Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[martin_p]

You havent answered it. You'd have named a year, or years had you actually answered it!

My original question to Andrew JB was "who knows what's best for the people of Burnley? The people of Burnley or a metropolitan bubble dweller.?"

I didn't ask if the people of Burnley were best placed to work out "complex political and global issues", just, when it comes to choosing someone to do it for them who knows best?

It was DA who went off on a tangent droning on repeatedly about "complex political and global issues"

I asked you

"What does a general election offer to, say, The People of Burnley?

You said,




Then I asked you-

"And when they make that choice , are they informed and knowledgeable enough , to decide which of the various candidates is best placed to represent their interests?

Yes or no?"





So, by your very own admittance, the people of Burnley are "informed and knowledgeable enough , to decide which of the various candidates is best placed to represent their interests" At a general election that , "allows them to choose someone whose job it will be to understand the complex and economical global issues and use that knowledge to make the best decisions for the people of Burnley"

When, in your opinion, did they do this?

2005, 2010, 2015, 2017 or 2019?

Or are you saying they never have?


(3 political posters and not one capable of naming a year!!!)

What are you on about? Name a year? Why? I’ve said the electorate at large (including Burnley) are informed enough to make a decision on an MP full stop. Whether I agree with the conclusions they’ve drawn from the information they’ve had is a different matter.

[aggi]

Anything to back it up?

The paper has been referenced multiple times on here. I can dig it out again if you like.

[RingoMcCartney]

I said I’m down south, not London. I agree that those in the cesspit of the big smoke are also very insular (generally)

I don’t think I’m qualified enough to answer your questions, but I will say that on balance democracy is the least bad option for running a country.

I didn't say you were from london. You said that Burnley folk were "insular". I simply said that in my opinion, Londoners are probably the most insular people in the country. Anyway.

"Democracy is the least bad option for running the country"

Given you said -

The dwellers of East Lancs are generally very insular and I would agree that to a large extent the people of Burnley don’t know what’s actually best for them."

It would seem that, given you feel they dont know what's best for themselves when they vote. There doesn't seem much point to democracy then?

Fair enough......

[RingoMcCartney]

What are you on about? Name a year? Why? I’ve said the electorate at large (including Burnley) are informed enough to make a decision on an MP full stop. Whether I agree with the conclusions they’ve drawn from the information they’ve had is a different matter.

So which year(s) , in recent general elections, say from 2005 to present, do you feel they chose an MP that , given his/her respective political party, demonstrated that the people of Burnley voted in their best interests?

There must be at least one year that you agree with "the conclusion " they've come to ?

[Jakubclaret]

The paper has been referenced multiple times on here. I can dig it out again if you like.

Do you acknowledge the distinction between the illegal & legal immigration irrespective of EU & non EU workers, I think you underestimate the potential scale of the illegal workforce within the UK.

[Bfcboyo]

The paper has been referenced multiple times on here. I can dig it out again if you like.

I think you better son.

[RingoMcCartney]

I would suggest that at a complex political and economically global level the people of Burnley really aren't the people who know whats best for Burnley.

If we had a media system that allowed experts and specialists to share their views and which challenged views without bias and held to account the words and promises of those in power and who we are supposed to trust then I think it would be fair to allow the folk of Burnley to make a considered decision about whats best for them.

Unfortunately the last 4 years have seen us move so far away from a political system where truth matters and where those in power are held accountable your words about the people of Burnley and the metropolitan bubble are even more worthless than they ever were in the first place

This is what somebody sounds like when they claim to "support universal suffrage" and democracy.

That is, until that democracy delivers a result they dont agree with!

[martin_p]

This is what somebody sounds like when they claim to "support universal suffrage" and democracy.

That is, until that democracy delivers a result they dont agree with!

And this is what someone looks like when they confuse subjects being too complex to put to the electorate with the right to vote.

[Bfcboyo]

And this is what someone looks like when they confuse subjects being too complex to put to the electorate with the right to vote.

And this is a remoaner in a smashed up pile of remoaners at the bottom of a hole with nothing left to cling onto gibbering on in a putrid pile of remoaning zombie soup.

[aggi]

I think you better son.

