Aggy
-
Content Count
4,430 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Everything posted by Aggy
-
It’s almost as if DIABD meant the crown estate rather than the individual - if only he had written a paragraph about the crown estate making loads of money to make that clear.
-
Post on the Reform thread if you want to discuss it. Thanks.
-
Only my view of course, but I think it’s unlikely you apparently had/have in depth conversations with colleagues about English worker vs immigrant worker salaries but nobody in the same group has mentioned brexit once in four years.
-
Interesting that nobody you’ve worked with has mentioned brexit for the last four years, but they do all sit around comparing their wages with immigrants’ salaries.
-
Do that and do you really think Reform would still be getting 15 per cent of the vote?
-
“Relying on our own young breeding” is no longer enough to look after “the old people as they die off” - because they no longer die off at the same age they used to. Unless you’re suggesting we both stop all immigration and euthanise everyone as they turn 75, there seems to be a hole in your plan…
-
The care homes will have to take the hit? Do you mean the people paying care home fees take the hit? Or do you mean people don’t pay more for care home fees, but the government steps in and subsidises it (in which case the taxpayer takes the hit)? Or do you mean if care homes themselves have to take the hit, loads of them should shut because it’s not affordable or profitable and we have loads of old people who need a care home without care homes being available? (Which then probably leads to the government having to step in and the taxpayers again taking the hit.)
-
I think this is a bit ‘petulant losing school kid’. As you know, that’s how politics works, certainly in this country. Significantly more than 18 percent of the population were ‘ignored’ about Brexit. More than 18 per cent voted not-Conservative last time and were ‘ignored’. Why should the winning party change their views to suit people who voted for the losing ones? Would the Tories have gotten more votes if they focussed more on immigration? Well maybe, although they seemed to make it a pretty big part of the end of their time in government and their election campaigning and it didn’t make much difference…. Perhaps had they come up with something less ‘Rwanda’ and more implementable that actually worked they would have won more votes. Or perhaps not? Would Labour? Probably not - might have won some of the Reform vote but risk losing some of their current voters. Would more people vote differently because of their views on immigration in a PR system where there were more ‘options’? The above poll suggests not really (as does the static UKIP a decade ago vote share vs Reform now vote share - seems like that’s the limit of the immigration vote). Would those who voted for immigration as a one-policy vote (ie most of the Reform voters) have more say in government if it was a PR system? Possibly so. Although of course there’s every chance that it could go the other way and you get a coalition who also don’t pander to the right wing immigration vote. And it’s a bit simplistic to assume people would continue to vote for one-policy parties in a PR system.
-
Nope, just querying your claim that immigration is a “far bigger issue” than housing etc in response to the claim that immigration is a big issue only for a select group. You’re mixing the arguments. Those stats show if you deduct the “number 1s” from the “top 3” then immigration is not a “far bigger” issue than virtually anything. 8 percent had immigration at second or third most important, while 10 percent had the environment, 7 per cent had housing, tax, crime or defence at two or three, 6 had the EU and education, 5 had pensions. I wouldn’t even say 8 per cent is “far bigger” than welfare at 4 and family and Gaza at 3. I have to say though, those stats look a bit suspect to me - I’m struggling to believe only 45 percent of people listed the cost of living and only 32 listed the economy as a top 3 issue!
-
That’s what makes Anderson even more impressive. Appreciate he isn’t as quick as Wood but for his body to still be going a fortnight off 42 is crazy.
-
If 18 percent said it was the biggest issue, then doesn’t the chart suggest only another 8 per cent listed it as one of the top issues?
-
Why not? In the same way you are out for yourself to earn as much as possible (as are most people in their careers) why shouldn’t your bosses be able to bring in cheaper labour which makes them more money?
-
How does it work in practice in Switzerland? Do citizens physically go to polling stations multiple times a year? Is it less than that? More? I’ve never really read into it beyond your posts (and have probably missed some where you’ve already explained it!)
-
I agree with the first paragraph. Re pre-arranged coalitions, while I suppose the coalitions can change at each election, realistically are they likely to? Wouldn’t you just end up with almost always having virtually the same coalition blocks to vote for? And how would voters make it clear they don’t want “their” party to go into a coalition with a certain other party? To me, that would result in a lack of choice situation not that different to what we have now. Edit: hadn’t fully read the bit about voting for policy deals - which sounds similar to the Swiss model TGS has mentioned on here a number of times. As he has just said - issue there only really being how long it takes if there is a vote on most things of consequence.
-
Links in with the PR discussion - you’ll get a lot more “one issue” parties in a more PR system. They would also likely get more influence in the Commons - which may be a concern when you consider they have to vote on more than just their one main policy. Reform, as much as some will suggest otherwise, is really a right wing one issue anti-immigration party. The majority of their voters will be unable to tell you their economic policies in any great detail. Their voters also seem to be extremely worked up that there might be other one issue parties whose one policy isn’t about reducing immigration.
-
In fairness, it probably isn’t!
-
I’ve never called you a bigot or a na zi. Nor have I called you a wan ker or anything else offensive. Why do you keep lying and getting abusive? Ps I respond to lots of people so your later post seems like yet another lie.
-
So you work on building sites and in the last four years nobody has mentioned, for instance, supply chain issues relating to (among other things) Brexit? I find that extremely hard to believe.
-
Evidently. I can only assume you are retired and don’t speak to many people who engage in business.
-
Serious question though, are you no longer telling everyone you’re not racist? You seem to have stopped bothering to post that anymore.
-
Really?
-
I don’t think even you know what you’re arguing about, so I doubt it.
-
By my count, 21 of the last 45 posts are by you….
-
Apologies, I must clearly have misinterpreted you quoting an anti-brexit post and countering the points made, then responding to my sarcastic post criticisng brexit with “whatever gets you through the day”. In hindsight, those things do clearly show brexit in a negative light.
-
Out of interest, which part of your post did you think showed brexit in a positive light? Was it the bit where you said it would result in a worse economy (but only up to 5 per cent worse), or the bit where you suggest the only way things will get better is if parties other than the UK government are able to persuade the EU to be nice to us?
