|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 30, 2024 15:01:36 GMT
It is you that are distorting the facts, it is well understood that far more EU Citizens applied for Residency than ever intended to take up permanent residency. At the 2021 Census there were 4 Million people resident in UK who were born in EU this number has been falling each year since Referendum one of the reasons being is that many EU Migrants came to UK for a period of time to work and send money back home. With the collapse of Sterling after Referendum this became less attractive. At the 2021 Census EU Citizens made up about one third of all foreign nationals living in UK this percentage has dropped considerably as EU Citizens net migrate from UK while there has been a large intake of Migrants from ROW. EU Citizens are more likely to return to home Country in retirement than ROW Migrants migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/eu-migration-to-and-from-the-uk/I disagree. The reason many east Europeans left for their homelands is because of the lack of jobs. They came to the UK for work in the 00s, even doctors taking jobs stacking supermarket shelves. They started to leave before the referendum due to increased growth of their economies, such as Poland: tradingeconomics.com/poland/full-year-gdp-growthThat growth in eastern Europe was driven by the huge amount of regional aid given by the EU to build up their economies. £100s billions have gone to Poland, including UK taxes. www.statista.com/statistics/1135294/poland-s-contributions-to-and-receipts-from-the-eu-budget/#:~:text=Poland's%20contributions%20to%20and%20receipts%20from%20the%20EU%20budget%202004%2D2023&text=Since%202004%2C%20Poland%20has%20received,to%20over%2083.8%20billion%20euros. That was happening with or without Brexit. Brexit means the UK is no longer paying for it. It is the reason for the increase in vacancies, nothing to do with the value of the £. The same reason for UK vacancies applies to Germany which has even higher job vacancies, so bad it is holding back their economy. German vacancies at their highest level since the 1970s: tradingeconomics.com/germany/job-vacancies#:~:text=Job%20Vacancies%20in%20Germany%20increased,Thousand%20in%20December%20of%201982. There is an ugly aspect on this thread about immigration from the Indian subcontinent and the far east. We need them just as we needed the Windrush generation. Some have a right to come like Hongkongers, and we have a duty to accept them as we did Asians from Kenya. They contribute to out society and want make their lives here, not like some who come to make money, claim benefits like child benefit, and send the money to another country.
The solution to immigration is investment in automation, robotics, AI , reducing long term sickness, preventative health care such as banning smoking, etc. Last Thursday my step daughter had to go to hospital for treatment and had to move away from the entrance area due to the intensity of smokers exhaling in total disobedience of the signs forbidding it. Duly seconded. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Sept 30, 2024 15:07:40 GMT
With or without brexit we'd still be having the same conversation. I disagree mate. If it wasn't for Brexit, we wouldn't have seen a massive increase in legal immigration from Africa and the sub continent, to replace the Europeans lost through the ending of the freedom of movement. And we wouldn't be watching the small boat 'crisis' being engineered to cover it up. I just base it off Germany, Italy, France, Poland etc.. They're all still in the EU and every right wing government blames immigrants for every problem. While at the same time supporting warfare which creates said immigrants. In or Out it doesn't really matter, immigration would still be their key topic as it has been for 2 decades. I'm of the belief and always have been of the belief that there isn't a will to stop immigration from many on the right. Its merely a distraction which wins votes. I'm more interested in what they try to use immigrations as an excuse for. Is leaving the ECHR really about immigration? Or is it about our human rights? Was brexit really about immigration or was it related to offshore tax or something else? If I had a problem with bees coming into my home. I wouldn't keep telling my family I'm going to solve the bee problem by leaving the windows open and then destroying the beehive. "Immigration is a problem" "I know let's not try and find peace in Ukraine. Let's make all the women and children refugees and bring them in." "Immigration is still a problem." "I know let's send lots of weapons to Israel to bomb Gaza and make refugees and then have their government say the refugees can all go to Europe" "Immigration is getting worse" "I know let's send more weapons to Israel, impose no sanctions and support them in bombing Lebbanon, Syria, Iran and Yemen." "Immigration is still really bad guys" "I know. Venezuela has a shit ton of oil which could make a few people billionaires. Let's impose sanctions and create a Famine and fund any opposition to the government who may help us do a coup. Yes it creates more immigrants but they won't be living in our streets. Plus we can keep blaming them for every problem and keep in power" You reap what you sow. You don't solve your bee problem by destroying all the beehives. That creates the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 30, 2024 15:09:36 GMT
Disagree all you want, these are not my findings but those at the Migration Observatory at Oxford University If I were you I'd send them a strongly worded letter pointing out how their Academic Research on UK Migration is flawed and include your own research so they can adjust their Data which is used by Government and quoted by Media. My post concurs with the Migration Observatory link. It is you that posted to give the impression that net migration was " faĺling since" the Brexit referendum and due to the " collapse" in the value of the £ after the vote to leave the EU, with which I disagree. The graphs on the link support my post that immigration from the EU flattened off, and in some categories like Poland, started to decline before the referendum. See Figure 2: migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/eu-migration-to-and-from-the-uk/I don't deny that the vote to leave the EU triggered dual reactions of increasing those wanting to leave and fewer wanting to come, but the trend had already been established well before the referendum due to the strong economic growth in Eastern Europe funded in part by UK tax payers. Your post doesn't concur with Migration Observatory you are saying the exact opposite Taken directly from Migration Observatory Net migration of EU citizens has been negative since the pandemic and under the post-Brexit immigration system, with immigration falling by almost 70% compared to its 2016 peak.