Here you go

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... eport_.pdf

[aggi]

Do you acknowledge the distinction between the illegal & legal immigration irrespective of EU & non EU workers, I think you underestimate the potential scale of the illegal workforce within the UK.

I do but that just disproves your point more as the vast majority of illegal workers will be non-EU.

[Jakubclaret]

I do but that just disproves your point more as the vast majority of illegal workers will be non-EU.

We don't know that for sure, just because you might be entitled to work here legally doesn't mean you will choose to work here legally, the same applies for non EU, all the illegal syndicates involved in crime won't be working legally.

[AndrewJB]

We don't know that for sure, just because you might be entitled to work here legally doesn't mean you will choose to work here legally, the same applies for non EU, all the illegal syndicates involved in crime won't be working legally.

So leaving the EU security and policing bodies won't be in our best interests.

[Jakubclaret]

So leaving the EU security and policing bodies won't be in our best interests.

We can deal with it domestically, less people here to start with will naturally make things easier to manage, at the moment there's too many people here, some that are entitled to be here & others not, when/if the numbers dwindle we will be in a better position, it's harder to blend in & people are more detectable when in a great minority.

[AndrewJB]

I didn't say you were from london. You said that Burnley folk were "insular". I simply said that in my opinion, Londoners are probably the most insular people in the country. Anyway.

"Democracy is the least bad option for running the country"

Given you said -



It would seem that, given you feel they dont know what's best for themselves when they vote. There doesn't seem much point to democracy then?

Fair enough......

"Londoners are probably the most insular people in the country..." You reckon?

Londoners have experienced levels of immigration far higher than places like Burnley. If immigration is a bad thing, as told to us by the rightwing media, why did London consistently vote against parties opposing immigration throughout the last thirty years?

[martin_p]

We can deal with it domestically, less people here to start with will naturally make things easier to manage, at the moment there's too many people here, some that are entitled to be here & others not, when/if the numbers dwindle we will be in a better position, it's harder to blend in & people are more detectable when in a great minority.

Why will there be less people here? Net migration figures haven’t gone down and even if they were to reduce to (say) 10,000, which is unlikely, that’s still a population growing by 10,000.

[Jakubclaret]

Why will there be less people here? Net migration figures haven’t gone down and even if they were to reduce to (say) 10,000, which is unlikely, that’s still a population growing by 10,000.

The old age boom will lower & a super strict immigration policy working in tandem, it can be lowered if we are serious on cutting crime & improving security.

[taio]

Why will there be less people here? Net migration figures haven’t gone down and even if they were to reduce to (say) 10,000, which is unlikely, that’s still a population growing by 10,000.

It wouldn't be unreasonable to say that we will have better control over who enters the country using an Australian type system that brings in the people the country needs.

[martin_p]

The old age boom will lower & a super strict immigration policy working in tandem, it can be lowered if we are serious on cutting crime & improving security.

Are they changing the immigration policy for non-EU nationals. Net migration is still significantly in the positive for non-EU, hows that going to turn negative.

[Jakubclaret]

Are they changing the immigration policy for non-EU nationals. Net migration is still significantly in the positive for non-EU, hows that going to turn negative.

I'm working on the theory on cutting all immigration which won't happen but certain elements believe it should, the answers to all the questions are there if there wanted to be answered.

[taio]

Are they changing the immigration policy for non-EU nationals. Net migration is still significantly in the positive for non-EU, hows that going to turn negative.

Yes.

[TheFamilyCat]

The old age boom will lower & a super strict immigration policy working in tandem, it can be lowered if we are serious on cutting crime & improving security.

Cos only immigrants commit crime, right?

[martin_p]

I'm working on the theory on cutting all immigration which won't happen but certain elements believe it should, the answers to all the questions are there if there wanted to be answered.

So in summary you don’t believe there will be ‘less people here’.

[martin_p]

It wouldn't be unreasonable to say that we will have better control over who enters the country using an Australian type system that brings in the people the country needs.

Yes, but that will still mean positive net migration.

[Jakubclaret]

Cos only immigrants commit crime, right?

No of course not, but less criminals can only be a good thing, we can't deport people who belong here.

