Tony Blair claptrap

[JoeLeg]

teddyboy23 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Joe would you agree concerning the house of

> lords.some of the peers who are getting EU funded

> pensions or payments.debating on our exit from the

> EU.when it would suit them to remain.also

> mandelson suggesting who receives EU funding to

> endorse the EU telling the house to make things as

> difficult as possible with delaying tactics.

> unlike you mandelson and the rest shouldn't have a

> leg to stand on.

These are good points, and the HoL has always been something of mixed blessing; any way one looks at it there are potential conflicts of interest all over the shop.

Trying to answer as objectively as I can (speaking as one who plainly supported Remain and believes that we have handed an unelected PM too much of a blank cheque, but who also would like to see an elected second chamber, or at least a total end to heriditary peerages), I think the Lords provide, as they are intended to, a useful oversight on all legislation and this should be no exception. Like large amounts of the Commons, they have self-interest affecting their judgement, and when this crosses over into actual conflict of interest it can become a problem.

But a fact of being a Lord usually means that you have quite a lot of money - I'd be interested to see exactly how much these pensions are for? The Daily Mail (sorry to quote them but if anyone has dug into the figures it's them!) quotes it at a total of ?500,000 per year, with Mandelson on ?35,000. Now, that's a lot of money to many of us, but I would suggest not really game-changing to many of them.

I'd say that their are undoubtedly EU-related financial inducements that are swaying the minds of 'noble Lords', but I doubt it's those pensions.

So to answer your question, anyone looking to show conflicts of interest from the HoL needs to be digging deeper, in my view. And I suspect there are many examples, and I suspect they're staying quiet because there's dirt on everyone, on both sides.

[Jeremy]

Didn't mean to imply it was your personal line of thinking, titch ("not necessarily" is not the same as "never").

[teddyboy23]

Joeleg makes sense!

[titch juicy]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Didn't mean to imply it was your personal line of

> thinking, titch ("not necessarily" is not the same

> as "never").

Fair enough, thanks.

[Otta]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > How many of you can honestly say you vote for

> > purely altruistic reasons?

> >

> > The majority of us are self interested to some

> > extent, why expect MPs to be different?

>

> But I separate my job and my personal life.

>

> I can't bring personal feelings to my job (other

> than ethics).

Yes, exactly. We would expect MPs to bring their ethics. Ethics are often based in self interest to some extent.

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Voting a certain way is not necessarily an act of

> altruism or selflessness. If you believe certain

> policies are more likely to lead to the kind of

> society you want to live in, and your children to

> grow up in... it's a form of self interest in a

> way.

Exactly.

I don't work out how I'll be best off in order to choose my vote. But I vote on what I think will be best for everyone. And I do that in the knowledge that loads of people disagree with me. That's a form of self interest.

[????]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Again (and at risk of being accused of 'virtue

> signalling') - I genuinely vote (or at least

> consciously I do - I'm sure there are all kind of

> bias' that come into it) for the policies I think

> are best for the country and the society I want to

> live in.

This is fine - but do you or would you willingly accept that many people who say vote Tory do exactly the same thing? Because they do - but most people from the left are completely unwilling to accept this. Tories are all selfish, self-interested, not believing in society etc I think that the new Virtue Signalling and the old champagne socialists give a chance for those not enamored with Socialism to give the, ahem, 'Righteous ones' a dose of their own Medicine - and they don't like it much do they

[JoeLeg]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> This is fine - but do you or would you willingly

> accept that many people who say vote Tory do

> exactly the same thing? Because they do - but most

> people from the left are completely unwilling to

> accept this. Tories are all selfish,

> self-interested, not believing in society etc I

> think that the new Virtue Signalling and the old

> champagne socialists give a chance for those not

> enamored with Socialism to give the, ahem,

> 'Righteous ones' a dose of their own Medicine -

> and they don't like it much do they

Ummm, have you seen (or rather read) how many on the right are referring to those the left these days? 'Snowflake', 'Libtard', and worse; indeed 'Liberal' is often a term of abuse by many these days. If we want to talk about how people are referring to those whose political opinions are different to theirs, then I'd say there's a lot of mud being thrown around these days and it's sticking to everyone.

The left has a lot of problems, I find a lot of what gets spouted by the extreme parts of it repugnant, but the moderate voices get drowned out in between the crap being slung around. I don't have to like a lot of Tory policies, and I remember the 80's, but I know there's more than one opinion on this country and they all have as much of a right to be heard as mine.