In the year ending December 2022, the long-term net migration of EU citizens to the UK was negative, at -51,000, according to Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimates published in May 2023. Net migration from the EU turned negative in 2020, after the beginning of the pandemic, and continued falling in 2021 and 2022 (Figure 1).In the year ending March 2016, EU net migration peaked at over 280,000, with more than 500,000 EU nationals moving to the UK.Most of the decline in net migration has occurred because of a sharp drop in immigration (Figure 2), which declined by almost 70% from 2016 to 2022. Long-term EU migration fell before any new policies restricting it came into force – between 2016 and 2020, immigration fell by 35% and net migration declined by more than 80%. Possible explanations for this decline include the fall in the value of the pound, reducing the value of money earned in the UK compared to other EU countries uncertainty about the political and social situation in the UK after Brexit; and the fact that EU migration had been unusually high in the pre-referendum period and thus might be expected to have fallen anyway. In the same period, overall net migration into the UK continued to rise, reaching an estimated 606,000 in 2022. The fall in EU migration was compensated by a sharp rise in migration from non-EU citizens since 2021. For more information on net migration to the UK, see the Migration Observatory briefing, Net migration to the UK.Migration from EU to UK has been falling since its peak of 280K since 2016 Referendum, who wants to go to a Country you're not wanted. This exodus was excelerated by Covid when EU Citizens returned to their adjacent Countries. When Covid was over and the Economy opened up there was a requirement for Labour previously filled by EU Citizens and there has been an explosion of Immigrants from ROW since Brexit occurred in 2021. There is nothing wrong with this but as Paul says the leave Campaign were disengenuous by not admiting this would happen. If you refer to the March 2016 peak of 280K net and compare that to the 1.4M net migration in the first two years of Brexit you can see where Leavers might be confused and once again reach the wrong conclusion that the problem is the 3% of people arriving in small boats. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 30, 2024 15:10:11 GMT
I disagree mate. If it wasn't for Brexit, we wouldn't have seen a massive increase in legal immigration from Africa and the sub continent, to replace the Europeans lost through the ending of the freedom of movement. And we wouldn't be watching the small boat 'crisis' being engineered to cover it up. I just base it off Germany, Italy, France, Poland etc.. They're all still in the EU and every right wing government blames immigrants for every problem. While at the same time supporting warfare which creates said immigrants. In or Out it doesn't really matter, immigration would still be their key topic as it has been for 2 decades. I'm of the belief and always have been of the belief that there isn't a will to stop immigration from many on the right. Its merely a distraction which wins votes. I'm more interested in what they try to use immigrations as an excuse for. Is leaving the ECHR really about immigration? Or is it about our human rights? Was brexit really about immigration or was it related to offshore tax or something else? If I had a problem with bees coming into my home. I wouldn't keep telling my family I'm going to solve the bee problem by leaving the windows open and then destroying the beehive. "Immigration is a problem" "I know let's not try and find peace in Ukraine. Let's make all the women and children refugees and bring them in." "Immigration is still a problem." "I know let's send lots of weapons to Israel to bomb Gaza and make refugees and then have their government say the refugees can all go to Europe" "Immigration is getting worse" "I know let's send more weapons to Israel, impose no sanctions and support them in bombing Lebbanon, Syria, Iran and Yemen." "Immigration is still really bad guys" "I know. Venezuela has a shit ton of oil which could make a few people billionaires. Let's impose sanctions and create a Famine and fund any opposition to the government who may help us do a coup. Yes it creates more immigrants but they won't be living in our streets. Plus we can keep blaming them for every problem and keep in power" You reap what you sow. You don't solve your bee problem by destroying all the beehives. That creates the problem. Duly seconded. Although I don't accept the premise of the debate in the first place - that immigration is an issue. It isn't. There's a much bigger problem regarding criminality with those who are born here than there is with those coming here looking to move to the UK to bring their families to work. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Sept 30, 2024 15:24:17 GMT
I just base it off Germany, Italy, France, Poland etc.. They're all still in the EU and every right wing government blames immigrants for every problem. While at the same time supporting warfare which creates said immigrants. In or Out it doesn't really matter, immigration would still be their key topic as it has been for 2 decades. I'm of the belief and always have been of the belief that there isn't a will to stop immigration from many on the right. Its merely a distraction which wins votes. I'm more interested in what they try to use immigrations as an excuse for. Is leaving the ECHR really about immigration? Or is it about our human rights? Was brexit really about immigration or was it related to offshore tax or something else? If I had a problem with bees coming into my home. I wouldn't keep telling my family I'm going to solve the bee problem by leaving the windows open and then destroying the beehive. "Immigration is a problem" "I know let's not try and find peace in Ukraine. Let's make all the women and children refugees and bring them in." "Immigration is still a problem." "I know let's send lots of weapons to Israel to bomb Gaza and make refugees and then have their government say the refugees can all go to Europe" "Immigration is getting worse" "I know let's send more weapons to Israel, impose no sanctions and support them in bombing Lebbanon, Syria, Iran and Yemen." "Immigration is still really bad guys" "I know. Venezuela has a shit ton of oil which could make a few people billionaires. Let's impose sanctions and create a Famine and fund any opposition to the government who may help us do a coup. Yes it creates more immigrants but they won't be living in our streets. Plus we can keep blaming them for every problem and keep in power" You reap what you sow. You don't solve your bee problem by destroying all the beehives. That creates the problem. Duly seconded. Although I don't accept the premise of the debate in the first place - that immigration is an issue. It isn't. There's a much bigger problem regarding criminality with those who are born here than there is with those coming here looking to move to the UK to bring their families to work. The problem is that rightly or wrongly alot of people believe it is a problem and so we do need to discuss it and give it the seriousness a large chunk of the electorate believes it warrants. There are problems from immigration. One of the key ones being that we've not been increasing our infrastructure and public services in line with immigration. And that's impacted the service people receive. Another is undocumented refugees who may pose a danger. I think that problem is overstated by some but again its important to some people and needs addressed. And tbh I think if a load of working people which are representative of the electorate views were to discuss the above we would probably come to a compromise and solution much quicker than those elected. Paragraph 1 needs a commitment for additional investment in different regions based on how their population is affected by immigration and to ensure they still have the same number of doctors, schools, police officers per 1000 people. Paragraph 2 is obviously a divisive one and a compromise will be needed there. Maybe that compromise is for undocumented refugees to wear those ankle bracelet things for first x months or something. I'm not sure. But again rather than flinging shit back and forth. Maybe we just need to find compromises and do stuff rather than talk about stuff. Of course as said before I don't see immigration as big a problem as some others but I do think we need our politicians go have more conversations on it where they find solutions rather than 3 word slogans. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 30, 2024 15:25:08 GMT
