Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

daniel stallion

New Members
  • Posts

    1,728
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by daniel stallion

  1. From what I have heard from the Politicians recently - thus it is almost certainly utterly untrue, but let's indulge them for the purposes of debate - a significant number of immigrants from non-EU countries are (or will be) here on work Visas that were granted, essentially, because of skills shortages. I've also seen / heard stats that indicates a great deal of them work for the Public sector. Why then don't they 'kill two birds with one stone'? That is, identify areas where job losses can be made relatively painlessly, then remove Visas accordingly? For clarity, I am a non-EU immigrant and immigration is not a big deal, politically, for me. However, I think this situation again demonstrates the mealy-mouthed policy games Politicians play. They seem, under public pressure to claim: Economic, non-EU immigrants are only here (or will only be here) if they meet certain skills requirements. We need to reduce the size of the Public sector (although it's done under their breath, they all admit that will inevitably mean reductions in force) We all have a hard0n for the 'Australian system'. In Aus, this is exactly what they did, almost immediately the economic crisis occurred. Again, this isn't about immigration, it is about the fact that Politicians claim to agree with the Public, but do nothing to demonstrate that they actually do in terms of policy. Rather they believe the Public to be bigots.
  2. Its so frustrating listening to the Politicians making stuff up without any regard for the ability of the Public to hear what they are saying and analyze it. Its just whatever they think they can get away with. For example (and this is the example that first came to mind, they are ALL equally guilty and for the record immigration is not one of my main Political concerns especially as I am an immigrant myself -non EU too, the epitome of evil ): Vince on QT talking about immigration - in one breath tells us that as many people from the UK leave for other EU countries as EU people migrate to the UK, and in the next asserts that 80% of total net immigration to the UK, a positive figure of 160,000 (if I heard correctly) is from the EU and thus impossible to 'cap'. If net EU immigration is zero (or close to it), how does he calculate that 80% of 160,000 is zero? Maybe I'm just so bigoted I can't count anymore.
  3. I wonder if the irony that Labour's Manifesto lumps Crime and Immigration in one section has escaped the media. BIGOTS
  4. This furore isn't about Gillian Duffy it is about Gordon Brown. She might be a massive racist, bigoted evil, child murdering witch for all any of us know, but that doesn't really matter, it isn't Gillian Duffy who is hoping for us to vote for her as Prime Minister. This isn't about immigration, it is about Brown's contempt for anyone who dares to raise an issue with him.
  5. This is what puzzles me - why is it that a LOT of people do think Labour have done okay in the last few years? Is it because of dreadfully weak opposition or masterful spinning by Labour? 6 months ago I thought it was laughable that more than 20% would even consider voting Labour because they (Brown et al) would be so exposed to ridicule. I can only conclude that the opposition(s) haven't hammered any nails in to the Labour coffin because they have no real alternatives themselves. However, why, when I ask pretty intelligent, somewhat engaged people, are they not aware of the level of borrowing, the difference between debt and deficit, the give away of gold and so on?
  6. You are making massive assumptions here. Did you actually hear what she said? During a fairly articulate series of Political points she made, she mentioned immigration for a couple of seconds - and only to ask 'where are they [Eastern Europeans] flocking from'. Thus she only alluded to observing significant numbers entering the country. Find a widely accepted definition of bigotry and attempt to defend your assertion that what she said was bigoted (not what you assume she thinks - what she actually said). I should be incredulous that certain people are trying to spin this in such a way, but I'm not at all surprised. I wont bother to rant in detail, but if I do a bit of word association regarding what we know about the two people, I think you'll see my point: Gordon Brown: Cheap gold, illegal war, bully, thousands dead, failure to regulate banks, record deficit, record debt, puppet of the Unions .... etc. etc. etc. Gillian Duffy: Old, Northern, Charity Worker Yeah, Gordon was right, that little old widow pensioner needs a lesson in humanity from our glorious leader.
  7. However, in this case the poster just doesn't understand the actual meaning of the word bigot.
  8. I did observe that the BBC were approaching it calmly asking if it might have the potential to cause Labour issues, where as the SKY team were like 8 year old children who had just been woken up and told Christmas had come early and it was snowing ....... ice cream. It was great.
  9. Will he use it as one of his anecdotes: 'I met a bigot in Rochdale yesterday'
  10. I was just falling asleep on the sofa, but fell short of actual sleep as I burst out laughing at the thought of todays (actually yesterdays) events. Forget the media storm, the endless analysis we will see and the replays on infinite loop - The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom had to take an entourage with him to a pensioners house today, to appologise for slagging her off live on air. It's just mental. I don't think, amongst the whirlwind of ranting, I'd actually contemplated it for what it was. There is something comically beautiful about it. FFS
  11. Aide: I'm not sure if they [the media] will go with that. Brown: They will go with that. Nooooooooooooooooo sh!t mother fukster. You can't argue with his ability to predict the future. On a serious point. I don't really care about the 'bigot' remark particularly, it isn't news to me that Politicians have naught but utter contempt for the General Public. I'd imagine his aides are actually relieved beyond belief that it was uncharacteristically mild for the nut case (although I can't deny I'd absolutely love to see it destroy him, if only for amusement value). I'm guessing the other leaders are being coy about it, because they are terrified of their own faux pas being broadcast. For me the above transcript, regarding the media, outlines just how much of a stage managed game this all is - we may as well be watching a polished Hollywood movie, a 'movie-festo' if you will (did I just coin a new, rubbish, term?). They all keep banging on, with monotonous regularity, about 'its about policies not PR' but when challenged on why none of the candidates can give us any details of how they will tackle the debt, beyond a limp shuffling around of tiny fractions of a few palatably attacked budgets - they first claim that they are giving us serious details - and then shrug their shoulders and essentially tell us 'well <insert leaders name> is worse'. I imagine they see us the way an IT support team see stupid end users. Yet we still play their game and bother to vote.
