keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,587
Likes: 2,622
|
Post by keitha on Sept 1, 2023 18:10:28 GMT
"De Moor was complaining that the influx of asylum-seekers over the past two years in the nation of 11.5 million had filled the shelter centers to near capacity of 33,500. Last year, Belgium had nearly 37,000 applications for protection, the federal agency Fedasil said.
...
Still, said de Moor, “our country has already done more than its share for a long time,” and called on some other EU nations to increase their effort instead."BE : 37,000 applications for 11.5m population = 1 per 310 pop'n. UK : 74,750 applications for 67.6m population = 1 per 905 pop'n. yes but Net migration was 600,000 with 1.2 million coming in and 600,000 leaving
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329 
Likes: 11,545
|
The barge
Sept 1, 2023 18:19:51 GMT
via mobile
Post by ilmoro on Sept 1, 2023 18:19:51 GMT
Was is COL I can't remember. Anway have to say whether you're pro, against or somewhere inbetween on immigration, this is an absolute shambles. Autumn term for students is just a month away and didn't the beeb run a story (yesterday?) about students up and down the country finding it hard to obtain accommodation? Government is doing everything it can to relinquish power. Power they never really had a mandate for anyway. Lendy for the blocks, Col for freehold of one ... Lendy investors got some cash back, Col still waiting & not likely to get much Govt has the same mandate as it always had, able to muster a majority in Parliament to form a govt ... that's how UK democracy works ... in fact most democracies.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,436
|
Post by registerme on Sept 1, 2023 18:49:31 GMT
yes but Net migration was 600,000 with 1.2 million coming in and 600,000 leaving A few things to ponder. 1. Migration is not the same as asylum. 2. I thought we "took back control"? 3. Is the new points based system serving anybody well? 4. A significant proportion of the incomers (sorry, I don't have the numbers to hand) are either Ukrainian refugees or Hong Kongers fleeing the new CCP regime in Hong Kong. I'd suggest we have a duty of care to both of those populations. 5. Who's been in power for the last thirteen years?
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,703
Likes: 2,981
|
Post by michaelc on Sept 1, 2023 18:56:49 GMT
Was is COL I can't remember. Anway have to say whether you're pro, against or somewhere inbetween on immigration, this is an absolute shambles. Autumn term for students is just a month away and didn't the beeb run a story (yesterday?) about students up and down the country finding it hard to obtain accommodation? Government is doing everything it can to relinquish power. Power they never really had a mandate for anyway. Lendy for the blocks, Col for freehold of one ... Lendy investors got some cash back, Col still waiting & not likely to get much Govt has the same mandate as it always had, able to muster a majority in Parliament to form a govt ... that's how UK democracy works ... in fact most democracies.Yes that is the stricter definition but the reality is people voted for a Johnson government even though technically it was the MPs that chose him and the people voted for their MPs. Nobody voted for Rishi as PM indirectly or otherwise. If your narrow definition was strictly to be believed it would mean the people in the US don't vote for their president.....
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,545
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 1, 2023 19:12:57 GMT
Lendy for the blocks, Col for freehold of one ... Lendy investors got some cash back, Col still waiting & not likely to get much Govt has the same mandate as it always had, able to muster a majority in Parliament to form a govt ... that's how UK democracy works ... in fact most democracies.Yes that is the stricter definition but the reality is people voted for a Johnson government even though technically it was the MPs that chose him and the people voted for their MPs. Nobody voted for Rishi as PM indirectly or otherwise. If your narrow definition was strictly to be believed it would mean the people in the US don't vote for their president..... Yes, I know majority dont understand how it works but that doesnt change the way it works. Once you have elected an MP, your role in the process is done ... MPs can do what they like but in the knowledge that they may not get re-elected as a result. The President's name is on the ballot paper, the PMs isnt, so while its technically the electoral college the elects the President it is based on a personal vote.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,587
Likes: 2,622
|
Post by keitha on Sept 1, 2023 19:23:49 GMT
yes but Net migration was 600,000 with 1.2 million coming in and 600,000 leaving A few things to ponder. 1. Migration is not the same as asylum. 2. I thought we "took back control"? 3. Is the new points based system serving anybody well? 4. A significant proportion of the incomers (sorry, I don't have the numbers to hand) are either Ukrainian refugees or Hong Kongers fleeing the new CCP regime in Hong Kong. I'd suggest we have a duty of care to both of those populations. 5. Who's been in power for the last thirteen years? Having some knowledge of Boston ( Lincs ) the place that voted most heavily for Brexit. the people there have funny ideas, they claim that the "foreigners" are taking there jobs, however talking recently to someone who employs staff there they can't get locals to apply for jobs for love nor money. This has led to employers asking for permission to bring workers in, whilst those same people sit and claim benefits.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,436
|
Post by registerme on Sept 1, 2023 19:55:54 GMT
A few things to ponder. 1. Migration is not the same as asylum. 2. I thought we "took back control"? 3. Is the new points based system serving anybody well? 4. A significant proportion of the incomers (sorry, I don't have the numbers to hand) are either Ukrainian refugees or Hong Kongers fleeing the new CCP regime in Hong Kong. I'd suggest we have a duty of care to both of those populations. 5. Who's been in power for the last thirteen years? Having some knowledge of Boston ( Lincs ) the place that voted most heavily for Brexit. the people there have funny ideas, they claim that the "foreigners" are taking there jobs, however talking recently to someone who employs staff there they can't get locals to apply for jobs for love nor money. This has led to employers asking for permission to bring workers in, whilst those same people sit and claim benefits. Interesting. Thank you for the additional colour  .