I disagree mate. If it wasn't for Brexit, we wouldn't have seen a massive increase in legal immigration from Africa and the sub continent, to replace the Europeans lost through the ending of the freedom of movement. And we wouldn't be watching the small boat 'crisis' being engineered to cover it up. I just base it off Germany, Italy, France, Poland etc.. They're all still in the EU and every right wing government blames immigrants for every problem. While at the same time supporting warfare which creates said immigrants. In or Out it doesn't really matter, immigration would still be their key topic as it has been for 2 decades. I'm of the belief and always have been of the belief that there isn't a will to stop immigration from many on the right. Its merely a distraction which wins votes. I'm more interested in what they try to use immigrations as an excuse for. Is leaving the ECHR really about immigration? Or is it about our human rights? Was brexit really about immigration or was it related to offshore tax or something else? If I had a problem with bees coming into my home. I wouldn't keep telling my family I'm going to solve the bee problem by leaving the windows open and then destroying the beehive. "Immigration is a problem" "I know let's not try and find peace in Ukraine. Let's make all the women and children refugees and bring them in." "Immigration is still a problem." "I know let's send lots of weapons to Israel to bomb Gaza and make refugees and then have their government say the refugees can all go to Europe" "Immigration is getting worse" "I know let's send more weapons to Israel, impose no sanctions and support them in bombing Lebbanon, Syria, Iran and Yemen." "Immigration is still really bad guys" "I know. Venezuela has a shit ton of oil which could make a few people billionaires. Let's impose sanctions and create a Famine and fund any opposition to the government who may help us do a coup. Yes it creates more immigrants but they won't be living in our streets. Plus we can keep blaming them for every problem and keep in power" You reap what you sow. You don't solve your bee problem by destroying all the beehives. That creates the problem. Yeah but that's a very different discussion to the one I was having with Cokey, which was far more distinct and specifically about a) the effect of Brexit on legal immigration to the UK from the sub continent and b) about how the previous government were forced to engineer the small boat 'crisis' to cover it up. With regard to your more general point about right wing politicians always blaming immigrants regardless of the situation, well yes, I totally agree. Right wing politics can't work without a bogey man. "Look over THERE", "THEY are your problem". You worry about "THEM" whilst I pick your pocket. As you suggest, leaving the ECHR has absolutely zip to do with immigration but is rather to do with people being tricked into supporting losing their own basic human rights, so that they become vulnerable to even further exploitation by those who apparently 'care' about them. 🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Sept 30, 2024 15:52:21 GMT
My post concurs with the Migration Observatory link. It is you that posted to give the impression that net migration was " faĺling since" the Brexit referendum and due to the " collapse" in the value of the £ after the vote to leave the EU, with which I disagree. The graphs on the link support my post that immigration from the EU flattened off, and in some categories like Poland, started to decline before the referendum. See Figure 2: migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/eu-migration-to-and-from-the-uk/I don't deny that the vote to leave the EU triggered dual reactions of increasing those wanting to leave and fewer wanting to come, but the trend had already been established well before the referendum due to the strong economic growth in Eastern Europe funded in part by UK tax payers. Your post doesn't concur with Migration Observatory you are saying the exact opposite Taken directly from Migration Observatory Net migration of EU citizens has been negative since the pandemic and under the post-Brexit immigration system, with immigration falling by almost 70% compared to its 2016 peak.
In the year ending December 2022, the long-term net migration of EU citizens to the UK was negative, at -51,000, according to Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimates published in May 2023. Net migration from the EU turned negative in 2020, after the beginning of the pandemic, and continued falling in 2021 and 2022 (Figure 1).In the year ending March 2016, EU net migration peaked at over 280,000, with more than 500,000 EU nationals moving to the UK.Most of the decline in net migration has occurred because of a sharp drop in immigration (Figure 2), which declined by almost 70% from 2016 to 2022. Long-term EU migration fell before any new policies restricting it came into force – between 2016 and 2020, immigration fell by 35% and net migration declined by more than 80%. Possible explanations for this decline include the fall in the value of the pound, reducing the value of money earned in the UK compared to other EU countries uncertainty about the political and social situation in the UK after Brexit; and the fact that EU migration had been unusually high in the pre-referendum period and thus might be expected to have fallen anyway. In the same period, overall net migration into the UK continued to rise, reaching an estimated 606,000 in 2022. The fall in EU migration was compensated by a sharp rise in migration from non-EU citizens since 2021. For more information on net migration to the UK, see the Migration Observatory briefing, Net migration to the UK.Migration from EU to UK has been falling since its peak of 280K since 2016 Referendum, who wants to go to a Country you're not wanted. This exodus was excelerated by Covid when EU Citizens returned to their adjacent Countries. When Covid was over and the Economy opened up there was a requirement for Labour previously filled by EU Citizens and there has been an explosion of Immigrants from ROW since Brexit occurred in 2021. There is nothing wrong with this but as Paul says the leave Campaign were disengenuous by not admiting this would happen. If you refer to the March 2016 peak of 280K net and compare that to the 1.4M net migration in the first two years of Brexit you can see where Leavers might be confused and once again reach the wrong conclusion that the problem is the 3% of people arriving in small boats. You can copy and paste from the report as much you want but it is quite clear on Figure 2 in the report that the immigration from EU-14 and EU-8 countries had peaked by 2014, two years before the referendum. The overall immigration from the EU had peaked by 2015, and this was despite a late surge from Romania and Bulgaria due to their later lifting of restrictions. So immigration from the EU had peaked before the referendum and quoting from the report how much it dropped since 2016 is irrelevant as it would have occurred anyway. The only concession I would make is, if the Remain vote had won the referendum the decline may not have been so fast. It is a fallacy to suggest than had the UK not left the EU that EU citizens would have returned in similar numbers. The east European economies are demanding much more labour due to growth, whereas Germany has a huge Labour shortage. Why would an East European come to the UK when Germany is crying out for labour and until recently Schultz has been moving to make immigration to Germany easier to attract labour. www.make-it-in-germany.com/en/visa-residence/skilled-immigration-actBut even he is giving in to the right wing. France is also short of labour, but with the rise of the right, unlikely to try and increase immigration. www.euronews.com/health/2024/09/12/doctor-shortages-low-pay-and-overtime-europes-hospitals-are-under-the-weather |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 30, 2024 16:14:22 GMT