  12. I'd bow to your direct experience (not having ever been involved with building websites for anybody), but have to say that a few friends I have that exclusively work on Govt / Govt owned websites tell me that almost the opposite is true. Yes the ridiculous processes exist supposedly to avoid issues, but are simply box ticking processes for the sake of process, that not only completely fail but actually make mistakes more likely, build in ridiculous delays and essentially render any advantage that might have been gained, utterly void. I have one friend in particular who has some extraordinary stories of massive waste and mistakes, including examples of it taking (I think it was) 6 months to build a single page that simply linked to certain documents used by the general public and a situation where a certain organisation was spending hundreds of thousands of pounds each month for fairly simple compliance issues on its site, but had no plans to take step to resolve it. From what they tell me, the techies and technical managers / consultants know what they are doing but are prevented from doing anything sensible by very, very bad management within the organisation (of course they would say that). Maybe these friends are just incredibly unlucky (or tell lots of porkies). Edit: I just spoke to one of these friends and they tell me it was 2 months not 6 - but reassured me that was bad enough.
  13. I'm not entirely sure if you are serious or not (are you?). In any case - the problem with this sort of solution is that it requires the entire world to agree. Otherwise people likely to ever have more than $x of assets will flee elsewhere, or not bother becoming that 'productive'. As I have discussed on HPC before (I say discussed I was actually insulted then ignored) inheritance does far more to hamstring society than many other issues, because it erects an (almost) impenetrable ruling class, that has one objective - to protect the status quo. If we had a society where you could make and enjoy as much money (assets / value whatever measure is appropriate) as you liked, but on your death could only pass a limited amount to your family (it could even remain a relatively substantial sum), it would hugely impact the 'unequal distribution' of wealth you refer to. However, for it to become feasible you would have to effectively 'trap' your citizens to prohibit their escape from your regime / society.
  14. As I can't be @rsed to research it - does anyone know how these kind of benefits are justified by the Government? Or is this an example of a loophole? I can understand (and personally I endorse) giving benefits to ensure that children, who are unable to provide for themselves, are provided for - but not to the point where the only thing the can't do is go on holidays and get a bedroom to themselves. If I was to ask Brown, or one of his minions, how would it be justified (I realise he'd be more likely to spin and tell me he saved the world, but if I caught him off guard and he was somewhat candid) ?
  15. A couple of weeks ago my answer would have been 'of course they do, they are being deceitful more than stupid'. However, if that is the case why on Question Time last week when the 6Billion 'out of the economy' statement was made, did Theresa May not snort and explain in one sentence why it was a dirty lie. And why did the entire panel look dumfounded when a bloke in the audience started shouting it. I can only conclude none of them have achieved GCSE level business studies economics theories (the stage I understood this). Except that journo with the dogdgy do.
  16. Quite. Although as a Political point scoring exercise this story may have more 'legs'. Politicians can, just about, put together a vaguely coherent argument regarding why the bail out benefited the general population. The bail out 'story' may be bullsh1te but it has the advantage that 'the City' will enthusiastically endorse it and most people won't understand the jargon filled complexity and accept it. However, no Politician on earth could fool the same amount of people that families getting sufficient benefits to have a Mercedes (the Car not the child) etc, etc. whilst not doing a jot of work, improves everyones lives.
  17. I totally agree with you. I must say, I'm amazed at how poorly the Conservatives are attacking Brown and demonstrating the deceit used at every turn. An even simpler example is the 6Billion 'leaving the economy'. Someone could just draw a circle, label it 'The Economy' draw two arrows (imports / exports) a fire (destroying money) a printing press and a bank then ask the Labour candidate to show which path the 6Billion is taking 'out of the economy'. In fact you could forget the press and the bank.
  18. I think the problem is that, as stupid as the Politicians are, they still understand the nature of the general public. We tend to adopt, broadly, a short term field of thinking. So if we have two 'honest' parties telling us how it really is and how painful it will be to tackle it, but one party telling us they can 'make it all better and it wont sting' - even if we know the others are right, when we enter the voting booth (or whatever they have these days) many of us will just think about keeping our job for this year and next and chose to deal with the future when it arrives. I firmly believe most Politicians are thinking about how they can seize power, not why they should, they know they probably wont have to deal with the fall out once the stimulus cookie jar is empty and national credit card is maxed - even if they do they will spin it as a 'new' phenomenon. Much like how Gordon et al tell us everything positive economically is due to their policies and everything bad was because of world economics.
  19. Neither. Like pretty much every single word that comes out of his @rse - risk analysis has been done to asses if they can 'get away with it'. Something they know to be a horrible distortion of the truth, but, if spoon fed frequently enough and in appropriately sized sound bites, might 'stick' in the voters mind. Its a judgement call. It is grounded purely in a desperate grasp for power for the sake of power, not due to some desire to do the right thing. Unfortunately, he is far from alone. I defy anyone to find any MP or candidate to become one, who I can't very quickly find examples of them cynically spinning policies or comments by another (making sh1t up) because they think they can get away with it*. The dreadful truth is that a.) Politicians seriously seem to believe that the general Public, by-and-large, don't realise what they are doing - making outrageous claims and attributing them to other parties to deceive us. b.) They have contempt in such massive proportions that they don't really care when they are caught out. To be fair, it never seems to harm them. Despite my assertion that neither of your hypothesis are correct - that is only in the context of this specific lie - I don't think anyone would seriously suggest he isn't a 'spazz'. * I reserve the right not to back up this claim in anyway.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.