[taio]

Yes, but that will still mean positive net migration.

That's fine by me. Do you not agree with the principle of having a system that brings in people with the skills and background the country needs?

[AndrewJB]

We can deal with it domestically, less people here to start with will naturally make things easier to manage, at the moment there's too many people here, some that are entitled to be here & others not, when/if the numbers dwindle we will be in a better position, it's harder to blend in & people are more detectable when in a great minority.

You've just said there's a problem with foreign criminals coming here, so surely if we maintain police ties to the countries they're coming from that's a good thing?

You say there's "too many people here" - but Burnley has a population of 70K, and used to have a population of 110K. A lot of places in the north have smaller populations than they used to. Your actual lived experience doesn't chime with "too many people" being here. At the same time places to which lots of immigrants have in fact moved don't vote for anti-immigration parties, which suggests that those parts of the country that have seen big population increases don't think they're full, or blame immigration for their problems. So how did you identify this as an issue?

[claretandy]

Yes, but that will still mean positive net migration.

So ? I love how remainers think leavers will be furious if immigration still rises with a points based system.

[taio]

You've just said there's a problem with foreign criminals coming here, so surely if we maintain police ties to the countries they're coming from that's a good thing?

You say there's "too many people here" - but Burnley has a population of 70K, and used to have a population of 110K. A lot of places in the north have smaller populations than they used to. Your actual lived experience doesn't chime with "too many people" being here. At the same time places to which lots of immigrants have in fact moved don't vote for anti-immigration parties, which suggests that those parts of the country that have seen big population increases don't think they're full, or blame immigration for their problems. So how did you identify this as an issue?

Burnley's population is more than 70k.

[AndrewJB]

No of course not, but less criminals can only be a good thing, we can't deport people who belong here.

We actually do that.

[Jakubclaret]

You've just said there's a problem with foreign criminals coming here, so surely if we maintain police ties to the countries they're coming from that's a good thing?

You say there's "too many people here" - but Burnley has a population of 70K, and used to have a population of 110K. A lot of places in the north have smaller populations than they used to. Your actual lived experience doesn't chime with "too many people" being here. At the same time places to which lots of immigrants have in fact moved don't vote for anti-immigration parties, which suggests that those parts of the country that have seen big population increases don't think they're full, or blame immigration for their problems. So how did you identify this as an issue?

We've got enough to deal with already with our own domestic criminals, the prisons are overcrowded & criminals (some) are on the streets because it's too expensive to house them all. I just think it's for the best that we impose a super strict immigration policy & keep crime under control or at very least minimise it. All non UK criminals deported & keep immigration across the board to a super strict criteria skills based with a view to accepting anymore incoming.

[AndrewJB]

Burnley's population is more than 70k.

How does that change the point I made?

[taio]

How does that change the point I made?

I didn't say it did. But the least you can do is use correct information in making your point. You make a lot of statements about Burnley but haven't got a clue about the place as you've just demonstrated.

[Jakubclaret]

We actually do that.

Providing you are not on o2 or is the other way around I can't remember, I just remember a fuss not so long ago about problems with deportation & mobile networks.

[Colburn_Claret]

The problem is that Brits don't want the dirty jobs, such as cleaning toilets etc.

I agree, it's why they should have a choice, clean the toilets or lose the benefits. Anyone who thinks they are too good to clean toilets need a dose of reality. There's no reason why cleaning toilets has to be their final job, it could be a stepping stone to better, but turning down any job when you are on the dole should have consequences.

[ClaretAndJew]

I agree, it's why they should have a choice, clean the toilets or lose the benefits. Anyone who thinks they are too good to clean toilets need a dose of reality. There's no reason why cleaning toilets has to be their final job, it could be a stepping stone to better, but turning down any job when you are on the dole should have consequences.

It does have consequences doesn't it?

If you are offered a job and don't take it or fail to look for jobs you get sanctioned.

I think the issue lies within the fact that if you are a single person, renting, then these jobs don't really leave you with any monetary difference compared to being on benefits.

[Jakubclaret]

It does have consequences doesn't it?

If you are offered a job and don't take it or fail to look for jobs you get sanctioned.