In the year ending March 2016, EU net migration peaked at over 280,000, with more than 500,000 EU nationals moving to the UK. You can copy and paste from the report as much you want but it is quite clear on Figure 2 in the report that the immigration from EU-14 and EU-8 countries had peaked by 2014, two years before the referendum. IT HADN'T The overall immigration from the EU had peaked by 2015, and this was despite a late surge from Romania and Bulgaria due to their later lifting of restrictions. IT DIDN'T
Blimey this is hard work Migration from EU peaked in the year to March 2016 - 3 MONTHS BEFORE THE REFERENDUM and has fallen steadily since and became negative in 2020 during Covid and has continued to fall since Brexit in 2021. What's so difficult to understand, these are facts not opinions |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Sept 30, 2024 16:30:16 GMT
You can copy and paste from the report as much you want but it is quite clear on Figure 2 in the report that the immigration from EU-14 and EU-8 countries had peaked by 2014, two years before the referendum. IT HADN'T The overall immigration from the EU had peaked by 2015, and this was despite a late surge from Romania and Bulgaria due to their later lifting of restrictions. IT DIDN'T
Blimey this is hard work Migration from EU peaked in the year to March 2016 - 3 MONTHS BEFORE THE REFERENDUM and has fallen steadily since and became negative in 2020 during Covid and has continued to fall since Brexit in 2021. What's so difficult to understand, these are facts not opinions Calm down. Migration from the EU peaked during the year March 2015 to 2016, many more months than 3 months before the referendum. For the main countries like Poland it had been falling since the year ending March 2015 a long time before the referendum. It has continued to fall because countries like Germany and France are short of workers. Although with state of Germany and France's economies it may change! www.cnbc.com/2024/09/23/europe-adrift-without-a-rudder-as-france-and-germany-fight-crises.html |
|
|
|
Post by Chewbacca the Wookie on Sept 30, 2024 16:54:58 GMT
Duly seconded. Although I don't accept the premise of the debate in the first place - that immigration is an issue. It isn't. There's a much bigger problem regarding criminality with those who are born here than there is with those coming here looking to move to the UK to bring their families to work. The problem is that rightly or wrongly alot of people believe it is a problem and so we do need to discuss it and give it the seriousness a large chunk of the electorate believes it warrants. There are problems from immigration. One of the key ones being that we've not been increasing our infrastructure and public services in line with immigration. And that's impacted the service people receive. Another is undocumented refugees who may pose a danger. I think that problem is overstated by some but again its important to some people and needs addressed. And tbh I think if a load of working people which are representative of the electorate views were to discuss the above we would probably come to a compromise and solution much quicker than those elected. Paragraph 1 needs a commitment for additional investment in different regions based on how their population is affected by immigration and to ensure they still have the same number of doctors, schools, police officers per 1000 people. Paragraph 2 is obviously a divisive one and a compromise will be needed there. Maybe that compromise is for undocumented refugees to wear those ankle bracelet things for first x months or something. I'm not sure. But again rather than flinging shit back and forth. Maybe we just need to find compromises and do stuff rather than talk about stuff. Of course as said before I don't see immigration as big a problem as some others but I do think we need our politicians go have more conversations on it where they find solutions rather than 3 word slogans. excellent post mate |
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Sept 30, 2024 17:25:57 GMT
Duly seconded. Although I don't accept the premise of the debate in the first place - that immigration is an issue. It isn't. There's a much bigger problem regarding criminality with those who are born here than there is with those coming here looking to move to the UK to bring their families to work. The problem is that rightly or wrongly alot of people believe it is a problem and so we do need to discuss it and give it the seriousness a large chunk of the electorate believes it warrants. There are problems from immigration. One of the key ones being that we've not been increasing our infrastructure and public services in line with immigration. And that's impacted the service people receive. Another is undocumented refugees who may pose a danger. I think that problem is overstated by some but again its important to some people and needs addressed. And tbh I think if a load of working people which are representative of the electorate views were to discuss the above we would probably come to a compromise and solution much quicker than those elected. Paragraph 1 needs a commitment for additional investment in different regions based on how their population is affected by immigration and to ensure they still have the same number of doctors, schools, police officers per 1000 people. Paragraph 2 is obviously a divisive one and a compromise will be needed there. Maybe that compromise is for undocumented refugees to wear those ankle bracelet things for first x months or something. I'm not sure. But again rather than flinging shit back and forth. Maybe we just need to find compromises and do stuff rather than talk about stuff. Of course as said before I don't see immigration as big a problem as some others but I do think we need our politicians go have more conversations on it where they find solutions rather than 3 word slogans. That's true, but what's also true is that, for a good few years, largely from June 2016, and especially from 2019 (Johnson's election win) to about 2022 when Johnson started to become unpopular as a result of partygate, there was very little coverage of immigration at all, for two main reasons. First, it no longer needed to be weaponised as an issue in the way that it was for Brexit and second, it was always going to be bullshit about Brexit reducing immigration anyway so, to avoid any awareness of that by the electorate, it was off the right-wing newspaper agenda in particular and the general media as a whole for a good while. As soon as the Tories started tanking, it became the go-to news story once again. I would expect that there was a fair degree of collusion between Downing St and Fleet St as to immigration policy/Rwanda/small boats/front page headlines etc to try to get the electorate to focus once again on a 'problem' that Brexit was supposed to have fixed! You'd have to be pretty dim not to see that you'd been played previously, but it sure seems to have worked for a lot of people even so! That's not to say that dumping a bunch of migrants in already deprived parts of the UK isn't asking for additional trouble, but it's interesting to see how quickly a concerted effort by certain political parties and their newspaper friends can stir up a lot of anger, division and hatred when it's felt politically expedient to do so. I doubt very much whether all the migrants that have arrived have created much additional strain on services, at least none that adequate funding would have more than addressed, but it's a convenient if somewhat lazy justification nonetheless. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 30, 2024 18:05:39 GMT