I guess what I'm taking too long to say is that I'm pretty fed up of being told that 'most people' on the left think this way or that way. It's not really about left or right any more, hasn't been for a long time. Most people's opinions cover a pluralism of ideology, in a way that surpasses centrism or bi-partisanship. It's what allows the rise of populism because they can't be pigeonholed politically like in the 20th century, and neither main party has begun to address their concerns.

[jaywalker]

I guess ???? you have found a way to cut-off any discussion and to secure your own certainties. It is difficult to see what one might say that is not 'Virtue Signalling' in your book. The vacuity of the phrase allows you to deploy it as you please.

[Earl Aelfheah]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> This is fine - but do you or would you willingly

> accept that many people who say vote Tory do

> exactly the same thing? Because they do - but most

> people from the left are completely unwilling to

> accept this. Tories are all selfish,

> self-interested, not believing in society etc

Errr, yes. Where did I say otherwise? I was responding to the suggestion that people only vote in their narrow self interest and pointing out one obvious example where that's not the case - of the wealthy person voting for a party that would generally raise taxes on them. I could easily have used another, perhaps a less affluent person voting against redistributive policies, but thought the former more interesting because it's often, strangely portrayed as dishonest or unprincipled somehow.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Quids, your obsession with some sort of tabloid caricature of 'the left' (vaguely defined and used as a pejorative, capable of shrinking or expanding as necessary to encompass anyone with views at odds with your own), is just a way of avoiding engaging in reasoned debate. Add in constant whataboutery, insults disguised as analysis and the use of strawman arguments and I wonder whether youre really only interested in talking to yourself.

[Otta]

So this is an interesting development.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-davis-migrants-brexit-workers-eu-uk-stay-open-immigration-years-latest-a7592616.html

The Sun not happy about it.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2923654/david-davis-promises-eastern-europe-uks-doors-will-stay-open-to-low-skilled-migrants/

"Millionaire Ukip donor Arron Banks told the paper that the Brexit minister?s comments were ?quite astonishing?.

He added: ?If you look at the figures, most people who voted for Brexit did so because of immigration and are going to ask what the point of it was if we don?t even control our own borders.

?They are going to be very disappointed."

Quite right Arron, what was the feckin point of it?

[JoeLeg]

Yeah, now it's all coming out.

All those cries of "it's about sovereignty!", all those people who said "we're tired of Brussels telling us what to do", all the visions of a Britain better off able to negotiate trade deals outside of the EU?

Well, they were in the minority weren't they? I don't doubt they're out there. I don't doubt a lot of people sincerely believe there are many reasons why we would be better off out of the EU. And they might even be right, I'm not so full of hubris to believe that there's no way we could be in a better position (though I'm extremely sceptical).

Most of those who voted Leave did so because of immigration. And again I recognise they have a point, a huge one. And now the vote is done and that's that, but this is what happens when you vote for an idea and not a plan. Hardly anyone thought about what we would actually do next - all that guff about how it wasn't the Leave campaigns responsibility to have a plan?! Yes it bloody well was, because they wanted it!

So now it's being admitted that immigration is an horrendously complex issue to solve, and some people aren't happy about that. I'd love to be pleased at their stupidity but I can't be, I'm too busy being really worried at what this fractured view of what Brexit should be is going to do to us over the next few years. I think we're in for a really rough ride.

[red devil]

I read somewhere that EU immigration accounts for less than half of total immigration to the UK. If immigration was such a big deal to this government, in theory they could reduce it significantly without leaving the EU. But that wouldn't have won the referendum. Extreme Brexiteers like Gove and Fox wanted to leave the EU at any cost, hence they were happy to play the immigration card for all it was worth...

[JoeLeg]

I think EU migration is just under half the total amount, so it's quite a lot, especially when we factor in that some of them come here looking for work, ie, without a job already lined up. But that's partly the point, economic migrants go where there are jobs they can get.

If Davis himself is admitting it will be years before we're in a position to replace those people with UK workers, and people are being surprised and angered by that, then it tells us that they didn't really understand how dependant we are on those workers right now.

[Earl Aelfheah]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I read somewhere that EU immigration accounts for

> less than half of total immigration to the UK. If

> immigration was such a big deal to this

> government, in theory they could reduce it

> significantly without leaving the EU. But that

> wouldn't have won the referendum. Extreme

> Brexiteers like Gove and Fox wanted to leave the

> EU at any cost, hence they were happy to play the

> immigration card for all it was worth...

