General Election 2017
- Thread starter Andy
- Start date
- Jun 24, 2013
- 868
- 1,090
I guess I was wondering what the ideal to those who voted out would be, not what will actually be implemented - that may or may not be what those who voted actually wanted.
An Aussie-style points-basis is certainly one route though I think May's already stated she doesn't want that. I'm not even sure if that's classified as hard or soft.
An Aussie-style points-basis is certainly one route though I think May's already stated she doesn't want that. I'm not even sure if that's classified as hard or soft.
- Dec 18, 2014
- 1,999
- 1,050
I'm sure there's a joke in that last post somewhere 
Given that Mrs May is going for immigration in the 10's of thousands that doesn't leave much room for manoeuvre
Given that Mrs May is going for immigration in the 10's of thousands that doesn't leave much room for manoeuvre
- Jun 24, 2013
- 868
- 1,090
Just wondering if anyone on here was going to mention the graphic that BBC showed yesterday saying that people earning £123,000 would make a loss of £23,000 under Labour tax amendments.
I wonder when the apology will be broadcast.
(It's actually less than 10% of that but why let the truth get in the way...)
I wonder when the apology will be broadcast.
(It's actually less than 10% of that but why let the truth get in the way...)
Jeez! sounds even worse when you say twenty thousand million pounds!
Gawd help us, train fares will just rocket.
- Jun 24, 2013
- 868
- 1,090
That's not far off what a peak time return from Cambridge to London costs at the moment!
- Jun 24, 2013
- 3,400
- 2,345
Have you looked at the Aussie system of consigning refugees/asylum seekers to remote Pacific islands indefinitely?
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/23...y-may-be-officially-a-crime-against-humanity/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/opinion/australias-poisonous-refugee-policy.html?_r=0
There was someone on Any Answers on R4 a few weeks ago saying we should copy this and use a remote Scottish island for all UK asylum seekers. I appreciate that he was a bit of a nutter, but it illustrates one end of the wide spectrum of views on the Brexiteer side about what a sensible immigration policy should look like.
And further goes to show that people last June voted "against" something as much as "for" something when they voted "leave".
But we're stuck with it now, so I'd rather focus on the mountain of other issues facing the country.
And (as an aside to Andy), where did I say that I was "happy to try the Socialism of Corbyn"? Happiness plays no role in my decisions at this election, there isn't a "happy" choice.
- May 21, 2014
- 836
- 486
No I hadn't - and you know very well that wasn't the point I was trying to make. See my earlier post stating that I think people in need, and people we need, should be welcomed with open arms in the UK. Getting sick to death of the race card being banded about by remoaners like yourself just because they have a different opinion on the EU to you.
And I hope you are not referring to me saying you are "happy to try the Socialism of Corbyn" as it wasn't me that said it.
- Jun 24, 2013
- 868
- 1,090
Re immigration - what I was trying to establish was the extent to which, at least some, Brexit voters do actually only want a softish approach when it comes to immigration and freedom of movement - showing that there are such things as soft and hard Brexit - even from a Brexiter's stance. Soft Brexit is not solely the domain of the remainers.
You might want to upgrade your spell-check btw. There's definitely no 'o' in remainer.
You might want to upgrade your spell-check btw. There's definitely no 'o' in remainer.
- May 21, 2014
- 836
- 486
I skim-read the rest of Alan's post to be honest after his ridiculous insinuation that I would agree with refugees/asylum seekers being consigned to the Pacific Islands. I think I must have got under his skin by saying I would like to see us have a bit of control back in the UK. Surely that's not too outrageous an idea even for the staunchest remainer to grasp without throwing insults in return?From reading Alan's post - I'm pretty certain Alan wasn't referring to you. There's a little clue in there.
- Jun 24, 2013
- 3,400
- 2,345
I was not insinuating anything of the sort and nowhere did I throw any insults and where did I brandish a race card? For that matter, what I was referring you to does not have much to do with the EU either. Immigration is a much wider issue and this was connected with asylum seekers. I think you must have skim-read everything after the first word!
I merely asked if you knew about their refugee policy because I suspected (based precisely on your views expressed elsewhere) that you didn't know about this aspect of the Australian system. It was for information. And it also served to underpin Nicki's point about there being various shades of Brexitism, some darker than others (the caller to R4) - because I doubt very much that you or anyone else on here would go so far as to agree with him.
I merely asked if you knew about their refugee policy because I suspected (based precisely on your views expressed elsewhere) that you didn't know about this aspect of the Australian system. It was for information. And it also served to underpin Nicki's point about there being various shades of Brexitism, some darker than others (the caller to R4) - because I doubt very much that you or anyone else on here would go so far as to agree with him.
- Jun 24, 2013
- 3,400
- 2,345
I would be genuinely interested in seeing a range of people's lists of "people in need and people we need", which sounds like a pretty reasonable heading for such a list. I just wonder how much overlap there would be, and what the various estimates of an overall total would be.
- Jun 24, 2013
- 868
- 1,090
People in need is a difficult one - I'll leave that alone.