The problem is that rightly or wrongly alot of people believe it is a problem and so we do need to discuss it and give it the seriousness a large chunk of the electorate believes it warrants. There are problems from immigration. One of the key ones being that we've not been increasing our infrastructure and public services in line with immigration. And that's impacted the service people receive. Another is undocumented refugees who may pose a danger. I think that problem is overstated by some but again its important to some people and needs addressed. And tbh I think if a load of working people which are representative of the electorate views were to discuss the above we would probably come to a compromise and solution much quicker than those elected. Paragraph 1 needs a commitment for additional investment in different regions based on how their population is affected by immigration and to ensure they still have the same number of doctors, schools, police officers per 1000 people. Paragraph 2 is obviously a divisive one and a compromise will be needed there. Maybe that compromise is for undocumented refugees to wear those ankle bracelet things for first x months or something. I'm not sure. But again rather than flinging shit back and forth. Maybe we just need to find compromises and do stuff rather than talk about stuff. Of course as said before I don't see immigration as big a problem as some others but I do think we need our politicians go have more conversations on it where they find solutions rather than 3 word slogans. That's true, but what's also true is that, for a good few years, largely from June 2016, and especially from 2019 (Johnson's election win) to about 2022 when Johnson started to become unpopular as a result of partygate, there was very little coverage of immigration at all, for two main reasons. First, it no longer needed to be weaponised as an issue in the way that it was for Brexit and second, it was always going to be bullshit about Brexit reducing immigration anyway so, to avoid any awareness of that by the electorate, it was off the right-wing newspaper agenda in particular and the general media as a whole for a good while. As soon as the Tories started tanking, it became the go-to news story once again. I would expect that there was a fair degree of collusion between Downing St and Fleet St as to immigration policy/Rwanda/small boats/front page headlines etc to try to get the electorate to focus once again on a 'problem' that Brexit was supposed to have fixed! You'd have to be pretty dim not to see that you'd been played previously, but it sure seems to have worked for a lot of people even so! That's not to say that dumping a bunch of migrants in already deprived parts of the UK isn't asking for additional trouble, but it's interesting to see how quickly a concerted effort by certain political parties and their newspaper friends can stir up a lot of anger, division and hatred when it's felt politically expedient to do so. I doubt very much whether all the migrants that have arrived have created much additional strain on services, at least none that adequate funding would have more than addressed, but it's a convenient if somewhat lazy justification nonetheless. Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Sept 30, 2024 18:38:37 GMT
The problem is that rightly or wrongly alot of people believe it is a problem and so we do need to discuss it and give it the seriousness a large chunk of the electorate believes it warrants. There are problems from immigration. One of the key ones being that we've not been increasing our infrastructure and public services in line with immigration. And that's impacted the service people receive. Another is undocumented refugees who may pose a danger. I think that problem is overstated by some but again its important to some people and needs addressed. And tbh I think if a load of working people which are representative of the electorate views were to discuss the above we would probably come to a compromise and solution much quicker than those elected. Paragraph 1 needs a commitment for additional investment in different regions based on how their population is affected by immigration and to ensure they still have the same number of doctors, schools, police officers per 1000 people. Paragraph 2 is obviously a divisive one and a compromise will be needed there. Maybe that compromise is for undocumented refugees to wear those ankle bracelet things for first x months or something. I'm not sure. But again rather than flinging shit back and forth. Maybe we just need to find compromises and do stuff rather than talk about stuff. Of course as said before I don't see immigration as big a problem as some others but I do think we need our politicians go have more conversations on it where they find solutions rather than 3 word slogans. That's true, but what's also true is that, for a good few years, largely from June 2016, and especially from 2019 (Johnson's election win) to about 2022 when Johnson started to become unpopular as a result of partygate, there was very little coverage of immigration at all, for two main reasons. First, it no longer needed to be weaponised as an issue in the way that it was for Brexit and second, it was always going to be bullshit about Brexit reducing immigration anyway so, to avoid any awareness of that by the electorate, it was off the right-wing newspaper agenda in particular and the general media as a whole for a good while. As soon as the Tories started tanking, it became the go-to news story once again. I would expect that there was a fair degree of collusion between Downing St and Fleet St as to immigration policy/Rwanda/small boats/front page headlines etc to try to get the electorate to focus once again on a 'problem' that Brexit was supposed to have fixed! You'd have to be pretty dim not to see that you'd been played previously, but it sure seems to have worked for a lot of people even so! That's not to say that dumping a bunch of migrants in already deprived parts of the UK isn't asking for additional trouble, but it's interesting to see how quickly a concerted effort by certain political parties and their newspaper friends can stir up a lot of anger, division and hatred when it's felt politically expedient to do so. I doubt very much whether all the migrants that have arrived have created much additional strain on services, at least none that adequate funding would have more than addressed, but it's a convenient if somewhat lazy justification nonetheless. Immigration wasn't discussed as much from 2016 as we were still in the EU despite brexit vote. It wasn't until 2020 that we finally left the EU so I presume that's a big reason as to why it wasn't reported as much. Especially given many were still under the spell that brexit would fix it all. Then covid came along just after that where our borders were literally shut for long periods and it dominated every conversation and news report. It wasn't just the media discussing immigration from 2022 onwards either. The Labour Party used it also as a stick to attack the tories with too and how they've lost control. I seem to remember Mr Starmer talking about sending bengali immigrants back home in a pre election interview with the s*n. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 30, 2024 18:54:46 GMT
Can you believe that this lying fucker has got the temerity to tell people that ...
"The choice now is to leave or remain"
Does he seriously believe that people are going to swallow that bullshit a second time?
