Jump to content

SchtivePesley

Member
  • Content Count

    4,845
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SchtivePesley

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The Baseball Grind

Season Ticket Holder

  • Season Ticket
    South Upper - Block H

Recent Profile Visitors

2,446 profile views
  1. so you're agreeing that it's also right for half the population to feel cheated by/angry about the result of the first referendum too? Any situation that leaves half the country feeling that way is a horrendous place to be as a nation. Either way it's critical we have leadership that wants to heal that division and bring people back together. Sorry to say that ain't Boris. He will just make it worse
  2. Well yeah - May had a deal but the ERG weren't prepared to vote for it (despite apparently wanting Brexit at all costs) - so they forced May out, took over the Tory party, kicked out their remain MPs and negotiated a "new" deal that was almost identical but still couldn't get ot through parliament without a working majority. Are you advocating a second referendum on Johnson's deal vs Remain? I don't mind that. I'm up for a second referendum with a Leave deal on the table to be dissected. Should have been like that in the first place
  3. If this does indeed come to pass then the best we can hope for is that the people in charge and the people who put them there absolutely own all of the fall-out. Because a Tory majority and a hard Brexit are going to do nothing to reverse the growing inequality and neoliberal politcial corruption that led to this sorry mess
  4. Any head to head debate between Johnson, Corbyn and Swinson should be interesting. Johnson will be saying that Corbyn wants to frustrate Brexit and Swinson will be saying he wants to enable it. Schrodingers Brexit anyone? In the face of such blatant contradictory lunacy, Corbyn's message that he wants to negotiate a new deal and then put it back to the people - trusting them to choose - with no pressure from government to vote either way will seem the very voice of reason. The other two positions (unilaterally revoke and leave at any cost are both extreme and dangerous)
  5. But how though - it's all lip service. Most of the people Boris Johnson is talking about there are those who come as tourists and then just stay. No "controlled immigration" system can deal with that unless you go into total NK lock down and kill the tourist industry or you create Theresa May's "hostile environment" and triple the number of detention centres
  6. From the article you link to a quote about Boris Johnson So if net migration figures remain broadly where they are - how does that help the burden on public services? I also assume that you're aware that we already have a similar points-based system to Australia for all non-EU citiziens who want to move to the UK for work?
  7. Except for the past 20 years net migration to the UK has been pretty steadily between 150,000 and 250,000. Which is what you'd expect from a growing and thriving nation. You could probably say that it's kept the ecomony afloat to a degree. I've said all along that the unwitting strategy of Brexit has been to turn the country into such an unattractive, impoverished shithole that no one in their right mind would want to come and live here! You mean the one that appears to have no actual details and for which Raab said "there would be no arbitrary target for total immigration levels" You're happy with that? Because it doesn't sound very controlled to me
  8. I'm allowed to not accept the idea of some woolly "controlled immigration" argument - just as much as you are allowed to say it I'm also allowed to challenge you on it. It's not my problem that you don't like that and take on some sort of forlorn victim status. "Why am I being held to account for my views? Why are you trying to close down the debate and deny me my voice!!?" I didn't say it wouldn't. The problem is in systemic long term under-funding of public services. We know the rate of population growth and we should make sure that public services are adequately provisioned. The term "controlled immigration" makes it sound like we don't already have control. What you actually mean is higher control of immigration. Care to elaborate on what such a higher level of controlled immigration would look like? Choose your words carefully though - you wouldn't want to sound like a racist I know
  9. Those aren't answers though - they are simply points to be made, and I accept them. I'm saying that the reactionaries (which I didn't specifically name you, but let's go with that - as you assumed I did anyway) - have no answers to the problems that we're trying to solve here. You claim to be interested in politics, but all you ever really do is shoot down progressive arguments - there is never a "we should try this instead". Apart from that one time when you said we should increase limits on immigration so that your kid's school didn't have to hire any more interpreters
  10. I'd never heard of it, but the wikipedia page makes for interesting reading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power Reading between the lines, the up front R&D is expensive so that's put everyone off so far - hopefully that will change as the situation becomes more urgent
  11. Didn't notice any questions. You know that telling me I'm wrong is not the same as a question?
  12. I know - especially when the reactionaries come on and shoot down every progressive argument and have no other answers beyond limiting immigration.
  13. New contender for post of the season
  14. Let go of your insecurities and you'll be fine
  15. The debate on the NHS is interesting isn't it? Can you imagine if it didn't exist and Labour were suggesting that we introduced a 'free at the point of use' health care system? It would be unaffordable this and magic money tree that. It disappoints me how cowardly so many people are when it comes to dreaming big and wanting more for your country. No one ever questions whether we have enough money to take part in foreign wars that are none of our business, or enough money to bail out the banks, or enough money to pay the DUP to prop up the government - because all of these things have no tangible effect on us. We don't feel it. But suggest we spend some money on things that we will feel the benefit of and suddenly we're worried that it might "wreck the economy". Like that ever bothers us at any other time? As if modern monetary theory isn't even a thing? I just heard Angela Leadsom on the BBC when challenged by Nick Robinson as to how the Tories would pay for something - she said "You're assuming that money comes from somewhere". She's right. We're a sovereign state with a central bank. We print our own money as required I'd like to think that the idea of making level 1 NHS dentistry costs free would be universally popular. Clearly saves money in the long run as it's the kind of preventative maintenance that makes sense -but then I'm sure some lib-hating curmudgeon will come along to tell me how it's unaffordable and if poor people can't afford to have an annual check up then they don't deserve teeth (or something)
×
×
  • 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.