A new democracy

[SueEllen]

well, not really

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ays-amber-rudd

The truth is they can't because a quarter of a million Baby boomers leave the workforce every year, who are not replaced by the local population. In other words just to stand still, the economy needs quarter of a mill migrants. We are not in the 1980's and 1990's where the working population was stable.

Every minister that expounds the target of 10's of thousands are "educated" by Sir Humphrey in the first weeks they enter their ministry about this rather unavoidable fact, and he probably points out that every 4 years a city the size of Birmingham of people doing nothing is being generated. Think about this, since the Baby Boomers started retiring in the mid 2000's we have generated approximately 2 Birminghams of people doing absolutely nothing other than drinking beer and generally "shouting" at the telly.

This is why immigration is not going to change.

NO FACTS!

[BlasterBates]

Do they want to control immigration by reducing it? I'm pretty sure they do.

well, not really

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ays-amber-rudd

The truth is they can't because a quarter of a million Baby boomers leave the workforce every year, who are not replaced by the local population. In other words just to stand still, the economy needs quarter of a mill migrants. We are not in the 1980's and 1990's where the working population was stable.

Every minister that expounds the target of 10's of thousands are "educated" by Sir Humphrey in the first weeks they enter their ministry about this rather unavoidable fact, and he probably points out that every 4 years a city the size of Birmingham of people doing nothing is being generated. Think about this, since the Baby Boomers started retiring in the mid 2000's we have generated approximately 2 Birminghams of people doing absolutely nothing other than drinking beer and generally "shouting" at the telly.

This is why immigration is not going to change.

[northernladyuk]

I thought it worked quite passably from 2010-15 myself.

On the plus side, you got a free mobility scooter after the inclusion of obesity in the eligibility criteria. On the minus side, you get to spend your afternoons with MF down the 'first class' day centre.

Glad that's working out for you.

[shaunbhoy]

Is coalition the answer?

I thought it worked quite passably from 2010-15 myself.

[northernladuk]

Do they want to control immigration by reducing it? I'm pretty sure they do.

Reducing it from uncontrolled to controlled would be a good start.

[d000hg]

UKIP is about controlled immigration, not reduced immigration. They are not the same thing.

Do they want to control immigration by reducing it? I'm pretty sure they do.

[GJABS]

UKIP is about controlled immigration, not reduced immigration. They are not the same thing.

[NigelJK]

or a return to Democracy (Everyone votes on the major issues and everyone has the right to raise issues to be voted on)

[PurpleGorilla]

Is coalition the answer?

[scooterscot]

Wouldn't it be nice if, instead of having to vote for a one party government, we could vote for which party governs each ministry?

Exactly why governments need to devolve power. After religion, they are the cause of most wars.

Centralisation of power does not work. The UK has demonstrated that with the anti-establishment Brexit vote.

[diseasex]

Sure it's not just me who is never a fan of one party or another on all issues.

I'd go for UKIP to get out of the EU or reduce immigration but I don't like their often conservative bent on social issues like gay marriage, abortion etc. I'd vote for Corbyn to improve our democracy and get rid of the monarchy and the House of Lords. I'd vote Tory on economic issues because I believe that the free market, with some regulation, is the only one that works.

Now I have decided I'd like to vote for the Taliban on green issues, it can't be as daft as the green party, but not so sure about beheading women.

Wouldn't it be nice if, instead of having to vote for a one party government, we could vote for which party governs each ministry?

and taliban green party would be Home office, responsible about migration policy , police and other stuff . haha

[xoggoth]

Sure it's not just me who is never a fan of one party or another on all issues.

I'd go for UKIP to get out of the EU or reduce immigration but I don't like their often conservative bent on social issues like gay marriage, abortion etc. I'd vote for Corbyn to improve our democracy and get rid of the monarchy and the House of Lords. I'd vote Tory on economic issues because I believe that the free market, with some regulation, is the only one that works.

Now I have decided I'd like to vote for the Taliban on green issues, it can't be as daft as the green party, but not so sure about beheading women.

Wouldn't it be nice if, instead of having to vote for a one party government, we could vote for which party governs each ministry?