It makes my blood boil!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 30, 2024 19:26:09 GMT
Can you believe that this lying fucker has got the temerity to tell people that ... "The choice now is to leave or remain" Does he seriously believe that people are going to swallow that bullshit a second time? It makes my blood boil! The Conservatives are in the middle of doing a "Michael Howard" - that is, trying to out right-wing the far right-wing. They'll learn when they get hammered for not being serious in 5 years time. The Tories think the last General Election is/was their rock bottom. They're in for a huge shock next time around if this rhetoric carries on. |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Sept 30, 2024 19:27:22 GMT
Can you believe that this lying fucker has got the temerity to tell people that ... "The choice now is to leave or remain" Does he seriously believe that people are going to swallow that bullshit a second time? It makes my blood boil! The Conservatives are in the middle of doing a "Michael Howard" - that is, trying to out right-wing the far right-wing. They'll learn when they get hammered for not being serious in 5 years time. The Tories think the last General Election is/was their rock bottom. They're in for a huge shock next time around if this rhetoric carries on. They’re thick as fuck. You have to be cute with this type of stuff, it’ll alienate people in the main. I speak from my own point of view |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 30, 2024 20:10:36 GMT
Can you believe that this lying fucker has got the temerity to tell people that ... "The choice now is to leave or remain" Does he seriously believe that people are going to swallow that bullshit a second time? It makes my blood boil! The Conservatives are in the middle of doing a "Michael Howard" - that is, trying to out right-wing the far right-wing. They'll learn when they get hammered for not being serious in 5 years time. The Tories think the last General Election is/was their rock bottom. They're in for a huge shock next time around if this rhetoric carries on. Let's hope you're right. However, my worry is that we might see some sort of pact between this form of 'conservatism' and Remain at the next election, as the Labour majority completely collapses. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Sept 30, 2024 20:47:59 GMT
The Conservatives are in the middle of doing a "Michael Howard" - that is, trying to out right-wing the far right-wing. They'll learn when they get hammered for not being serious in 5 years time. The Tories think the last General Election is/was their rock bottom. They're in for a huge shock next time around if this rhetoric carries on. Let's hope you're right. However, my worry is that we might see some sort of pact between this form of 'conservatism' and Remain at the next election, as the Labour majority completely collapses. Quite possibly however atm looks like Tories will continue to make themselves unelectable |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 30, 2024 20:53:03 GMT
Let's hope you're right. However, my worry is that we might see some sort of pact between this form of 'conservatism' and Remain at the next election, as the Labour majority completely collapses. Quite possibly however atm looks like Tories will continue to make themselves unelectable On their own, oh absolutely. That was my point. But a Jenrick/Farage double act (god forbid) might be a goer though in 5 year's time. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 1, 2024 7:14:25 GMT
Quite possibly however atm looks like Tories will continue to make themselves unelectable On their own, oh absolutely. That was my point. But a Jenrick/Farage double act (god forbid) might be a goer though in 5 year's time. I think that would not necessarily be a bad thing if it forces Labour to recognise it can't win the next election unless it forms a centre/left alliance as a precursor to ditching FPTP. If the Tories and Reform were to carve up constituencies prior to the next election in a non aggression pact they'd almost certainly win the election under FPTP. The only chance for Labour to remain the biggest party would be to do the same but I'm not sure they would do that under Starmer who would just do what he did last time and try to shoehorn the electorate into accepting that despite the facade of being a democracy voting actually boils down to a binary choice. It would be both unfortunate and ironic if it's the Tories who actually break the mould. Interesting times. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Oct 1, 2024 8:28:39 GMT
On their own, oh absolutely. That was my point. But a Jenrick/Farage double act (god forbid) might be a goer though in 5 year's time. I think that would not necessarily be a bad thing if it forces Labour to recognise it can't win the next election unless it forms a centre/left alliance as a precursor to ditching FPTP. If the Tories and Reform were to carve up constituencies prior to the next election in a non aggression pact they'd almost certainly win the election under FPTP. The only chance for Labour to remain the biggest party would be to do the same but I'm not sure they would do that under Starmer who would just do what he did last time and try to shoehorn the electorate into accepting that despite the facade of being a democracy voting actually boils down to a binary choice. It would be both unfortunate and ironic if it's the Tories who actually break the mould. Interesting times. Besides being far too early to predict the next GE I don't think the Electorate are as malleable as people think and they would resist being told how to vote and being given a limited choice. Of course it would depend on how unpopular Labour are at the time as it might come down to anyone but Labour as it did the Torys at the last GE We also have the Conservative Beauty Contest going on with a likely run off between Jenrick and Badenock with the Members and whoever wins what relationship they might form with Reform. I think Jenrick is more likely to go it alone as he channels his inner Enoch Powell. Badenock being smarter would keep her options open. Besides that I doubt that whoever wins will lead the Conservatives into the next GE, I believe they will be given 2 years to turn the fortunes around meanwhile the Grandes will be looking to groom someone more suitable. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 1, 2024 8:33:43 GMT
On their own, oh absolutely. That was my point. But a Jenrick/Farage double act (god forbid) might be a goer though in 5 year's time. I think that would not necessarily be a bad thing if it forces Labour to recognise it can't win the next election unless it forms a centre/left alliance as a precursor to ditching FPTP. If the Tories and Reform were to carve up constituencies prior to the next election in a non aggression pact they'd almost certainly win the election under FPTP. The only chance for Labour to remain the biggest party would be to do the same but I'm not sure they would do that under Starmer who would just do what he did last time and try to shoehorn the electorate into accepting that despite the facade of being a democracy voting actually boils down to a binary choice. It would be both unfortunate and ironic if it's the Tories who actually break the mould. Interesting times. The vast majority of the British electorate is in the middle ground - the political centre, if you will. Whether those on either side of the political chasm choose to admit it or not, the British electorate will not elect Nigel Farage to be Prime Minister just as much as it will largely reject Michael Foot primarily because Britain generally does not really do extremes. The idea of the "electable right leaning government" in British political discourse does not include Nigel Farage. The "electable right wing" in British political history has never gone any further right than Margaret Thatcher. Whilst for some that was too far as it was, Thatcher was no Nigel Farage. Each time the Conservative Party has toyed with far right politics it has gotten absolutely hammered in subsequent General Elections. The idea of the "electable left leaning government" shares a similar pattern. Whenever Labour has toggled the centre ground it has gotten itself elected. The second it veers toward Corbyn or Foot, it's not taken that seriously by the British electorate by anyone outside of student politics or the far left and so Labour loses those elections with one notable exception - Attlee. Obviously, the case for Attlee is somewhat a unique and incomparable one. |