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,703
Likes: 2,981
|
Post by michaelc on Sept 1, 2023 20:08:26 GMT
A few things to ponder. 1. Migration is not the same as asylum. 2. I thought we "took back control"? 3. Is the new points based system serving anybody well? 4. A significant proportion of the incomers (sorry, I don't have the numbers to hand) are either Ukrainian refugees or Hong Kongers fleeing the new CCP regime in Hong Kong. I'd suggest we have a duty of care to both of those populations. 5. Who's been in power for the last thirteen years? Having some knowledge of Boston ( Lincs ) the place that voted most heavily for Brexit. the people there have funny ideas, they claim that the "foreigners" are taking there jobs, however talking recently to someone who employs staff there they can't get locals to apply for jobs for love nor money. This has led to employers asking for permission to bring workers in, whilst those same people sit and claim benefits. Most of those jobs are a way of life. Usually a "way of life" jobs are interesting or nobody would do them. Here though the vast majority of the workforce live on site in the farm in small huts shared with many other workers. The idea is that during that time you work as hard as you can and then leave at the end of the season to go home to enjoy the fruits of your labour. How can a local compete with that work ethic ?
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Sept 1, 2023 20:55:35 GMT
Lendy for the blocks, Col for freehold of one ... Lendy investors got some cash back, Col still waiting & not likely to get much Govt has the same mandate as it always had, able to muster a majority in Parliament to form a govt ... that's how UK democracy works ... in fact most democracies.Yes that is the stricter definition but the reality is people voted for a Johnson government even though technically it was the MPs that chose him and the people voted for their MPs. Nobody voted for Rishi as PM indirectly or otherwise. If your narrow definition was strictly to be believed it would mean the people in the US don't vote for their president.....No, because the US has a different system. They have a presidential system. As does France. The UK does not. It has a parliamentary system (with the monarch being the Head of State, to boot). In the US, the democratic mandate for the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives, are all separate. The President has democratic legitimacy even if their own party is a minority in one or both of the Houses of Congress. Because they were all directly elected, separately. And the system is setup for that to be a likeliehood, because of the staggered elections. Indeed, the party of the president being in a minority in at least one of the houses of Congress is more often the case than not. Whereas in the UK, it is in practise impossible for the PM to not be the choice of the majority party in parliament. In the UK the only vote is for members of Parliament. The Prime Minister holds his office entirely at the will and discretion of Parliament. That is both the practical and constitutional way it works. At one extreme, if the party in power loses its majority, then the PM is immediate toast. Whereas POTUS is most definitely not. The thought of course is that in practise in the UK people vote for the leader of the party, regardless of the constitutional position. But do they in fact do that ? It's an influence, but is that what they really do? And if they do, is that in any way legitimate ? Each Party publishes their Party manifesto. With very few exceptions, the prospective MPs stand in support of / promise to implement, their respective party manifesto. As an elector, not only are you constitutionally voting for your MP rather than the PM, but in practise/ethics you are voting as much if not more for the party manifesto of your selected choice (given their promise to implement it if given power). Logically, there is a much stronger case of there being a loss of democratic legitimacy if the party in power strays radically from its manifesto pledges, than if it just happens to change its leadership. If the change in leadership does not lead to a significant change of policy direction relative to its manifesto, then where is the loss of mandate ? There isn't, because the mandate wasn't to the individual who happens to be PM.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,587
Likes: 2,622
|
Post by keitha on Sept 1, 2023 21:07:10 GMT