The argument that we were being prevented from bringing immigration down to 'the tens of thousands' because of EU immigration, completely ignores the fact that immigration from outside the EU is well above that level. The truth is that we can't bring immigration down that far because it would be wreckless and would have a major economic impact. Brexiteers were deliberately misleading about this IMO. The fact is that immigration is unlikely to drop much as a result of Brexit.

As for people who claim that Brexit wasn't about immigration - you need only look at the Leave campaign's change of focus and track it against their polling numbers. Leave were behind Remain until they decided to focus relentlessly on immigration is the later stages of the campaign. Conflating the two issues and speaking to people's fears on immigration is what won it for them.

[Otta]

I got in to a discussion with a self described "far right" man the other day. He's quite positive on eastern Europeans, because apparently they are "heading up the far right movement". Although he is very much pro brexit, his main target is African and Middle Eastern Muslims. And it was quite striking how open he now feels he can be about it all.

[Seabag]

It was about migration, hence why BJ and his 'official leave campaign' were happy to trade off of the 'un-official leave campaign'

"Targets, intention and ambition, In due course, tens of thousands"

All solid stuff from PM T.M (and much like catching eels with your bare hands)

Am I correct in seeing the overall immigration figure as 365,000 per year?

It's not to hard to figure out that even with somekind of amazing supernatural somersaulting action, that the 'target' of 'manageable 10's of thousands' is so unrealistic, so untrue, that it's designed to mislead.

I'm waiting for someone to come out with a new way of saying '35 x 10's of thousands is what we meant'

Maybe BJ could flubber his way to that one.

[????]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Quids, your obsession with some sort of tabloid

> caricature of 'the left' (vaguely defined and used

> as a pejorative, capable of shrinking or expanding

> as necessary to encompass anyone with views at

> odds with your own), is just a way of avoiding

> engaging in reasoned debate. Add in constant

> whataboutery, insults disguised as analysis and

> the use of strawman arguments and I wonder whether

> youre really only interested in talking to

> yourself.

Is that an ironic post, laughably hypocritical........Maybe given your and JayW's recent posts I'd suggest that actually it's possible that you don't want to listen. I've been debating reasonably on here for years on numerous subjects as you as you well know.....so don't try and close me down with insults and your own straw man dismissal. Not very often I get pissed off on here so well done for being a grade A arsehole

[rendelharris]

Interesting item on Radio 4 news just now about how immigration from Europe has significantly fallen and how business leaders are deeply concerned at the effect this will have on UK growth.

[Otta]

Stumbled across this from 3 months ago. It's a long one, and it's quite depressing. But interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/01/the-ruthlessly-effective-rebranding-of-europes-new-far-right?CMP=share_btn_fb

[ianr]

> Stumbled across this from 3 months ago. It's a long one, and it's quite depressing. But interesting.

"The ruthlessly effective rebranding of Europe?s new far right

Across the continent, rightwing populist parties have seized control of the political conversation. How have they done it? By stealing the language, causes and voters of the traditional left"

by Sasha Polakow-Suransky

Guardian, Tuesday 1 November 2016

[Otta]

Sorry, yes. Probably should have given some idea of what it was about.

[Otta]

This bit

"Brexit was just the start. Europe?s new far right is poised to transform the continent?s political landscape ? either by winning elections or simply by pulling a besieged political centre so far in its direction that its ideas become the new normal. And when that happens, groups that would never have contemplated voting for a far-right party 10 years ago ? the young, gay people, Jews, feminists ? may join the working-class voters who have already abandoned parties of the left to become the new backbone of the populist right."

The bit in bold is how I feel things have been going in this country in recent times. The government seem to have left the centre behind them, and if you're centre left, you're labelled a "lefty loony" as if you're a far left nutcase.

[Otta]

Ooo, podcast version for those that would rather listen than read.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2016/nov/25/the-ruthlessly-effective-rebranding-of-europes-new-far-right-podcast

[Seabag]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Interesting item on Radio 4 news just now about

> how immigration from Europe has significantly

> fallen and how business leaders are deeply

> concerned at the effect this will have on UK

> growth.

I travel a bit and do business in Europe, since BXT most people don't seem that interested in coming here. They feel they're not wanted.

Farmers in Cambridgeshire are struggling to get workers to return after holidays, as they now prefer to work elsewhere in Europe.

It's already making an effect on our industries. The restaurant industry is struggling to recruit already here in London.