|
|
|
Post by Chewbacca the Wookie on Oct 1, 2024 8:59:08 GMT
I think that would not necessarily be a bad thing if it forces Labour to recognise it can't win the next election unless it forms a centre/left alliance as a precursor to ditching FPTP. If the Tories and Reform were to carve up constituencies prior to the next election in a non aggression pact they'd almost certainly win the election under FPTP. The only chance for Labour to remain the biggest party would be to do the same but I'm not sure they would do that under Starmer who would just do what he did last time and try to shoehorn the electorate into accepting that despite the facade of being a democracy voting actually boils down to a binary choice. It would be both unfortunate and ironic if it's the Tories who actually break the mould. Interesting times. The vast majority of the British electorate is in the middle ground - the political centre, if you will. Whether those on either side of the political chasm choose to admit it or not, the British electorate will not elect Nigel Farage to be Prime Minister just as much as it will largely reject Michael Foot primarily because Britain generally does not really do extremes. The idea of the "electable right leaning government" in British political discourse does not include Nigel Farage. The "electable right wing" in British political history has never gone any further right than Margaret Thatcher. Whilst for some that was too far as it was, Thatcher was no Nigel Farage. Each time the Conservative Party has toyed with far right politics it has gotten absolutely hammered in subsequent General Elections. The idea of the "electable left leaning government" shares a similar pattern. Whenever Labour has toggled the centre ground it has gotten itself elected. The second it veers toward Corbyn or Foot, it's not taken that seriously by the British electorate by anyone outside of student politics or the far left and so Labour loses those elections with one notable exception - Attlee. Obviously, the case for Attlee is somewhat a unique and incomparable one. spot on |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 1, 2024 9:06:09 GMT
I think that would not necessarily be a bad thing if it forces Labour to recognise it can't win the next election unless it forms a centre/left alliance as a precursor to ditching FPTP. If the Tories and Reform were to carve up constituencies prior to the next election in a non aggression pact they'd almost certainly win the election under FPTP. The only chance for Labour to remain the biggest party would be to do the same but I'm not sure they would do that under Starmer who would just do what he did last time and try to shoehorn the electorate into accepting that despite the facade of being a democracy voting actually boils down to a binary choice. It would be both unfortunate and ironic if it's the Tories who actually break the mould. Interesting times. The vast majority of the British electorate is in the middle ground - the political centre, if you will. Whether those on either side of the political chasm choose to admit it or not, the British electorate will not elect Nigel Farage to be Prime Minister just as much as it will largely reject Michael Foot primarily because Britain generally does not really do extremes. The idea of the "electable right leaning government" in British political discourse does not include Nigel Farage. The "electable right wing" in British political history has never gone any further right than Margaret Thatcher. Whilst for some that was too far as it was, Thatcher was no Nigel Farage. Each time the Conservative Party has toyed with far right politics it has gotten absolutely hammered in subsequent General Elections. The idea of the "electable left leaning government" shares a similar pattern. Whenever Labour has toggled the centre ground it has gotten itself elected. The second it veers toward Corbyn or Foot, it's not taken that seriously by the British electorate by anyone outside of student politics or the far left and so Labour loses those elections with one notable exception - Attlee. Obviously, the case for Attlee is somewhat a unique and incomparable one. While I take your point, you seem to have forgotten that Corbyn won more votes in 2017 and 2019 than Starmer did in 2024. There is an appetite for Democratic Socialist Policies that define clear blue water between centrism and the hard right. |
|
|
|
Post by Chewbacca the Wookie on Oct 1, 2024 9:26:16 GMT
The vast majority of the British electorate is in the middle ground - the political centre, if you will. Whether those on either side of the political chasm choose to admit it or not, the British electorate will not elect Nigel Farage to be Prime Minister just as much as it will largely reject Michael Foot primarily because Britain generally does not really do extremes. The idea of the "electable right leaning government" in British political discourse does not include Nigel Farage. The "electable right wing" in British political history has never gone any further right than Margaret Thatcher. Whilst for some that was too far as it was, Thatcher was no Nigel Farage. Each time the Conservative Party has toyed with far right politics it has gotten absolutely hammered in subsequent General Elections. The idea of the "electable left leaning government" shares a similar pattern. Whenever Labour has toggled the centre ground it has gotten itself elected. The second it veers toward Corbyn or Foot, it's not taken that seriously by the British electorate by anyone outside of student politics or the far left and so Labour loses those elections with one notable exception - Attlee. Obviously, the case for Attlee is somewhat a unique and incomparable one. While I take your point, you seem to have forgotten that Corbyn won more votes in 2017 and 2019 than Starmer did in 2024. There is an appetite for Democratic Socialist Policies that define clear blue water between centrism and the hard right. I think you have to take into consideration who the opposition were and the political climates and the big vote winners at the time. I think with Starmer he primarily got in because of the emergence of Reform and because the Tories had let the country down so badly. There’s no viable options at the moment and I include Corbyn in that. The last leader I remember liking was John Smith. That’s how bad it’s been in recent years. People go into politics for all the wrong reasons now. With social media it’s all about ego and what’s in it for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 1, 2024 10:25:32 GMT
The vast majority of the British electorate is in the middle ground - the political centre, if you will. Whether those on either side of the political chasm choose to admit it or not, the British electorate will not elect Nigel Farage to be Prime Minister just as much as it will largely reject Michael Foot primarily because Britain generally does not really do extremes. The idea of the "electable right leaning government" in British political discourse does not include Nigel Farage. The "electable right wing" in British political history has never gone any further right than Margaret Thatcher. Whilst for some that was too far as it was, Thatcher was no Nigel Farage. Each time the Conservative Party has toyed with far right politics it has gotten absolutely hammered in subsequent General Elections. The idea of the "electable left leaning government" shares a similar pattern. Whenever Labour has toggled the centre ground it has gotten itself elected. The second it veers toward Corbyn or Foot, it's not taken that seriously by the British electorate by anyone outside of student politics or the far left and so Labour loses those elections with one notable exception - Attlee. Obviously, the case for Attlee is somewhat a unique and incomparable one. While I take your point, you seem to have forgotten that Corbyn won more votes in 2017 and 2019 than Starmer did in 2024. There is an appetite for Democratic Socialist Policies that define clear blue water between centrism and the hard right. I understand the point you make, but utilising a chap who only ever lost elections as a counterweight to a man who is now Prime Minister runs somewhat counter to your own logic. I don't believe for a second that the British electorate don't know their General Election voting system (FPTP) works. Corbyn picked up votes from the left from groups such