People we need: I would hope that any one person's list would simply be the list of people that we actually DO need (with a bit of leeway thrown in for those who would see immigrants as bringing social and cultural diversity rather than just being people to fill jobs).**
The list of 'shortage occupations' is here' http://www.visabureau.com/uk/shortage-occupations-list.aspx
Jeremy Hunt has said in the past that he wants the NHS to be self-sufficient (from a UK-sourced workforce point of view) by 2025. At the moment we rely heavily on immigrant NHS workers so they have to go on the list at least until 2025 and, in reality, I suspect indefinitely. Hunt typically doesn't live in a real world.
I'm really not sure what the case is with unskilled positions. Given that these positions are not on the official list, I'd suggest the government is aware they can be filled from within but is not doing nearly enough to achieve this.
Overall totals is an interesting one. I do wonder if May's immigration targets are anywhere near high enough, without them taking the necessary steps required to fill positions in both the skilled and un-skillled sectors with UK workers. Their manifesto doesn't give me confidence that they will do what is required.
**There are some people who really did think that Brexit meant we would not take in any immigrants at all. They are a very small ignorant/ill-informed minority - not at all like the fine, upstanding members of our community who make up the majority of Brexit voters - but they exist. Yes, it's the race card but, unfortunately racists do exist in this country. You're a fool if you think otherwise. I don't think anyone on this forum is a fool... or a racist.
People we need: I would hope that any one person's list would simply be the list of people that we actually DO need (with a bit of leeway thrown in for those who would see immigrants as bringing social and cultural diversity rather than just being people to fill jobs).**
The list of 'shortage occupations' is here' http://www.visabureau.com/uk/shortage-occupations-list.aspx
Jeremy Hunt has said in the past that he wants the NHS to be self-sufficient (from a UK-sourced workforce point of view) by 2025. At the moment we rely heavily on immigrant NHS workers so they have to go on the list at least until 2025 and, in reality, I suspect indefinitely. Hunt typically doesn't live in a real world.
I'm really not sure what the case is with unskilled positions. Given that these positions are not on the official list, I'd suggest the government is aware they can be filled from within but is not doing nearly enough to achieve this.
Overall totals is an interesting one. I do wonder if May's immigration targets are anywhere near high enough, without them taking the necessary steps required to fill positions in both the skilled and un-skillled sectors with UK workers. Their manifesto doesn't give me confidence that they will do what is required.
**There are some people who really did think that Brexit meant we would not take in any immigrants at all. They are a very small ignorant/ill-informed minority - not at all like the fine, upstanding members of our community who make up the majority of Brexit voters - but they exist. Yes, it's the race card but, unfortunately racists do exist in this country. You're a fool if you think otherwise. I don't think anyone on this forum is a fool... or a racist.
- Jul 28, 2013
- 3,008
- 2,330
- Thread starter
- #438
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.te...eneral-election-2017-key-points-policies/amp/
Some decent promises in there, especially with social care.
Some decent promises in there, especially with social care.
- Jun 24, 2013
- 868
- 1,090
Being objective, there are some decent ones in the Labour manifesto too. I'll just scroll back to see where you said that.... ***scroll, scroll, scroll.... it must be here somewhere... ***scroll, scroll, scroll,.... gosh, that's strange, I can't seem to find that post anywhere...
I wouldn't bother attaching the word 'promises' to either if I'm honest though. I don't think the parties themselves would actually use that word - unless they're attacking the other side for not meeting their 'commitments', 'targets' and 'objectives' (as they often don't). Only then do they become promises.
Hitting wealthy pensioners in the pocket - blimey! That's half their support!
I wouldn't bother attaching the word 'promises' to either if I'm honest though. I don't think the parties themselves would actually use that word - unless they're attacking the other side for not meeting their 'commitments', 'targets' and 'objectives' (as they often don't). Only then do they become promises.
Hitting wealthy pensioners in the pocket - blimey! That's half their support!
- Jun 24, 2013
- 3,400
- 2,345
The social care promise: we will make you pay for any social care that you require or request while you still have assets of more than 100K - including any property asset values. So if you have to liquidify the assets in the house and then use all but the final 100K of its value in order to get any care, so be it, even if it is domiciliary care that you need (rather than this applying as now to residential care only) and you end up racking up a load of debts for your offspring to sort out when you've gone. The pro-Tory media outlets are emphasising the "you keep 100K" aspect, rather than the "you will now have to pay even if you are staying in your own home" aspect. And the cap on care costs is being abandoned.
No wonder it was roundly condemned on the radio this morning as a totally inadequate solution by the person who led the Conservative review of social care about 4-5 years ago, Sir Andrew Dilnot.
It is a calculated risk that most of those hit by this move would be true-blue voters anyway.
And personally I cringed when I heard May start her speech with "I launch my manifesto ...". What happened to party politics?
No wonder it was roundly condemned on the radio this morning as a totally inadequate solution by the person who led the Conservative review of social care about 4-5 years ago, Sir Andrew Dilnot.
It is a calculated risk that most of those hit by this move would be true-blue voters anyway.
And personally I cringed when I heard May start her speech with "I launch my manifesto ...". What happened to party politics?