wouldn't be sufficient for what is needed. It's a quite modest rise in income tax that is being suggested and still well in line with local competitors. The rest will be up in the manifesto and it will be interesting to see how both parties plan to pay for their plans.

    When you say that one party should start telling the truth, what would that look like? What would you suggest is a workable way forward, that is likely to succeed at the poll booth, that will be more successful in raising more money?

  10. #250
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,488
    Quote Originally Posted by KerrAvon View Post
    I agree that we need to wait for the Labour manifesto (I'll have a small wager that it will be very vague on immigration), but the conference motion tells you where the mood of the party is.

    I don't agree that the motion referred only to the EU. How could you extend EU free movement? And why the reference to immigration detention centres, which are only used for higher risk illegal immigrants as opposed to EU citizens?
    I cant speak for what delegates intend. However, we can make assumptions based on what we read. I posted up the report of the debate from the Labour Party website - that should hold more weight tham how its reported in Tory and anti Corbyn / Labour press.

    The article opens with this (and its quite key to understsnding the context of the debate) - "On its final day, Labour conference has approved a radical policy motion advocating the extension of free movement, the closure of all detention centres and the awarding of equal voting rights to all UK residents."

    It was a debate about the 2017 manifesto pledge that stated: “Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union.” In April, Jeremy Corbyn’s spokesperson confirmed that Labour policy was that freedom of movement would end with Brexit."

    The vote was to change this policy - "But Labour conference delegates this morning voted against that policy, and in favour of both maintaining and extending freedom of movement as part of a range of immigration policy pledges proposed by Camberwell and Peckham CLP."

    The reference to 'extend free movement' was beyond Brexit and refers to the EU - rather than to extend it to the rest of the world.

    However, I do agree, the debate was more wide ranging as stated in the opening statement - nothing is hidden.

    In part, it covered the right of immigrants to vote - "In the UK, full voting rights are currently limited to citizens of the UK, Ireland and Commonwealth countries. EU citizens living in the UK can vote in local and European elections, but not general elections.
    The motion seeks to instruct the next Labour government to change the situation, such that non-EU and non-Commonwealth citizens are awarded the right to vote in all elections."

    And the reference to immigration centres as follows - "The immigration motion approved supports the dismantling of the ‘hostile environment’ through a number of measures, from specific legislative moves to broader party campaign objectives."

    "the closure of all detention centres" references the current method to hold asylum seekers and illegal immigrants (yoj described them as higher risk illegals).

    Im not arguing for or against any of this. Just how sections taken out of context can be thought to mean something totally different. Propaganda eh.

  11. #251
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    34,867
    Quote Originally Posted by ragingpup View Post
    Thanks for info frog. Appreciated
    There's one very important thing that I forgot to mention.

    Anyone entitled to state health care must apply for a Carte *****e. Without this card the amount of paper work is incredibly and you will receive a bill for the treatment.

    The card has a chip in-built which stores your data from hospital visits, medication you have been on and which insurance company you're with.

    You receive a statement of costs covered and by whom.

    You need to present this card from anywhere from the dentist to eye tests. The emergency ambulance will also ask for it before you set off.

    You can present it later of course without issue but they'll make sure you're not discharged before doing so.

    It's maybe why the system isn't straining as in the UK but last year it was with the flu crisis m

  12. #252
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    1,982
    Quote Originally Posted by wendun View Post
    Casper, yes I see your NI point now. Difficult election for me. Never voted Tory and never will; class enemy and I don't give two hoots what anyone else says on that score. Can't vote for Corbyn for a whole host of reasons, not least open door on immigration. Don't like Swinson but I am completely against Brexit so LibDems or Greens may get my vote. Hadn't noticed the pensions thing from Bojo as I stopped listening to politicians about 50 years ago.
    I like you Wendun, rightly or wrongly you say it as it is, straight John bull, at least I know where I stand with you.
    You don't try to bully people into agreeing with your opinions.
    I'm in a similar situation as regards voting, it's either Labour, LibDem ( not fussed about this lot ) or waste my vote and abstain.

  13. #253
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    4,966
    As usual Kerr makes some perceptive points on Labour's likely approach to immigration. If he's not a solicitor he should be. I don't agree with immigration. I have several objections but will give two here. First it promotes a lazy attitude within UK businesses and organisations so they can dodge the more difficult options of better education and training here. Is it really sensible that my mates software business has recruited two guys from India? Wtf is happening with our own education system? Second it denudes donor countries of many of their best people and I can't see how, for example, supposed socialists applaud the NHS recruiting doctors from places like Nigeria.

  14. #254
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,250
    Quote Originally Posted by WanChaiMiller View Post
    The article I copief is a report of conference written up on the Labour party website. Why not read it.

    This relates to continuing free movement to the UK from EU countries after we leave the EU. You can say it relates to the rest of the world all you like but you are wrong.
    "But the motion, put forward by campaign group Labour for Free Movement, commits the party to a stronger stance, which includes "campaigning for free movement, equality and rights for migrants" and says it will "maintain and extend" movement rights."

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...ty-backs-plans

  15. #255
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,250
    Quote Originally Posted by wendun View Post
    As usual Kerr makes some perceptive points on Labour's likely approach to immigration. If he's not a solicitor he should be. I don't agree with immigration. I have several objections but will give two here. First it promotes a lazy attitude within UK businesses and organisations so they can dodge the more difficult options of better education and training here. Is it really sensible that my mates software business has recruited two guys from India? Wtf is happening with our own education system? Second it denudes donor countries of many of their best people and I can't see how, for example, supposed socialists applaud the NHS recruiting doctors from places like Nigeria.
    It's not laziness, it's cheapness, costs more money to train people than import them.

  16. #256
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    4,966
    Quote Originally Posted by CASPER-64-FRANK View Post
    I like you Wendun, rightly or wrongly you say it as it is, straight John bull, at least I know where I stand with you.
    You don't try to bully people into agreeing with your opinions.
    I'm in a similar situation as regards voting, it's either Labour, LibDem ( not fussed about this lot ) or waste my vote and abstain.
    Casper, that's a very kind comment to make. I would hate to think I had ever influenced anyone with my opinions; the responsibility would be daunting.

  17. #257
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    4,966
    Quote Originally Posted by great_fire View Post
    It's not laziness, it's cheapness, costs more money to train people than import them.
    Yes, g_f, I was using "lazy" in a general sense. I still don't see why the mass movement of people is so widely considered a "good thing" or a sensible solution to skills shortages.

  18. #258
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,488
    Quote Originally Posted by great_fire View Post
    "But the motion, put forward by campaign group Labour for Free Movement, commits the party to a stronger stance, which includes "campaigning for free movement, equality and rights for migrants" and says it will "maintain and extend" movement rights."

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...ty-backs-plans
    In answer, please read my reply to Kerr.

  19. #259
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,250
    Quote Originally Posted by WanChaiMiller View Post
    In answer, please read my reply to Kerr.
    It says "extend" like I said.

    What do you think "extend" and "expand" mean?

  20. #260
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    4,966
    An example of "substitution" in the workforce can be seen in post-war Britain. At the same time as the British Nationality Act 1948 encouraged Commonwealth immigration into the UK to help with labour shortages governments were encouraging women to return to domesticity with the result that millions left the workplace and by 1951 women in employment were back to pre-war levels. The heroic intervention of Windrush to save the UK is a nonsense.

Page 13 of 53 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •