|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 3, 2023 10:11:12 GMT
We do not need a referendum we need a party who will do something they say they will do. Reform spring to mind as a fresh start as currently they seem to be untainted by the wannabee world statesmen that have proliferated in the other parties. This a legacy of the EU whereby UK politicians could see a political life after political rejection here. All the world may be a stage but we are desperate for politicians whose main aim and raison d'etre is to serve and represent the British people and not use them as a stepping stone to greater things I can't see reform winning an election, too many no no's for me especially the attitude towards climate change. That's the problem with trying to do this through electioneering there's always other parts someone doesn't want. I think there is huge support for cutting immigration from folks from left right and centre. Well most of us know, and are becoming more aware, that the climate change antics are at best a project fear designed to catch the unwary into obeying the instructions of those whose carbon footprint is enormous and increasing so that long term they can continue with their 'good works' which means the rest of us freeze and die and lead narrow futile lives in 15 minute zones where all our needs are promised to be met but never are. Even if climate change is real and CO2 does exactly what it says on the tin the problem lies with how it is being tackled by the high and mighty and in broad terms it is designed for sacrifices to be made by the many to keep the few happy. If tackling that means we all die then blame those who insist on meeting in hundreds of private jets and exposing their hypocritical approach. It washes no longer and we will not fall for it. If a party said bollocks to climate change measures tomorrow I for one would vote for it and encourage every other person I knew to do teh same. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2023 10:17:35 GMT
I can't see reform winning an election, too many no no's for me especially the attitude towards climate change. That's the problem with trying to do this through electioneering there's always other parts someone doesn't want. I think there is huge support for cutting immigration from folks from left right and centre. Well most of us know, and are becoming more aware, that the climate change antics are at best a project fear designed to catch the unwary into obeying the instructions of those whose carbon footprint is enormous and increasing so that long term they can continue with their 'good works' which means the rest of us freeze and die and lead narrow futile lives in 15 minute zones where all our needs are promised to be met but never are. Even if climate change is real and CO2 does exactly what it says on the tin the problem lies with how it is being tackled by the high and mighty and in broad terms it is designed for sacrifices to be made by the many to keep the few happy. If tackling that means we all die then blame those who insist on meeting in hundreds of private jets and exposing their hypocritical approach. It washes no longer and we will not fall for it. If a party said bollocks to climate change measures tomorrow I for one would vote for it and encourage every other person I knew to do teh same.If a party did that they'd be shut down under one of our draconian laws (either now or made up in the future) and all support for it will be made illegal. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 3, 2023 10:21:11 GMT
Well most of us know, and are becoming more aware, that the climate change antics are at best a project fear designed to catch the unwary into obeying the instructions of those whose carbon footprint is enormous and increasing so that long term they can continue with their 'good works' which means the rest of us freeze and die and lead narrow futile lives in 15 minute zones where all our needs are promised to be met but never are. Even if climate change is real and CO2 does exactly what it says on the tin the problem lies with how it is being tackled by the high and mighty and in broad terms it is designed for sacrifices to be made by the many to keep the few happy. If tackling that means we all die then blame those who insist on meeting in hundreds of private jets and exposing their hypocritical approach. It washes no longer and we will not fall for it. If a party said bollocks to climate change measures tomorrow I for one would vote for it and encourage every other person I knew to do teh same.If a party did that they'd be shut down under one of our draconian laws (either now or made up in the future) and all support for it will be made illegal. Highly likely I would have thought but at least that may convince more people after all it is a numbers game. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 3, 2023 13:08:07 GMT
I can't see reform winning an election, too many no no's for me especially the attitude towards climate change. That's the problem with trying to do this through electioneering there's always other parts someone doesn't want. I think there is huge support for cutting immigration from folks from left right and centre. Well most of us know, and are becoming more aware, that the climate change antics are at best a project fear designed to catch the unwary into obeying the instructions of those whose carbon footprint is enormous and increasing so that long term they can continue with their 'good works' which means the rest of us freeze and die and lead narrow futile lives in 15 minute zones where all our needs are promised to be met but never are. Even if climate change is real and CO2 does exactly what it says on the tin the problem lies with how it is being tackled by the high and mighty and in broad terms it is designed for sacrifices to be made by the many to keep the few happy. If tackling that means we all die then blame those who insist on meeting in hundreds of private jets and exposing their hypocritical approach. It washes no longer and we will not fall for it. If a party said bollocks to climate change measures tomorrow I for one would vote for it and encourage every other person I knew to do teh same. I have no desire to change this to another climate change debate. Sufficient to say that I and many others do not agree with Reforms policies of this, just as you don't agree with the Green parties policies on this. My point being that trying to get immigration to the top of the list is not going to be possible via a political party without accepting other policies you don't want. By example: If the Green party said that to help climate change they would keep immigration down to less than 100,000 per year, would you 1, Vote Green 2, Not believe them 3, Not be able to accept their other policies even if they guaranteed to reduce immigration. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 3, 2023 14:21:24 GMT
Well most of us know, and are becoming more aware, that the climate change antics are at best a project fear designed to catch the unwary into obeying the instructions of those whose carbon footprint is enormous and increasing so that long term they can continue with their 'good works' which means the rest of us freeze and die and lead narrow futile lives in 15 minute zones where all our needs are promised to be met but never are. Even if climate change is real and CO2 does exactly what it says on the tin the problem lies with how it is being tackled by the high and mighty and in broad terms it is designed for sacrifices to be made by the many to keep the few happy. If tackling that means we all die then blame those who insist on meeting in hundreds of private jets and exposing their hypocritical approach. It washes no longer and we will not fall for it. If a party said bollocks to climate change measures tomorrow I for one would vote for it and encourage every other person I knew to do teh same. I have no desire to change this to another climate change debate. Sufficient to say that I and many others do not agree with Reforms policies of this, just as you don't agree with the Green parties policies on this. My point being that trying to get immigration to the top of the list is not going to be possible via a political party without accepting other policies you don't want. By example: If the Green party said that to help climate change they would keep immigration down to less than 100,000 per year, would you 1, Vote Green 2, Not believe them 3, Not be able to accept their other policies even if they guaranteed to reduce immigration. Well let us say that reform said they will keep the netzero targets and became elected but ignored those targets would that be acceptable to you or would you be very angry that they had coopted your vote, and the votes of others, on a lie? EDIT sorry did not answer the questions 1 No 2Yes 3Yes |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 3, 2023 15:54:18 GMT
I have no desire to change this to another climate change debate. Sufficient to say that I and many others do not agree with Reforms policies of this, just as you don't agree with the Green parties policies on this. My point being that trying to get immigration to the top of the list is not going to be possible via a political party without accepting other policies you don't want. By example: If the Green party said that to help climate change they would keep immigration down to less than 100,000 per year, would you 1, Vote Green 2, Not believe them 3, Not be able to accept their other policies even if they guaranteed to reduce immigration. Well let us say that reform said they will keep the netzero targets and became elected but ignored those targets would that be acceptable to you or would you be very angry that they had coopted your vote, and the votes of others, on a lie? EDIT sorry did not answer the questions 1 No 2Yes 3Yes Agreed, but you must have misread my posts for I keep saying this cannot be done via election pledges. It takes me back to an idea I had a few thousand posts back. I suggested that manifesto pledges become compulsory. That if an elected party chose not to carry out a manifesto pledge they would have to explain why to the public and trigger a confidence vote. Or something like that. I believe it was laughed out of existence, but no alternative offered. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 3, 2023 16:15:28 GMT
Well let us say that reform said they will keep the netzero targets and became elected but ignored those targets would that be acceptable to you or would you be very angry that they had coopted your vote, and the votes of others, on a lie? EDIT sorry did not answer the questions 1 No 2Yes 3Yes Agreed, but you must have misread my posts for I keep saying this cannot be done via election pledges. It takes me back to an idea I had a few thousand posts back. I suggested that manifesto pledges become compulsory. That if an elected party chose not to carry out a manifesto pledge they would have to explain why to the public and trigger a confidence vote. Or something like that. I believe it was laughed out of existence, but no alternative offered. I think we all accept that circumstance dictate how a government can behave and how quickly or indeed if they can put in place a manifesto intent. That is different from a pledge like the LibDems made that was specific promise of exactly what they would do in a particular circumstance and reneged on that in the name of power. However immigration has been a policy of intent supported by the electorate of all shades for over 50 years. I cannot support alternative action to democracy but that is presupposing that governments act with a degree of integrity and in the last 25 years that aspect has been missing to a very large degree. The rot set in in 70 with the Bureaucrat Heath and it has never been the same, Thatcher was a blip as she realistically cared about Britain and in an oblique way the British people. She could not really be accused of doing anything else as the policies were aligned with what she said she would do. Our democracy realistically has worked effectively for many years it has been destroyed by those who wish to strut upon the world stage and Thatcher never wanted to do that Britain was her be all and end all. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 3, 2023 17:03:52 GMT
Agreed, but you must have misread my posts for I keep saying this cannot be done via election pledges. It takes me back to an idea I had a few thousand posts back. I suggested that manifesto pledges become compulsory. That if an elected party chose not to carry out a manifesto pledge they would have to explain why to the public and trigger a confidence vote. Or something like that. I believe it was laughed out of existence, but no alternative offered. I think we all accept that circumstance dictate how a government can behave and how quickly or indeed if they can put in place a manifesto intent. That is different from a pledge like the LibDems made that was specific promise of exactly what they would do in a particular circumstance and reneged on that in the name of power. However immigration has been a policy of intent supported by the electorate of all shades for over 50 years. I cannot support alternative action to democracy but that is presupposing that governments act with a degree of integrity and in the last 25 years that aspect has been missing to a very large degree. The rot set in in 70 with the Bureaucrat Heath and it has never been the same, Thatcher was a blip as she realistically cared about Britain and in an oblique way the British people. She could not really be accused of doing anything else as the policies were aligned with what she said she would do. Our democracy realistically has worked effectively for many years it has been destroyed by those who wish to strut upon the world stage and Thatcher never wanted to do that Britain was her be all and end all. Fine words Sandy, but sadly all they tell me is that immigration is never going to stop. If you rely on democracy, wont rely on pressure via social media whilst at the same time acknowledging government now lacks integrity then the result is nothing changes. I am often accused by Orac among others of wanting the world to come and live here, but seems to me I am the only one looking for realistic ways to stop them coming. Whether that being by forcing public opinion on the government or finding ways of making the annual immigration unnecessary. But I am thwarted every time by those who claim supposedly to be far more right wing and British than I am. To me it feels like they want the problem unsolved. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 3, 2023 17:16:28 GMT
I think we all accept that circumstance dictate how a government can behave and how quickly or indeed if they can put in place a manifesto intent. That is different from a pledge like the LibDems made that was specific promise of exactly what they would do in a particular circumstance and reneged on that in the name of power. However immigration has been a policy of intent supported by the electorate of all shades for over 50 years. I cannot support alternative action to democracy but that is presupposing that governments act with a degree of integrity and in the last 25 years that aspect has been missing to a very large degree. The rot set in in 70 with the Bureaucrat Heath and it has never been the same, Thatcher was a blip as she realistically cared about Britain and in an oblique way the British people. She could not really be accused of doing anything else as the policies were aligned with what she said she would do. Our democracy realistically has worked effectively for many years it has been destroyed by those who wish to strut upon the world stage and Thatcher never wanted to do that Britain was her be all and end all. Fine words Sandy, but sadly all they tell me is that immigration is never going to stop. If you rely on democracy, wont rely on pressure via social media whilst at the same time acknowledging government now lacks integrity then the result is nothing changes. I am often accused by Orac among others of wanting the world to come and live here, but seems to me I am the only one looking for realistic ways to stop them coming. Whether that being by forcing public opinion on the government or finding ways of making the annual immigration unnecessary. But I am thwarted every time by those who claim supposedly to be far more right wing and British than I am. To me it feels like they want the problem unsolved. I suppose that your way destroys that which we are supposed to hold most dear and effectively destroy the UK anyway. The plebiscite in the UK is largely the ballot box, not the riot (although the poll tax was not voted down in that sense). The laws currently being made and the co-opting of International courts to pass judgement upon the British democratic process is a serious danger to that process. In order to protect the democracy (supposedly) the establishment are busy destroying it. RW means we vote for a party and they do as they say they will which is a very reasonable expectation. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 3, 2023 19:22:03 GMT
