Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2023 10:33:09 GMT
This is a broken promise - someteimes refered to as a lie
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rishi Sunak indicates he’s no longer committed to manifesto pledge to bring net immigration below 2019 levels
A real broken promise ( or lie ) is where a PROMISE is contained within a manifesto going into an election, and where that promise is then not kept after attaining power.
Many times people have accused the Labour leader of "lying", as in for example on Tuition Fees, but the Labour Party have not committed to something within a manifesto, and then broken that promise.
Its perfectly feasible and reasonable for any political party to alter committments, change committments or alter policy within a manifesto BEFORE committing to the final presentation going into an election.
|
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on May 18, 2023 10:34:13 GMT
Srb, when someone was born in a different country to ours, they have a different government to ours. They have representation in their homeland. They are not without a vote unless their homeland is not a democracy. William Shatner, the Canadian actor from Star Trek, is not a US citizen. He cannot vote in US elections. He is represented in Canada by Justin Trudeau's government and has never sought to change the situation. You are making a fuss over nothing. In order to live and work here, people have to qualify for a visa. That means they have better financial means than some people born here. £1400 is nothing to someone who can afford it. To qualify for a visa you have to be able to afford it. Uf they are no longer living in the country they were born it, it is a matter for that country whether or not it still lets them vote there. Voting here though should never be something that comes with a price which is why eligibility to vote should be determined by length of residency here and not by something that costs £1400. If you cannot understand that, explain why the right to vote should be determined by how easily you can afford to shell out a large sum of money. Explain what is democratic about that. Srb - You let the cat out the bag pages ago when you said the folk you want to allow to vote would vote for "sensible people". Like Starmer you want to rig democracy. You don't care about "enfranchising" people or any other Blue Labour buzzword, you care about hedging your bets because you believe these folk will more likely vote in line with you. You said that on page 18, why folk have indulged you since, feck knows. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 18, 2023 10:57:45 GMT
Many times people have accused the Labour leader of "lying", as in for example on Tuition Fees, but the Labour Party have not committed to something within a manifesto, and then broken that promise. The Labour Party may not have committed to it but Starmer certainly did in his bid to get elected. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on May 18, 2023 12:58:15 GMT
16 and 17 year olds are children, I know that because I've had four and believe it or not, I used to be one. Why do you think 16 year olds are not 'legally' allowed to drink in pubs, get married, visit a betting shop, join the army? Rhetorical, it's because they're kids. Yet you think kids should have the right to choose the next government! Incredible. They would not single handedly be choosing the next government. They'd be greatly outnumbered by you pensioners for one thing. But yes I think they should have a say. It is after all their futures being decided more than anyone's. And of course I used to ne 16 and 17 once myself many moons ago. And the world around me was already affecting me and I was already working and paying my taxes. I was definitely very politically aware by the time I was 17 yet was denied a vote in 1983 simply because the election was called for 2 weeks before my 18th birthday.. That seriously rankled at the time. Yet had I and my fellow 16 and 17 year olds had a vote, we would have changed the result hardly anywhere. So wtf are you afraid of? We trust that age group with far more serious activities than merely putting an x in a box. We train some of them how to use arms. We allow them to ride motorbikes and drive cars. We allow them to leave home and live on their own if they can afford to. We allow them to work and collect taxes from them if they earn enough. We allow them to legally indulge in baby-making activities and become parents. So yes I think they should be trusted with the right to vote. Do you think Labour and the LibDems would be so keen on giving kids the vote if kids tended to vote Conservative? This has nothing to do with left wing politicians giving kids a choice, you know very well this is a classic case of Labour & the LibDems exploiting the fact that kids tend to be pro EU and left wing, until they grow up. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on May 18, 2023 13:10:20 GMT
This is a broken promise - someteimes refered to as a lie