as the Green Party, and other left wing parties - including new student voters due to the Marxist and Communist Party (remember Momentum?) and other left wing student protest groups across campuses in the UK. Picking up more votes amongst your own voter base does not win you a General Election - it merely strengthens your core vote. To that end Corbyn only ever succeeded in attracting more votes from the left and far left. I don't doubt or denigrate how attractive Corbyn's policies were to those on the left and far-left. However, Starmer attracted support across the political divide - the centre-ground, if you will. Corbyn, meanwhile, rather than getting everyone across that divide to buy into his message, lost what are ostensibly traditional working class Labour voting areas such as Stoke-On-Trent and compounded that by consistently (2017 and 2019) alienating the British political centre ground which, whether you/we like it or not, is where General Elections are won and lost. Corbyn's supporters consistently fail to pick up on the fact that Corbyn only entrenched the Labour vote amongst those on the left and far-left, yet failed to secure support across the general political electorate and, more specifically, amongst the centre-ground. That's just how British electoral politics works during General Elections. |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 1, 2024 10:43:25 GMT
While I take your point, you seem to have forgotten that Corbyn won more votes in 2017 and 2019 than Starmer did in 2024. There is an appetite for Democratic Socialist Policies that define clear blue water between centrism and the hard right. I understand the point you make, but utilising a chap who only ever lost elections as a counterweight to a man who is now Prime Minister runs somewhat counter to your own logic. I don't believe for a second that the British electorate don't know their General Election voting system (FPTP) works. Corbyn picked up votes from the left from groups such as the Green Party, and other left wing parties - including new student voters due to the Marxist and Communist Party (remember Momentum?) and other left wing student protest groups across campuses in the UK. Picking up more votes amongst your own voter base does not win you a General Election - it merely strengthens your core vote. To that end Corbyn only ever succeeded in attracting more votes from the left and far left. I don't doubt or denigrate how attractive Corbyn's policies were to those on the left and far-left. However, Starmer attracted support across the political divide - the centre-ground, if you will. Corbyn, meanwhile, rather than getting everyone across that divide to buy into his message, lost what are ostensibly traditional working class Labour voting areas such as Stoke-On-Trent and compounded that by consistently (2017 and 2019) alienating the British political centre ground which, whether you/we like it or not, is where General Elections are won and lost. Corbyn's supporters consistently fail to pick up on the fact that Corbyn only entrenched the Labour vote amongst those on the left and far-left, yet failed to secure support across the general political electorate and, more specifically, amongst the centre-ground. That's just how British electoral politics works during General Elections. It's just how the establishment destroyed any chance of a Democratic Socialist government after they got scared to death in 2017. |
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Oct 1, 2024 12:24:31 GMT
While I take your point, you seem to have forgotten that Corbyn won more votes in 2017 and 2019 than Starmer did in 2024. There is an appetite for Democratic Socialist Policies that define clear blue water between centrism and the hard right. . I don't believe for a second that the British electorate don't know their General Election voting system (FPTP) works. Corbyn picked up votes from the left from groups such as the Green Party, and other left wing parties - including new student voters due to the Marxist and Communist Party (remember Momentum?) and other left wing student protest groups across campuses in the UK. Picking up more votes amongst your own voter base does not win you a General Election - it merely strengthens your core vote. To that end Corbyn only ever succeeded in attracting more votes from the left and far left. I don't doubt or denigrate how attractive Corbyn's policies were to those on the left and far-left. However, Starmer attracted support across the political divide - the centre-ground, if you will. Corbyn, meanwhile, rather than getting everyone across that divide to buy into his message, lost what are ostensibly traditional working class Labour voting areas such as Stoke-On-Trent and compounded that by consistently (2017 and 2019) alienating the British political centre ground which, whether you/we like it or not, is where General Elections are won and lost. Corbyn's supporters consistently fail to pick up on the fact that Corbyn only entrenched the Labour vote amongst those on the left and far-left, yet failed to secure support across the general political electorate and, more specifically, amongst the centre-ground. That's just how British electoral politics works during General Elections. This is what the Left never seems to grasp! It's all very well shouting from the sidelines about what you'd do if you ever got elected, without ever doing so! Better to be elected and then be able to do stuff... Like many people I'm of the opinion that PR would be a massive step forward for the UK electoral system on so many levels. Not least because it'd probably see the creation of a new leftist party that socialists would feel comfortable endorsing and would gain representation in parliament, albeit relatively minor, in my opinion, but quite possibly involved in future government coalitions. |
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Oct 1, 2024 13:06:59 GMT
I think this sums the situation up
|
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Oct 1, 2024 13:09:49 GMT
I understand the point you make, but utilising a chap who only ever lost elections as a counterweight to a man who is now Prime Minister runs somewhat counter to your own logic. I don't believe for a second that the British electorate don't know their General Election voting system (FPTP) works. Corbyn picked up votes from the left from groups such as the Green Party, and other left wing parties - including new student voters due to the Marxist and Communist Party (remember Momentum?) and other left wing student protest groups across campuses in the UK. Picking up more votes amongst your own voter base does not win you a General Election - it merely strengthens your core vote. To that end Corbyn only ever succeeded in attracting more votes from the left and far left. I don't doubt or denigrate how attractive Corbyn's policies were to those on the left and far-left. However, Starmer attracted support across the political divide - the centre-ground, if you will. Corbyn, meanwhile, rather than getting everyone across that divide to buy into his message, lost what are ostensibly traditional working class Labour voting areas such as Stoke-On-Trent and compounded that by consistently (2017 and 2019) alienating the British political centre ground which, whether you/we like it or not, is where General Elections are won and lost. Corbyn's supporters consistently fail to pick up on the fact that Corbyn only entrenched the Labour vote amongst those on the left and far-left, yet failed to secure support across the general political electorate and, more specifically, amongst the centre-ground. That's just how British electoral politics works during General Elections. This is what the Left never seems to grasp! It's all very well shouting from the sidelines about what you'd do if you ever got elected, without ever doing so! Better to be elected and then be able to do stuff... Like many people I'm of the opinion that PR would be a massive step forward for the UK electoral system on so many levels. Not least because it'd probably see the creation of a new leftist party that socialists would feel comfortable endorsing and would gain representation in parliament, albeit relatively minor, in my opinion, but quite possibly involved in future government coalitions.
PR.
i think the closest we got to it recently was with theresa may as pm and john bercow as president with the tories split .
nothing got done .
it was a feast for those that opposed decision making .
|
|
