OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[ramAnag]

I think photoid at elections makes sense but this presupposes everyone has a form of photoid. For example a lot of people in my mum's age group have given up driving and no longer want to travel overseas so have no current passport. Thus they have no photoid.

This means that we can only really introduce it in conjunction with a national ID card, which will have the civil libertarians up in arms squawking.

Either that or we disenfranchise an older chunk of the electorate which, no matter that it might appeal to Swale who doesn't agree with the way they vote, doesn't seem fair.

Mind you, Brexit might have been averted by this measure! ��

I’ve never really understood the objections to a national ID card as we all, voluntarily, carry so many other forms of ID anyway.

Photo ID will possibly penalise the elderly and I do wonder how necessary it is. Just gone through my wallet (phone case actually since we’ve become increasingly cashless) and I can produce at least five pieces of plastic, which I carry virtually everywhere, as proof of identity but only one, my driving licence, qualifies as photo ID.

Would have thought the voting card we all need, together with one other piece of ‘evidence’ would be sufficient but then I always use a postal vote anyway.

[Andy_Faber]

Yep, very aware of this, in one way the younger generation only have themselves to blame, had they turned out in better numbers it might have been different, that wasnt my point though, my point was i dont believe the older generation voted with 'it will take a decade or two' in mind for there to be a benefit so their reasons must have been different to trickys.

Based only on a vary small sample of who I knew/know, the older generation voted leave for purposes of reduced immigration/ increased 'sovereignty'/ 'having things how they used to be'.

However, based on a much bigger sample of folk I interacted/interact with as part of a business I have, those who crudely fall into the old 'working class' bracket voted leave based on the same criteria, including a protest vote against non-EU immigration

And to a certain extent they won (I don't mean they won the vote, I mean they got what they wanted). Less 'european supermarkets' (not that they used them), less people with strange accents quoting for plumbing jobs, serving them at Harvester or for that matter visible generally, less EU stickers on car number plates, less photos of Michel bloody Barnier etc etc. I think the intellectuals amongst us underestimate how important these little wins were/are for people.

Note that the above is an observation, not an opinion, BUT although the 2009 version of me (pre buying my business) would look at such folk as if they were bonkers, I can now see (even if not agree) with their perspective

[SithHappens]

Exactly my view, although there is Groff's point about the oldies, and there's an added risk of identity theft

Doesnt matter anyway, surely they can track us now with the microchips we all have from our covid jabs

[Andy_Faber]

I’ve never really understood the objections to a national ID card as we all, voluntarily, carry so many other forms of ID anyway.

Photo ID will possibly penalise the elderly and I do wonder how necessary it is. Just gone through my wallet (phone case actually since we’ve become increasingly cashless) and I can produce at least five pieces of plastic, which I carry virtually everywhere, as proof of identity but only one, my driving licence, qualifies as photo ID.

Would have thought the voting card we all need, together with one other piece of ‘evidence’ would be sufficient but then I always use a postal vote anyway.

Technical note, your driving liceence DOESN'T qualify as photo ID in some places where the recognition is by scanning rather than by eye, as the format of the photo isn't compatible with the software/hardware of the systems! No point in any direction being made other than what a multi-million pound f*** up

[Geoff Parkstone]

I expect it was the Tories' fault, or if it wasn't it soon will be 😄

[MadAmster]

Add in the fact that the Dutch didn't bother planting them and the shortage is real.


But propaganda only half told, fuels your cause if applied correctly.

The first sentence quoted is misleading at best. The second one tells what the first sentence is, half told propaganda.

One of the biggest employment areas within 10Km of my house is greenhouses growing food and flowers. There's an awful lot. I explained a few days back how more than one grower in the area has been hit by the cost of heating (gas powered), watering (irrigation is an automated process here and uses a lot of electricity) and lighting (again electricity, a good % of which is generated by gas power) the greenhouses.

I know of one that has ceased operations (one of my neighbours is now out of a job) and many that have cut back on production and are reducing staffing levels. Not because they "couldn't be bothered" but because the price of energy would be extremely high and the supermarkets and wholesalers wouldn't be prepared to pay sufficient at auction to cover the production costs.

The article you posted mentions the weather, something I did last week as well. It also quotes "empty Dutch greenhouses due to high energy bills". I posted that last week as well. Quite how you, TTR, managed to translate what I wrote and what the article you posted wrote into "Add in the fact that the Dutch didn't bother planting them" is gobsmackingly amazing. Maybe you can explain the thought process that got you to reach your "Dutch didn't bother" claim? That explanation might help the rest of us to understand how you got to some of the other conclusions you reach.... I won't, however, be holding my breath.

In simple words, TTR, Dutch growers are either growing less or not at all because they can't afford to grow things. Not because they "didn't bother". Do you now understand?

[SithHappens]

Surely its simple, if you cannot produce a product competitively and without loss then you will simply not produce it?

[Trickytreesreds]

I don't see why anyone, legally seeking asylum, should not be treated well. They're in desperate need of help, not punishment. Nothing to do with EU membership, it's about doing the right thing. If they're illegal or fail, then by all means deport them.

I agree.
So lets take that and look at it.
France has been using containers refitted out as dwellings and using camps.
We can't even use old army camps, that our troops used, because charities and lefty judges use the EU rules to stop it.
So as a result, we currently spend £7 million a day on 4 and 5 star hotels?
Yet all over the world camps are an acceptable entity.

We are running out of hotels so now we are expanding into social care homes/ schools etc.
If you think its hard to get a dwelling now for yourself, take a look at Sercos latest offering.
They are about to grab all the private rentals they can.

You think this is acceptable? I certainly don't, never mind the social unrest and fallout with peoples lively hoods.
Just read this. If you was a private landlord, would you rather take this money spinner on, or chase around a client using housing benefit?
https://www.serco.com/uk/sites/serco-aasc/landlords

No sorry, this is an example of EU law exploited by certain folks, that causes pain to many. Never mind it being a carrot to many more donkeys.

[Trickytreesreds]

Speaking of ‘better numbers’. What do we make of the requirement to provide photo ID at future elections?
I appreciate there may be a problem with voter fraud...although I think it is a comparatively tiny issue.
More important, imo, are the dual needs of a) making it easier rather than harder to vote and b) ensuring that manifestos are routed in truth, honesty and accountability as opposed to lies and falsehoods.

Personally, I think its correct to do so. I also feel every one should have a national ID.
This goes futher than voter fraud, the black labour market springs to mind.

I wouldn't endorse Blairs totallarian approach, but ID yes. I carry ID all the time, its called a driving license, so what's the problem?

[Geoff Parkstone]

Surely its simple, if you cannot produce a product competitively and without loss then you will simply not produce it?

Sorry to go all accountant-y on you Sith, but that depends on how you define "loss". So long as you cover your direct costs, then whatever is left at least abates your fixed overheads. So you may still produce something even if it creates an overall loss, as long as that loss is less than the loss by not producing.

The UK farming industry has been doing that for years, as they have to bear a very large fixed equipment overhead year on year.