I think the issue lies within the fact that if you are a single person, renting, then these jobs don't really leave you with any monetary difference compared to being on benefits.

Somebody with no intentions of doing that kind of job wouldn’t even apply for the vacancy in the first place, if you fail to look for the work I’m assuming you’ve got to demonstrate you are & obliged to attend so many interviews per week. I know people who do nothing & receive benefits despite the hardline insistence’s nothing really happens, you can go to the doctors, appeal & get it backdated.

[ClaretAndJew]

Somebody with no intentions of doing that kind of job wouldn’t even apply for the vacancy in the first place, if you fail to look for the work I’m assuming you’ve got to demonstrate you are & obliged to attend so many interviews per week. I know people who do nothing & receive benefits despite the hardline insistence’s nothing really happens, you can go to the doctors, appeal & get it backdated.

I've known people on both sides of the coin. Those who don't really ever attend meetings but get paid regardless and those who have to attend course after course and meeting after meeting just to avoid getting sanctioned.

I was on universal credit in 2014 and I went to more meetings at Burnley job centre in the 3 months that I was on it than my friend has in the two years he's been on it.

[Jakubclaret]

I've known people on both sides of the coin. Those who don't really ever attend meetings but get paid regardless and those who have to attend course after course and meeting after meeting just to avoid getting sanctioned.

I was on universal credit in 2014 and I went to more meetings at Burnley job centre in the 3 months that I was on it than my friend has in the two years he's been on it.

I know what you mean, they do everything to make things very difficult & inundate you with paperwork & appointments & threats, they just don’t want to give you anything easily.

[Colburn_Claret]

It does have consequences doesn't it?

If you are offered a job and don't take it or fail to look for jobs you get sanctioned.

I think the issue lies within the fact that if you are a single person, renting, then these jobs don't really leave you with any monetary difference compared to being on benefits.

I don't doubt it CJ, but they don't leave you worse off either.
They do have a positive benefit in looking for a better job though. Put yourself in the seat of an employer would you rather give a job to someone willing to take a job that didn't leave him much better off than on benefits, or someone who was happy to sit at home waiting for a better paid job. It's a no brainer imo.
The minimum wage needs replacing with a living wage. Nobody in employment should be in need of benefits to top their wages up, but at the same time I'd cut benefits, for long term unemployed. The carrot and the stick will work for most people.

[KateR]

It’s not a case of ‘belief’ I’m stating historical facts! Unless you’d like to point out which bit is not factual.

As I said, keep believing, you have not stated any facts what so ever, but knock yourself out, you'll be right one day, the odds are on your side.

I've already told you what are facts,you just don't want to accept them and make your own narrative to suit your opinion, which of course you are allowed, the fact you're wrong is irrelevant. You'll also be saying we have not done Brexit next, along with some of your other, I'm in denial colleagues

[nil_desperandum]

Burnley's population is more than 70k.

You challenge this figure but didn't challenge the 110,000 upper figure.
That's rather selective use of data.
It all depends on which "Burnley" you use (i.e. Burnley alone, or the wider Borough of Burnley inc. (e.g. Briercliffe, Worsthorne, Cliviger and Padiham)).
Burnley is listed on many sources as being 73,000, but also 87,000 depending which boundaries you use.
If you're going to use the 87,000 figure, then you should also use the higher figure of approx 128,000 in 1911, (and probably around 140,000 at the outbreak of WW1.)
But whichever way you look at it, Burnley has had a declining population for the past century and were it not for immigration the figure would be much lower.
Just imagine what a thriving local economy we would have and what attendances would be at Turf Moor if we got back to 1914 levels. Of course we would also need massive investment in public services, hospitals and schools, but this has been the failure over the past 30 years or so.
Burnley doesn't need less inhabitants. It needs better public services.