------------------------------------------------------------------ Rishi Sunak indicates he’s no longer committed to manifesto pledge to bring net immigration below 2019 levels A real broken promise ( or lie ) is where a PROMISE is contained within a manifesto going into an election, and where that promise is then not kept after attaining power. Many times people have accused the Labour leader of "lying", as in for example on Tuition Fees, but the Labour Party have not committed to something within a manifesto, and then broken that promise. Its perfectly feasible and reasonable for any political party to alter committments, change committments or alter policy within a manifesto BEFORE committing to the final presentation going into an election. Was that even a manifesto pledge That can't be right surely? I remember they pledged to 'Get Brexit Done' and that any deal would ensure the UK would be able to introduce an Australian style points system, with a further pledge that they would introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system. I don't recall anything beyond that though. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 18, 2023 13:51:45 GMT
Uf they are no longer living in the country they were born it, it is a matter for that country whether or not it still lets them vote there. Voting here though should never be something that comes with a price which is why eligibility to vote should be determined by length of residency here and not by something that costs £1400. If you cannot understand that, explain why the right to vote should be determined by how easily you can afford to shell out a large sum of money. Explain what is democratic about that. Srb - You let the cat out the bag pages ago when you said the folk you want to allow to vote would vote for "sensible people". Like Starmer you want to rig democracy. You don't care about "enfranchising" people or any other Blue Labour buzzword, you care about hedging your bets because you believe these folk will more likely vote in line with you. You said that on page 18, why folk have indulged you since, feck knows. So THE LIE that Starmer want's to "rig democracy" is now a fact according to yourself. Would you please quote unequivocal proof that your claim is correct. If you can I will join you in your condemnation. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 18, 2023 14:04:17 GMT
This is a broken promise - someteimes refered to as a lie
------------------------------------------------------------------ Rishi Sunak indicates he’s no longer committed to manifesto pledge to bring net immigration below 2019 levels A real broken promise ( or lie ) is where a PROMISE is contained within a manifesto going into an election, and where that promise is then not kept after attaining power. Many times people have accused the Labour leader of "lying", as in for example on Tuition Fees, but the Labour Party have not committed to something within a manifesto, and then broken that promise. Its perfectly feasible and reasonable for any political party to alter committments, change committments or alter policy within a manifesto BEFORE committing to the final presentation going into an election. Was that even a manifesto pledge That can't be right surely? I remember they pledged to 'Get Brexit Done' and that any deal would ensure the UK would be able to introduce an Australian style points system, with a further pledge that they would introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system. I don't recall anything beyond that though. It seems that the government ignored any possibility of introducing an Australian approach. Perhaps it was just political deception to begin with? As I understand things a manifesto is not a promise, it is about the direction the party wants to take the country in. The first problem is that no new government knows the full state of the economy until they are in office. The second problem is that economic conditions can change rapidly, as too can environmental conditions. And government direction needs to change accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 18, 2023 14:09:11 GMT
Many times people have accused the Labour leader of "lying", as in for example on Tuition Fees, but the Labour Party have not committed to something within a manifesto, and then broken that promise. The Labour Party may not have committed to it but Starmer certainly did in his bid to get elected. And no doubt Starmer is still committed to it, providing the economy is right for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 18, 2023 16:41:48 GMT
The Labour Party may not have committed to it but Starmer certainly did in his bid to get elected. And no doubt Starmer is still committed to it, providing the economy is right for it. Well he never said that at the time - had he said that all his promises were dependent on the economy improving at some unspecified time in the future then I doubt he would have received as many votes as he did. Total dishonesty. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on May 18, 2023 16:47:24 GMT
Sunak may have voted for Brexit, but the fact that he is keeping thousands of EU laws he promised to scrap, and
backtracking on immigration pledges, confirms his WEF globalist loyalties.
