|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Sept 4, 2024 9:50:14 GMT
I read what you said, and then asked a question to gain clarification. Is that not how debate works? All The Best Nothing in the post suggested I claimed saying because they are left and they are successful they are not really left at all. Thats why I made my suggestion. What you said was: This is a potential definition of "left" Of course anyone with a real understanding of "the left" knows they embrace egalitarianism far more than "the right" has ever done. Then you said of the Nordic states: Which is to say they do not embrace those things you have just claimed were "left". The ONLY logical conclusion of which is that you don't think Nordic states are "left". All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 4, 2024 10:12:19 GMT
Nothing in the post suggested I claimed saying because they are left and they are successful they are not really left at all. Thats why I made my suggestion. What you said was: This is a potential definition of "left" Of course anyone with a real understanding of "the left" knows they embrace egalitarianism far more than "the right" has ever done. Then you said of the Nordic states: Which is to say they do not embrace those things you have just claimed were "left". The ONLY logical conclusion of which is that you don't think Nordic states are "left". All The Best The only logical conclusion is that nothing in the post suggested I claimed saying because they are left and they are successful they are not really left at all. And nothing in the sentence “ Im have little knowledge of modern Nordic states but I suspect their broad left wing tendencies embrace egalitarianism… ( ie believing in or based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities….rather like the view of Noam Chomsky, the left political commentator)….rather than destruction of culture/ values and opening up the gates to mass immigration“ suggests otherwise. The only logical conclusion is that you made something up in your little head to appear clever and ( once again ) failed . If you weren’t such a complete wanker ,I would be happy to go through I it with you but you are are and I’m not. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Sept 4, 2024 14:01:19 GMT
Unfortunately what's morally right and what works are often mutually exclusive. I gave you one example of the moral principle that we should have open borders AND that we should have a welfare state. It's not practically possible.As for Patel and Braverman being right wing, maybe, but the civil service blocked them at every turn. They were even taking legal action to overturn the Rwanda policy. And as for Truss's policies they were never given a chance to "dump the economy down the shitter". They never even came into law FFS. And the economy didn't collapse. It suffered a brief crisis of confidence caused by huge briefing against Truss by Sunak and the Treasury. There was a concerted attempt to get rid Truss because the Tory MPs did NOT want her as PM. And the Nordic countries are changing since they (particularly Sweden) were overwhelmed by muslim migrants. Norway is withdrawing benefits from immigrants for instance. Open Borders is NOT a Moral Principle, it is a Economic - Political CHOICE. The ONLY people we should have open borders for are genuine Asylum Seekers, that would amount to less than 10k a year, rather than 50k we are currently heading for and the 1.2 Million we had in 2022 (Tory Government) and the 942,000 we had in 2021 (Tory Government). The Civil Service were taking legal action to overturn the Rwanda Policy because a) it was illegal, and b) it was counter to several treaties the UK had voluntarily entered into. It is the Civil Service's DUTY to ensure that Ministerial Policy is LEGAL. Truss' policies were so fucking bad even just the potential for them to be put in place dumped the economy down the shitter; imagine how much worse things would have been had she ever had chance to implement them. We'd be going to the IMF for another bailout. While the 1976 IMF Bailout occurred under Callaghan's Labour government, however it was entirely caused by Conservative Anthony Barber's 1972 "Spend for Growth" Budget; in fact even Barber saw how badly he had fucked up and tried to remedy things; but the Tories has screwed the pooch so badly they were tossed out of power in the 1974 GE, leaving Callaghan to pick up the pieces (sound familiar, eh?). All The Best You're very confused PV. Open borders are a basic Lefty principle based on the human right to free movement. And they always refuse to put numbers on the number of immigrants we should allow. And the legality or otherwise of deporting illegals to Rwanda is dependent on which court you ask. The basic case against it rests on whether Rwanda is considered safe or not. But a sovereign country does not have the obligation to accept people with no identification. We don't accept them if they travel by air and we don't have top accept them if they travel by any other means. The Policies that Truss proposed were almost indentical to the ones that Sunak adopted - with the exception of the removal of the 455 tax band - which was basically fiscally neutral. The big costs o Truss's plans were helping people on energy costs - but Sunak did that anyway. And he also ended up with 6% interest rates - and with the BoE selling off gilts at rock bottom prices. You're confusing economics with market sentiment. When you get the whole civil service and most of the party attacking the PM their time is limited. The mistake Truss made was underestimating the power of the Blob - and the power of the anti-Brexit wing of the Tory party. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Sept 4, 2024 14:24:38 GMT
Open Borders is NOT a Moral Principle, it is a Economic - Political CHOICE. The ONLY people we should have open borders for are genuine Asylum Seekers, that would amount to less than 10k a year, rather than 50k we are currently heading for and the 1.2 Million we had in 2022 (Tory Government) and the 942,000 we had in 2021 (Tory Government). The Civil Service were taking legal action to overturn the Rwanda Policy because a) it was illegal, and b) it was counter to several treaties the UK had voluntarily entered into. It is the Civil Service's DUTY to ensure that Ministerial Policy is LEGAL. Truss' policies were so fucking bad even just the potential for them to be put in place dumped the economy down the shitter; imagine how much worse things would have been had she ever had chance to implement them. We'd be going to the IMF for another bailout. While the 1976 IMF Bailout occurred under Callaghan's Labour government, however it was entirely caused by Conservative Anthony Barber's 1972 "Spend for Growth" Budget; in fact even Barber saw how badly he had fucked up and tried to remedy things; but the Tories has screwed the pooch so badly they were tossed out of power in the 1974 GE, leaving Callaghan to pick up the pieces (sound familiar, eh?). All The Best And they always refuse to put numbers on the number of immigrants we should allow. And the legality or otherwise of deporting illegals to Rwanda is dependent on which court you ask. The basic case against it rests on whether Rwanda is considered safe or not. But a sovereign country does not have the obligation to accept people with no identification. We don't accept them if they travel by air and we don't have top accept them if they travel by any other means. The Policies that Truss proposed were almost indentical to the ones that Sunak adopted - with the exception of the removal of the 455 tax band - which was basically fiscally neutral. The big costs o Truss's plans were helping people on energy costs - but Sunak did that anyway. And he also ended up with 6% interest rates - and with the BoE selling off gilts at rock bottom prices. You're confusing economics with market sentiment. When you get the whole civil service and most of the party attacking the PM their time is limited. The mistake Truss made was underestimating the power of the Blob - and the power of the anti-Brexit wing of the Tory party. It is not me that is confused. The real Labour Left, both Pre-Blair and more recently Corbyn, reject that freedom of movement. Corbyn was shanghaied into supporting New Labour policies by the remaining Nu-Lab PLP Members, when Corbyn's voting record on FoM and the EU tells a very different picture. It is the the Neo-Liberal Capitalism supporting remaining New Labour members that espouse Freedom Of Movement - just like the Conservatives. And that is because Freedom Of Movement is neither a left or a right wing political policy; it is a Neo-Liberal Capitalist economic policy. All The Best |
|