Fine words Sandy, but sadly all they tell me is that immigration is never going to stop. If you rely on democracy, wont rely on pressure via social media whilst at the same time acknowledging government now lacks integrity then the result is nothing changes. I am often accused by Orac among others of wanting the world to come and live here, but seems to me I am the only one looking for realistic ways to stop them coming. Whether that being by forcing public opinion on the government or finding ways of making the annual immigration unnecessary. But I am thwarted every time by those who claim supposedly to be far more right wing and British than I am. To me it feels like they want the problem unsolved. I suppose that your way destroys that which we are supposed to hold most dear and effectively destroy the UK anyway. The plebiscite in the UK is largely the ballot box, not the riot (although the poll tax was not voted down in that sense). The laws currently being made and the co-opting of International courts to pass judgement upon the British democratic process is a serious danger to that process. In order to protect the democracy (supposedly) the establishment are busy destroying it. RW means we vote for a party and they do as they say they will which is a very reasonable expectation. It worked for Brexit. I find it odd you think such an idea destroys democracy. I disagree with your opinion of the international courts, they are not making up laws but merely acting on laws well established and often made by us in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 3, 2023 19:46:55 GMT
I suppose that your way destroys that which we are supposed to hold most dear and effectively destroy the UK anyway. The plebiscite in the UK is largely the ballot box, not the riot (although the poll tax was not voted down in that sense). The laws currently being made and the co-opting of International courts to pass judgement upon the British democratic process is a serious danger to that process. In order to protect the democracy (supposedly) the establishment are busy destroying it. RW means we vote for a party and they do as they say they will which is a very reasonable expectation. It worked for Brexit. I find it odd you think such an idea destroys democracy. I disagree with your opinion of the international courts, they are not making up laws but merely acting on laws well established and often made by us in the first place. What worked for Brexit, that was exactly what our democracy allows? Have I picked up your solution wrongly? International courts are living entities that refine and distil the agreements signed and in the long run change them to that which was not signed. It binds our parliament in many ways and one of the major principles was that no Parliament may bind subsequent parliaments, putting things into law does not bind but it makes it obligatory unless changed by parliament if we cannot modify the modified externally international agreements then we have no democracy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2023 19:47:35 GMT
I suppose that your way destroys that which we are supposed to hold most dear and effectively destroy the UK anyway. The plebiscite in the UK is largely the ballot box, not the riot (although the poll tax was not voted down in that sense). The laws currently being made and the co-opting of International courts to pass judgement upon the British democratic process is a serious danger to that process. In order to protect the democracy (supposedly) the establishment are busy destroying it. RW means we vote for a party and they do as they say they will which is a very reasonable expectation. It worked for Brexit. I find it odd you think such an idea destroys democracy. I disagree with your opinion of the international courts, they are not making up laws but merely acting on laws well established and often made by us in the first place. If you insist upon talking such obvious sense, they'll start calling you an extremist in a minute. Or a Remoaner. Which of course they think is the same thing, lol |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 3, 2023 21:13:50 GMT
It worked for Brexit. I find it odd you think such an idea destroys democracy. I disagree with your opinion of the international courts, they are not making up laws but merely acting on laws well established and often made by us in the first place. I think so, I was suggesting public protest driving government to a referendum. Sure parliament cannot be bound but it is. Their are laws in this country that parliament cannot usurp, just as there are international ones. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 3, 2023 21:24:32 GMT
It worked for Brexit. I find it odd you think such an idea destroys democracy. I disagree with your opinion of the international courts, they are not making up laws but merely acting on laws well established and often made by us in the first place. If you insist upon talking such obvious sense, they'll start calling you an extremist in a minute. Or a Remoaner. Which of course they think is the same thing, lol Or the very worst, Leftie  |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Dec 4, 2023 2:42:50 GMT
You don't think that it should be acceptable (or possible) to interview someone for a job who seems to be suitably qualified on paper and at interview feel that there is no way they would be a good fit for your organisation/team because of personality so you choose someone else for the job who you feel would be a better fit for the team? That should be a no-no in your opinion? If so it's a very naïve viewpoint - why on earth should you upset the existing applecart just because you 'feel' that is prejudice I don't believe I said that, how they would fit in with the team and company culture/values personality wise relates to capability. It's not remotely similar to dismissing them out of hand because of their skin tone. You posted that a decision should not be made on feelings as that is discriminatory in your opinion. A job candidate , may, on paper fit the bill so is invited to interview Your ''feeling'' at interview is that they may well be suitably qualified but you ''feel'' that they would not gel with your current workforce so offer the job to someone else who you ''feel'' is a better fit for your team. Now you are trying to dodge your previous post by claiming that someone (suitably qualified on paper with required experience and could be any colour/race/religion) is not being discriminated against if the interviewer 'feels' will not fit in with the team. So 'feelings'' are allowed |
|