|
|
|
|
Post by colbops on May 18, 2023 17:51:19 GMT
Was that even a manifesto pledge That can't be right surely? I remember they pledged to 'Get Brexit Done' and that any deal would ensure the UK would be able to introduce an Australian style points system, with a further pledge that they would introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system. I don't recall anything beyond that though. It seems that the government ignored any possibility of introducing an Australian approach. No it didn't. the UK Government introduced a new points based immigration system in 2020. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 18, 2023 18:02:07 GMT
This is a broken promise - someteimes refered to as a lie
------------------------------------------------------------------ Rishi Sunak indicates he’s no longer committed to manifesto pledge to bring net immigration below 2019 levels A real broken promise ( or lie ) is where a PROMISE is contained within a manifesto going into an election, and where that promise is then not kept after attaining power. Many times people have accused the Labour leader of "lying", as in for example on Tuition Fees, but the Labour Party have not committed to something within a manifesto, and then broken that promise. Its perfectly feasible and reasonable for any political party to alter committments, change committments or alter policy within a manifesto BEFORE committing to the final presentation going into an election. Was that even a manifesto pledge That can't be right surely? I remember they pledged to 'Get Brexit Done' and that any deal would ensure the UK would be able to introduce an Australian style points system, with a further pledge that they would introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system. I don't recall anything beyond that though. "There will be fewer lower-skilled migrants and overall numbers will come down. And we will ensure that the British people are always in control." www.conservatives.com/our-plan/conservative-party-manifesto-2019That seems pretty clear cut |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on May 18, 2023 18:25:32 GMT
Was that even a manifesto pledge That can't be right surely? I remember they pledged to 'Get Brexit Done' and that any deal would ensure the UK would be able to introduce an Australian style points system, with a further pledge that they would introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system. I don't recall anything beyond that though. "There will be fewer lower-skilled migrants and overall numbers will come down. And we will ensure that the British people are always in control." www.conservatives.com/our-plan/conservative-party-manifesto-2019That seems pretty clear cut That wasn't a pledge or a promise though. They didn't promise to reduce immigration numbers at all. They just said this it what will happen by introducing a points based system, which is what they actually pledged they would do. They did introduce a points based system fulfilling their pledge. If that system hasn't resulted in fewer lower skilled migrants and lower overall numbers since it was introduced in 2020 then its fair to say either that points based system hasn't produced the expected outcome or charitably it needs more time to do so (assuming it hasn't that is - I've not seen any numbers for low skilled immigration and overall numbers year on year to have a picture of before/ after the introduction of the points based system) They set out a plan, delivered on that plan. If the outcomes weren't as expected that does not constitute a broken promise/ pledge. You have to read the whole thing as one, not take one line out of context. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 18, 2023 19:42:53 GMT
That wasn't a pledge or a promise though. They didn't promise to reduce immigration numbers at all. They just said this it what will happen by introducing a points based system, which is what they actually pledged they would do. They did introduce a points based system fulfilling their pledge. If that system hasn't resulted in fewer lower skilled migrants and lower overall numbers since it was introduced in 2020 then its fair to say either that points based system hasn't produced the expected outcome or charitably it needs more time to do so (assuming it hasn't that is - I've not seen any numbers for low skilled immigration and overall numbers year on year to have a picture of before/ after the introduction of the points based system) They set out a plan, delivered on that plan. If the outcomes weren't as expected that does not constitute a broken promise/ pledge. You have to read the whole thing as one, not take one line out of context. I have read the whole thing and it is quite explicit as regards its intent and in what direction it takes the reader. It states clearly that numbers will come down with the policies that it will initiate. A plan has many things not least a process and an outcome. I plan to walk to the corner shop and I will buy a paper is more line with what you say in that the walk and the outcome will be dependant on a third party (the shop having papers). The Tory manifesto says we will introduce a plan, that will have this outcome and the British people will always be in control. Do I need to define 'will' in that it expresses inevitable events. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on May 18, 2023 20:15:02 GMT
Srb - You let the cat out the bag pages ago when you said the folk you want to allow to vote would vote for "sensible people". Like Starmer you want to rig democracy. You don't care about "enfranchising" people or any other Blue Labour buzzword, you care about hedging your bets because you believe these folk will more likely vote in line with you. You said that on page 18, why folk have indulged you since, feck knows. So THE LIE that Starmer want's to "rig democracy" is now a fact according to yourself. Would you please quote unequivocal proof that your claim is correct. If you can I will join you in your condemnation. Labour have been busy chasing the votes of ethnic minorities ever since Blair gave up on the white-British voter. This is Labour's latest exercise in garnering votes from 'others'. |
|