[taio]

You challenge this figure but didn't challenge the 110,000 upper figure.
That's rather selective use of data.
It all depends on which "Burnley" you use (i.e. Burnley alone, or the wider Borough of Burnley inc. (e.g. Briercliffe, Worsthorne, Cliviger and Padiham)).
Burnley is listed on many sources as being 73,000, but also 87,000 depending which boundaries you use.
If you're going to use the 87,000 figure, then you should also use the higher figure of approx 128,000 in 1911, (and probably around 140,000 at the outbreak of WW1.)
But whichever way you look at it, Burnley has had a declining population for the past century and were it not for immigration the figure would be much lower.
Just imagine what a thriving local economy we would have and what attendances would be at Turf Moor if we got back to 1914 levels. Of course we would also need massive investment in public services, hospitals and schools, but this has been the failure over the past 30 years or so.
Burnley doesn't need less inhabitants. It needs better public services.

It's not selective use of data. I didn't know the 1911 figure. And of course the figure to be used should include Briercliffe etc.

[nil_desperandum]

It's not selective use of data. I didn't know the 1911 figure. And of course the figure to be used should include Briercliffe etc.

Didn't post in order to get into a dispute, but all I am saying is that he (presumably) used 70,000 as an approximation of 73,000 (current) and 110,000 as an approximation of the peak in the 1911 census.
So if you're going to include the wider borough (which is fair enough) then it's currently 87,000 and 128,000 (from 1911). It would be unreasonable to use the "narrower" figure of 110 as the peak and then imply that it had only dropped to 87,000. It's 2 separate sets of data.
(That's all I was saying).

[taio]

Didn't post in order to get into a dispute, but all I am saying is that he (presumably) used 70,000 as an approximation of 73,000 (current) and 110,000 as an approximation of the peak in the 1911 census.
So if you're going to include the wider borough (which is fair enough) then it's currently 87,000 and 128,000 (from 1911). It would be unreasonable to use the "narrower" figure of 110 as the peak and then imply that it had only dropped to 87,000. It's 2 separate sets of data.
(That's all I was saying).

And all I was saying was that 70k was wrong because it is.

[nil_desperandum]

And all I was saying was that 70k was wrong because it is.

You're obviously correct.
But it's listed as 73,000 so I don't think that it's a massive error or deliberately misleading for Andrew to round it down. (Clearly within the margins of error, but only IMO of course.

[Jakubclaret]

And all I was saying was that 70k was wrong because it is.

You wouldn't be employing nil desperandum in a job that deals with figures in any rush, accountancy ect.

[nil_desperandum]

You wouldn't be employing nil desperandum in a job that deals with figures in any rush, accountancy ect.

You've so obviously not read the context of the previous posts. It wasn't my figures that Taio was challenging, but never mind.
I'm simply quoting the official figures taken from the relevant official censuses in order to clarify the discrepancies.
If you don't understand that the population of Burnley is frequently recorded in 2 different ways - i.e. "Burnley" itself, and then the wider Parliamentary borough then I would keep out of any debate on the topic.

[Jakubclaret]

You've so obviously not read the context of the previous posts. It wasn't my figures that Taio was challenging, but never mind.
I'm simply quoting the official figures taken from the relevant official censuses in order to clarify the discrepancies.
If you don't understand that the population of Burnley is frequently recorded in 2 different ways - i.e. "Burnley" itself, and then the wider Parliamentary borough then I would keep out of any debate on the topic.

I understand, I've been following every single post from taio recent inception, Andrew was naughty initially with the 70 000 intentionally (maybe genuinely unaware) making it lower than it really is, taio rightly pulled up him on it & you waded in sticking up for him, as oftens the case with andrewJB form with figures. As Deborah & the rest say on dragons den when you go into the den you need to know your numbers & andrewJB didn't.

[nil_desperandum]

I understand, I've been following every single post from taio recent inception, Andrew was naughty initially with the 70 000 intentionally (maybe genuinely unaware) making it lower than it really is, taio rightly pulled up him on it & you waded in sticking up for him, as oftens the case with andrewJB form with figures. As Deborah & the rest say on dragons den when you go into the den you need to know your numbers & andrewJB didn't.

All the above may be true, (though I think most people would say that giving 70,000 as a broad figure for 73,000 is not unreasonable), but it isn't relevant at all to the charge you made against me, (i.e. not trustworthy over figures) when - in fact - I corrected Andrew's figure and quoted the official sources for both sets of figures.