Having some knowledge of Boston ( Lincs ) the place that voted most heavily for Brexit. the people there have funny ideas, they claim that the "foreigners" are taking there jobs, however talking recently to someone who employs staff there they can't get locals to apply for jobs for love nor money. This has led to employers asking for permission to bring workers in, whilst those same people sit and claim benefits. Most of those jobs are a way of life. Usually a "way of life" jobs are interesting or nobody would do them. Here though the vast majority of the workforce live on site in the farm in small huts shared with many other workers. The idea is that during that time you work as hard as you can and then leave at the end of the season to go home to enjoy the fruits of your labour. How can a local compete with that work ethic ? Many of the migrant workers lived in overcrowded HMO's eg a 3 bed terraced property with 15 residents. They would do Caulis and Cabbages now, then Sprouts etc then flowers in the spring and so on, being moved between jobs by the gangmasters. there was a terrible incident where several were killed in a Transit Van, as they were sat on scaffold planks on breeze blocks. they have a tremendous work ethic especially by comparison to many of those that denigrate them
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,703
Likes: 2,981
|
Post by michaelc on Sept 1, 2023 21:16:43 GMT
Yes that is the stricter definition but the reality is people voted for a Johnson government even though technically it was the MPs that chose him and the people voted for their MPs. Nobody voted for Rishi as PM indirectly or otherwise. If your narrow definition was strictly to be believed it would mean the people in the US don't vote for their president.....No, because the US has a different system. They have a presidential system. As does France. The UK does not. It has a parliamentary system (with the monarch being the Head of State, to boot). In the US, the democratic mandate for the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives, are all separate. The President has democratic legitimacy even if their own party is a minority in one or both of the Houses of Congress. Because they were all directly elected, separately. And the system is setup for that to be a likeliehood, because of the staggered elections. Indeed, the party of the president being in a minority in at least one of the houses of Congress is more often the case than not. Whereas in the UK, it is in practise impossible for the PM to not be the choice of the majority party in parliament. In the UK the only vote is for members of Parliament. The Prime Minister holds his office entirely at the will and discretion of Parliament. That is both the practical and constitutional way it works. At one extreme, if the party in power loses its majority, then the PM is immediate toast. Whereas POTUS is most definitely not. The thought of course is that in practise in the UK people vote for the leader of the party, regardless of the constitutional position. But do they in fact do that ? It's an influence, but is that what they really do? And if they do, is that in any way legitimate ? Each Party publishes their Party manifesto. With very few exceptions, the prospective MPs stand in support of / promise to implement, their respective party manifesto. As an elector, not only are you constitutionally voting for your MP rather than the PM, but in practise/ethics you are voting as much if not more for the party manifesto of your selected choice (given their promise to implement it if given power). Logically, there is a much stronger case of there being a loss of democratic legitimacy if the party in power strays radically from its manifesto pledges, than if it just happens to change its leadership. If the change in leadership does not lead to a significant change of policy direction relative to its manifesto, then where is the loss of mandate ? There isn't, because the mandate wasn't to the individual who happens to be PM. Sorry BB but I couldn't get much beyond your first paragraph as what you wrote in bold is critical to this sub-debate but is false. Notwithstanding Ilmoro's comments about the details of the ballet paper which I'd rather not get into the significance of, the US system is also indirect. More direct than for our PM I would agree but still indirect. www.archives.gov/electoral-college/electors#selectionActually though, all we are talking about here is degrees . One country is slightly more direct, another slightly less so. I stand by my original point that Johnson had more of a mandate than Sunak. Come on its bloody obvious !
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,545
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 1, 2023 21:41:13 GMT
No, because the US has a different system. They have a presidential system. As does France. The UK does not. It has a parliamentary system (with the monarch being the Head of State, to boot). In the US, the democratic mandate for the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives, are all separate. The President has democratic legitimacy even if their own party is a minority in one or both of the Houses of Congress. Because they were all directly elected, separately. And the system is setup for that to be a likeliehood, because of the staggered elections. Indeed, the party of the president being in a minority in at least one of the houses of Congress is more often the case than not. Whereas in the UK, it is in practise impossible for the PM to not be the choice of the majority party in parliament. In the UK the only vote is for members of Parliament. The Prime Minister holds his office entirely at the will and discretion of Parliament. That is both the practical and constitutional way it works. At one extreme, if the party in power loses its majority, then the PM is immediate toast. Whereas POTUS is most definitely not. The thought of course is that in practise in the UK people vote for the leader of the party, regardless of the constitutional position. But do they in fact do that ? It's an influence, but is that what they really do? And if they do, is that in any way legitimate ? Each Party publishes their Party manifesto. With very few exceptions, the prospective MPs stand in support of / promise to implement, their respective party manifesto. As an elector, not only are you constitutionally voting for your MP rather than the PM, but in practise/ethics you are voting as much if not more for the party manifesto of your selected choice (given their promise to implement it if given power). Logically, there is a much stronger case of there being a loss of democratic legitimacy if the party in power strays radically from its manifesto pledges, than if it just happens to change its leadership. If the change in leadership does not lead to a significant change of policy direction relative to its manifesto, then where is the loss of mandate ? There isn't, because the mandate wasn't to the individual who happens to be PM. Sorry BB but I couldn't get much beyond your first paragraph as what you wrote in bold is critical to this sub-debate but is false. Notwithstanding Ilmoro's comments about the details of the ballet paper which I'd rather not get into the significance of, the US system is also indirect. More direct than for our PM I would agree but still indirect. www.archives.gov/electoral-college/electors#selectionActually though, all we are talking about here is degrees . One country is slightly more direct, another slightly less so. I stand by my original point that Johnson had more of a mandate than Sunak. Come on its bloody obvious ! Actually depends on the state, many states have a legal requirement that the electoral college representative either vote for the nominee who won the popular vote or for the candidate of the party who they have been voted in as elector for ... it is not a free choice, their vote is invalid and they are replaced if the deviate. There are no such requirements on MPs ... they are elected as themselves, there is no requirement for them to support the party or its leader they stood for. BB point is that the President is elected as an individual, he is not elected on the basis of commanding a legislative majority. Macron is the prime example ... he had no party when he become President, he had to create one for the subsequent Estates elections.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Sept 1, 2023 23:13:42 GMT
A few things to ponder. 1. Migration is not the same as asylum. 2. I thought we "took back control"? 3. Is the new points based system serving anybody well? 4. A significant proportion of the incomers (sorry, I don't have the numbers to hand) are either Ukrainian refugees or Hong Kongers fleeing the new CCP regime in Hong Kong. I'd suggest we have a duty of care to both of those populations. 5. Who's been in power for the last thirteen years? Having some knowledge of Boston ( Lincs ) the place that voted most heavily for Brexit. the people there have funny ideas, they claim that the "foreigners" are taking there jobs, however talking recently to someone who employs staff there they can't get locals to apply for jobs for love nor money. This has led to employers asking for permission to bring workers in, whilst those same people sit and claim benefits. Sorry, but I doubt that bit I've highlighted is true. Everybody has their price. There would be a level of wages that would definitely attract applicants, it's just that the employer isn't willing to pay it and prefers his cheap imported labour, to maximise his profits. It's time employers paid the proper rate for the job. Either that, or the state has to tighten up on benefits to force it more attractive to seek paid work. Relying on cheap imported labour while our own people sit idle picking up welfare benefits doesn't make any sense.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,000
Likes: 5,139
|
Post by adrianc on Sept 2, 2023 6:15:05 GMT
"De Moor was complaining that the influx of asylum-seekers over the past two years in the nation of 11.5 million had filled the shelter centers to near capacity of 33,500. Last year, Belgium had nearly 37,000 applications for protection, the federal agency Fedasil said.
...
Still, said de Moor, “our country has already done more than its share for a long time,” and called on some other EU nations to increase their effort instead."BE : 37,000 applications for 11.5m population = 1 per 310 pop'n. UK : 74,750 applications for 67.6m population = 1 per 905 pop'n. yes but Net migration was 600,000 with 1.2 million coming in and 600,000 leaving You do know that the others all have visas issued by the UK government...?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,000
Likes: 5,139
|
Post by adrianc on Sept 2, 2023 6:22:54 GMT
Yes that is the stricter definition but the reality is people voted for a Johnson government even though technically it was the MPs that chose him and the people voted for their MPs. Nobody voted for Rishi as PM indirectly or otherwise. The public did not vote for Johnson to become PM (although he did go on to lead his party into an election victory) The public did not vote Truss to become PM. The public did not vote May to become PM. (although she did go on to lead her party into an election victory) The public did not vote Brown to become PM. The public did not vote Major to become PM. (although he did go on to lead his party into an election victory) The public did not vote Callaghan to become PM. OTOH, the public did "vote for" Wilson, Thatcher, Blair, Cameron to become PMs - indirectly. ...and that's just the last half century and ten PMs. Six changes of PM through internal party mechanisms, four through elections. It's about time we got used to that basic reality. Our system is very simple. We vote for a named individual as our MP. That named individual is usually a member of a political party. The party with most MPs forms a government. The PM is the parliamentary leader of that party. ANY of those can change without a public vote, except for the named individual. We do not have a directly elected PM in the way we have some directly elected mayors, or the French or Americans have a directly elected president.
|
|
.