Labour
Conservative
Liberal Democrat
UKIP
SNP
Other
There's no such thing as local immigration as the meaning of immigration is "The action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country" and the meaning of local is "Relating or restricted to a particular area or one's neighbourhood" the whole idea of local immigration is an oxymoron.Originally Posted by badass
No it's not, you could just be moving within a smaller area, i.e. within the EU as opposed to intercontinental. France is local to us, wales is more local, compared to the US.
Yes it is, the size of the area relates or is restricted to a particular area, that area is defined however people choose to define it.
I don't understand
Right, sorry if I upset you and/or didn't realize how much you've actually been in the world of european politics.
If the same politicians who treated us to a parody during the campaign and have general let us down throughout the years are in charge i can't see Brexit being anything but a disaster, it's not like they're suddenly going to start doing what's right for the country and not themselves.
Point taken, but the bulk of the economuc effects of Brexit won't depend on them, but as always on the work, effort and dedication of the workforce, and the inventiveness, adaptability and endeavours of businesses.
Politicians, really, can make things a bit easier or a bit harder, but while they like to take credit as it all relies on their efforts when the economy does well,, the truth is it's the blood, swest and tears of millions of hard workers.
Most of the time, the best thing politicians can do to help is to get the bleep out of the way.
I guess that depends on what side of the equation you're working on, the archetypal evil boss exploiting his workers or the workers being exploited want very different things from politicians.
Indeed they do, but it's not what I was talking about. I was referring to the effect, good or bad, of the politicians.
But I take your point. Politicians certainly can change things that affect people's lives. For instance, Labour want to ban zero-hour contracts, and I've spent several years working under one. And itsuits me perfectly. There are a LOT of people for whom they work really well, because the lack of commitment works both ways. Yet, I'd be the first to agree that for lots more people, they are a serious abuse.
Some zero-hour contracts are used to give minimum wage staff few or no rights. That needs regulating. Others, like mine, are used to provide skilled and often retired or semi-retired people with occasional work when wanted, without commitment to do any days you don't want. And, by the way, at pay rates a very long way from minimum wage.
Politicians doing nothing at all about zero hour contracts are failing those being exploited, but Labour wanting a blanket ban are screwing over the large numbers who, like me, are perfectly happy with the arrangement. If a contract was offered giving me that same amounts of work, but on a regular basis, I'd reject it even if it meant no such work because I don't want to be committed to it.
The company I work for can't take all of us on ZHC onto staff because the work we do is intermittent and unpredictable. There's about 40 of us, and some days, everybody wanting to work is used, but other days, there's no work at all. Taking on some of us would be way short of what's needed to cover peaks, but taking on all of us means paying us to sit around doing nothing about three quarters of the time.
ZHCs work really well for all parties involved, in our case.
But none of this really affects the GDP of the nation, or exchange rates, the deficit, etc.
Politicians can do things to enhance or mess up individual lives, but having minimal beating on "the economy", except occasionally when they fail to stay out of the way.
Did anyone watch last nights debates on sky/ch4, if so what are your thoughts?
Did either candidate make you reconsider your vote or did they only reassure you of a choice you'd already made?
I enjoyed the Paxman bitsIt re-affirmed my decision that neither of them would be any use and that both the conservatives and labour have some pretty disastrous ideas for our country..with the conservatives only marginally better than labour.
These "debates" are more entertainment than substance though, as none of them tend to reveal anything new. Neither candidate will answer the difficult questions directly, and they have been prepped enough by now to know how to handle the majority of them.
The only really notable thing to come out of it for me was that I think Corbyn has improved substantially in recent months as a speaker - he comes over much more focused and statesmanlike than he has done before...it solves some of the issues many have had with him in my opinion - even if his daft policies (Some of which he doesn't even agree with
I thought Jeremy Paxman interview technique was awful. He aggressively attacked Corbyn without achieving anything and of course showed his bias to the Tories by allowing Theresa May to speak without much scrutiny.
It seems I'm not the only one thinking this.
https://www.indy100.com/article/elec..._campaign=i100
Weird that there were no quotes suggesting bias, merely those saying that Paxman is past his prime... or perhaps that's just your biased perception?
If Wisdom is the coordination of "knowledge and experience" and its deliberate use to improve well being then how come "Ignorance is bliss"
The odd thing is i personally think that makes him more credible as a leader, as a *leader you sometimes have to do what's best based on the evidence in front of you and not what you personally think is best....even if his daft policies (Some of which he doesn't even agree with
*or at least my preferred style of leadership
Personally i think that was more to do with Corbyn making some attempt to answer the questions put to him versus May's non answers, if anything i personally felt that showed Corbyn in a better lite as he seemed more candid than your typical politician who always manage to answer questions without actually saying anything.
No it wasn't my biased perception. It is well known Jeremy Paxman is a Tory and I noticed a difference in interview style between the two leaders. Is Paxman really past his prime or is it case that he had no access to the BBC researchers?
I felt the same as well. It was also noticeable during the last PMQ where Theresa May merely gave party slogans, buzz phrases and non-answers. No wonder Theresa May doesn't want to go head to head with Corbyn on a tv debate.
ETA: I thought Corbyn answered the question on tax on business from a member of audience extremely well while May failed to justify the dementia tax to the person asking the question. Of course, some of the audience applauded her but really is indicative of divided politics - factions against factions.
Also, it was interesting to see the audience seeing through Theresa May's epic fail on funding for education.
https://www.indy100.com/article/ther..._campaign=i100
Last edited by Top_gun; 31-05-2017 at 11:23 AM. Reason: see Edited To Add
Just on the topic of the polls narrowing drastically:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39856354
Although a fistful of salt is needed with polls, it's beginning to look like PM Corbyn could happen, though in a coalition most likely. Whats interesting is the dip in the Tory support which seems to have benefited Labour one way or another. The Tories earlier in the month apparently absorbed the UKIP vote, but the effect seems to have almost completely fallen away now and UKIP haven't recovered.
It just might be possible that UKIP voters are going to Labour.. the old school socialist and anti-establishment aurora surrounding Corbyn might be winning some (or many) over? Bearing in mind we are still living in the shadow of the 2008 crash and 7 years of austerity regardless of one's views on it. It's possible that the populace are now turning against the Tories, the Banking system and "The Rich" establishment and are scrabbling around for another half-brick to lob at said establishment. They might just pick up a Corbyn shaped half-brick.
Obviously, a Tory majority is still the probable outcome but these are turbulent times and nothing is certain. This is just my opinion, but Corbyn is actually more popular where I am(Lincoln - marginal seat) then the media would have you believe. There is a lot of anger about the status quo, regardless of anyone's views on who or what is to blame. The Tories are perceived as London/South-East-centric relying on the patriotic hinterland in the Midlands and elsewhere to carry them through without doing much if anything for them.. and it'll probably work, but there is an opinion base now that view the Tories as using Brexit as a form of misdirection, when there are many domestic concerns that simply are not being dealt with, be it the housing crisis, NHS, social care etc. Whether this opinion base will manifest itself on election day is another question though.
With 7 days of campaigning left, this might not be a dull election after all, even if May returns as PM.
Last edited by The Hand; 31-05-2017 at 07:24 PM. Reason: typo
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote