If Truss proves a success and the Tories get a sustained poll bounce Boris will leave. If Truss however soon sees Labour get a clear poll lead and her government swiftly becomes unpopular then Boris will stay. Truss will have done the job Boris and his supporters intended her to do in seeing off Sunak for the Tory leadership, he would then remain the Prince across the Water for when the leadership again becomes vacant.
Indeed if Truss wins I would say Sunak is more likely to leave the Commons for the private sector than Boris is to depart
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
Boris will stay. There is no obligation to do anything as MP, so it’s free money essentially.
Free money maybe - but the opportunity cost versus his earnings on the US talking circuit is massive.
There is no opportunity cost - yes he has to declare it, but otherwise he just does both. It'll be rare that he actually has to be there for a vote and are they really going to strip of the whip if he misses something?
My guess is that he will go, particularly, if seems likely Truss becomes PM. Truss is continuity Johnson- she is the populist party candidate and is more likely to keep the Tory party in that direction, which El Bozo will see as the best chance of him securing some kind of populist legacy, rather than the party return to it's serious and sensible roots. he will also know that it is very unlikely that he will get the support needed from the PCP that he would need to make a comeback. He is essentially a busted flush. And let's just rejoice at that news.
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
My guess is that he will go, particularly, if seems likely Truss becomes PM. Truss is continuity Johnson- she is the populist party candidate and is more likely to keep the Tory party in that direction, which El Bozo will see as the best chance of him securing some kind of populist legacy, rather than the party return to it's serious and sensible roots. he will also know that it is very unlikely that he will get the support needed from the PCP that he would need to make a comeback. He is essentially a busted flush. And let's just rejoice at that news.
He doesn't believe he's a busted flush. I think he genuinely believes he could come back.
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
Boris will stay. There is no obligation to do anything as MP, so it’s free money essentially.
Free money maybe - but the opportunity cost versus his earnings on the US talking circuit is massive.
Can't he do both?
The worst that happens is that he has to declare his earnings, and it's possible that he will quite enjoy that.
To a large degree, it comes down to Truss's attitude. She could throw him to the wolves if she were so minded. In a lot of ways, it would make her life easier. But she has surrounded herself by the Justice4Boris crew.
My guess is that he will go, particularly, if seems likely Truss becomes PM. Truss is continuity Johnson- she is the populist party candidate and is more likely to keep the Tory party in that direction, which El Bozo will see as the best chance of him securing some kind of populist legacy, rather than the party return to it's serious and sensible roots. he will also know that it is very unlikely that he will get the support needed from the PCP that he would need to make a comeback. He is essentially a busted flush. And let's just rejoice at that news.
He doesn't believe he's a busted flush. I think he genuinely believes he could come back.
Indeed, like Trump he is already plotting his comeback
FPT, may I just say well done to @OnlyLivingBoy for coming up with a top notch @Leon style post. It may could have done with the addition of taking heroin before breakfast as well as vivid descriptions of threesomes with stunning Armenian / Bosnian / Georgian Montenegrin etc students while pleasuring them with artisanal dildos tipped with cocaine powder but apart from that, it fully captured @Leon's spirit.
Boris will stay. There is no obligation to do anything as MP, so it’s free money essentially.
Free money maybe - but the opportunity cost versus his earnings on the US talking circuit is massive.
There is no obligation to attend any debate or vote either. The Whips complain? Constituents moan? Unless he plans to seek RE-election, does any student of Boris think he'll care?
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
His graph comparing GDP growth per capita and net migration doesn't support the oft repeated claim that immigration boosts productivity.
No, as he points out. And although I disagree with that particular premise, i believe it’s an interesting thread.
It is an interesting premise and like you I don't agree with everything he says, but I don't consider non-EU migration to be "worse" than EU migration.
I consider the loosening of non-EU migration rules as a positive side-effect of controlling EU migration. To have the whole world migrating on a looser but level playing field is better than uncontrolled on one side and draconianly restricted on the other.
The transparency obligations on an MP are an issue; the risks of an unfavourable Privileges Committee finding are real (hence attempts by Team Johnson to discredit members); and the income is trivial compared with that on offer on speaker circuit.
In terms of causing a difficult by-election for his successor, Johnson doesn't care about other people, so that's not a factor.
On the possibility of a comeback, he's returned to the Commons before and may do again. The particular seat he is in is less than ideal, and he could find another with minimum effort should he wish to do so.
If Truss proves a success and the Tories get a sustained poll bounce Boris will leave. If Truss however soon sees Labour get a clear poll lead and her government swiftly becomes unpopular then Boris will stay. Truss will have done the job Boris and his supporters intended her to do in seeing off Sunak for the Tory leadership, he would then remain the Prince across the Water for when the leadership again becomes vacant.
Indeed if Truss wins I would say Sunak is more likely to leave the Commons for the private sector than Boris is to depart
Hats off to Boris if he pulls that off: destroys Dom's man Rishi and then regains the premiership despite Dom's best efforts over PartyGate etc. It would be one of the greatest 12D chess victories in British political history.
Boris will stay. There is no obligation to do anything as MP, so it’s free money essentially.
If I recall, quite a few members of this board were VERY critical of one Gordon Brown sitting as an MP between 2010 and 2015 and doing very little (other than write a book).
I hope we'll be equally critical of Johnson doing the same.
It should probably be a requirement that an MP actually attends a minimum number of surgeries a year, only exempted if they are of sufficient stature that there would be a security risk if they did so (so, Cabinet level or LotO - and even then, it should be expected a member of their office would conduct the surgeries instead and convey their constituents issues to the MP). Should they fail to do so then its considered they've called a by-election similar to a recall petition.
I don't know where that would leave the Speaker, and Sinn Fein MPs. Maybe it would force people to sort out the Speaker problem (I know we've suggested here the Speaker is the MPs MP and a by-election in the Speakers seat) and as for Sinn Fein, maybe they'll be forced to fight a by-election annually.
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
His graph comparing GDP growth per capita and net migration doesn't support the oft repeated claim that immigration boosts productivity.
No, as he points out. And although I disagree with that particular premise, i believe it’s an interesting thread.
It is an interesting premise and like you I don't agree with everything he says, but I don't consider non-EU migration to be "worse" than EU migration.
I consider the loosening of non-EU migration rules as a positive side-effect of controlling EU migration. To have the whole world migrating on a looser but level playing field is better than uncontrolled on one side and draconianly restricted on the other.
The origin of the immigrants is not itself, important. Rather it's a question of the characteristics of immigrants. In order to take a view statistics would be required about the education and skills of immigrants and an 'objective' view of those be taken.
There is a massive amount of immigration from the Philippines into nursing for example (and thank god), but it might be argued that this is 'unproductive' immigration, whereas young creative French and Italians were more likely to generate economic growth.
All my betting cash is tied up on Truss at the moment, but "No" (No by-election) feels the best bet here for me. I don't think there's any work you HAVE to do whilst being an MP - so Boris won't bother. He'll just trouser the ~ 8 grand a month you get as an MP whilst pursuing other interests.
Boris will stay. There is no obligation to do anything as MP, so it’s free money essentially.
If I recall, quite a few members of this board were VERY critical of one Gordon Brown sitting as an MP between 2010 and 2015 and doing very little (other than write a book).
I hope we'll be equally critical of Johnson doing the same.
It should probably be a requirement that an MP actually attends a minimum number of surgeries a year, only exempted if they are of sufficient stature that there would be a security risk if they did so (so, Cabinet level or LotO - and even then, it should be expected a member of their office would conduct the surgeries instead and convey their constituents issues to the MP). Should they fail to do so then its considered they've called a by-election similar to a recall petition.
I don't know where that would leave the Speaker, and Sinn Fein MPs. Maybe it would force people to sort out the Speaker problem (I know we've suggested here the Speaker is the MPs MP and a by-election in the Speakers seat) and as for Sinn Fein, maybe they'll be forced to fight a by-election annually.
The more we've defined the MPs role and put requirements on them with regard to how they must operate, the lower the quality of our MPs has become.
My guess is that he will go, particularly, if seems likely Truss becomes PM. Truss is continuity Johnson- she is the populist party candidate and is more likely to keep the Tory party in that direction, which El Bozo will see as the best chance of him securing some kind of populist legacy, rather than the party return to it's serious and sensible roots. he will also know that it is very unlikely that he will get the support needed from the PCP that he would need to make a comeback. He is essentially a busted flush. And let's just rejoice at that news.
He doesn't believe he's a busted flush. I think he genuinely believes he could come back.
He might well step down just before the next election, though. I don't think he'd fancy the possibility of losing, and wouldn't care about the hospital pass to the whomever might be his replacement.
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
His graph comparing GDP growth per capita and net migration doesn't support the oft repeated claim that immigration boosts productivity.
No, as he points out. And although I disagree with that particular premise, i believe it’s an interesting thread.
It is an interesting premise and like you I don't agree with everything he says, but I don't consider non-EU migration to be "worse" than EU migration.
I consider the loosening of non-EU migration rules as a positive side-effect of controlling EU migration. To have the whole world migrating on a looser but level playing field is better than uncontrolled on one side and draconianly restricted on the other.
The origin of the immigrants is not itself, important. Rather it's a question of the characteristics of immigrants. In order to take a view statistics would be required about the education and skills of immigrants and an 'objective' view of those be taken.
There is a massive amount of immigration from the Philippines into nursing for example (and thank god), but it might be argued that this is 'unproductive' immigration, whereas young creative French and Italians were more likely to generate economic growth.
My very primitive theory is that Philippinos have replaced the Portuguese, but that the Portuguese were more likely in aggregate to attain middle-classness.
But the astonishing thing to me is that the UK now has *more* immigration, and labour shortages to boot. I have no idea how to explain that.
Someone notes in the thread that family reunions are up a lot.
And I don't think we have any NI posters on here (do we?) but how does it work in Sinn Fein constituencies?
Drifting off topic (or maybe not - I'm discussing MPs who don't bother turning up - Johnson is in the header after all!), but how does this work? I know Sinn Fein advertise themselves as 'elect us and we WON'T attend Parliament' so the electorate can't say they don't know what they're getting but do they hold surgeries, and if they do, how do they convey their concerns to the UK Parliament?
And what would happen if there was a local political crisis that required an MP [1]. Would they still continue to ignore Parliament and say nothing?
[1] I realise a 'local' political crisis in those seats is only likely to be about one thing, and decisions are likely to be taken elsewere therefore (London, Dublin.... Washington!) but still......
If Truss proves a success and the Tories get a sustained poll bounce Boris will leave. If Truss however soon sees Labour get a clear poll lead and her government swiftly becomes unpopular then Boris will stay. Truss will have done the job Boris and his supporters intended her to do in seeing off Sunak for the Tory leadership, he would then remain the Prince across the Water for when the leadership again becomes vacant.
Indeed if Truss wins I would say Sunak is more likely to leave the Commons for the private sector than Boris is to depart
Hats off to Boris if he pulls that off: destroys Dom's man Rishi and then regains the premiership despite Dom's best efforts over PartyGate etc. It would be one of the greatest 12D chess victories in British political history.
In 12D chess it would be pretty likely that opposing kings and queens would;d be on adjacent squares. Would make for a rather short game.
My guess is that he will go, particularly, if seems likely Truss becomes PM. Truss is continuity Johnson- she is the populist party candidate and is more likely to keep the Tory party in that direction, which El Bozo will see as the best chance of him securing some kind of populist legacy, rather than the party return to it's serious and sensible roots. he will also know that it is very unlikely that he will get the support needed from the PCP that he would need to make a comeback. He is essentially a busted flush. And let's just rejoice at that news.
He doesn't believe he's a busted flush. I think he genuinely believes he could come back.
He might well step down just before the next election, though. I don't think he'd fancy the possibility of losing, and wouldn't care about the hospital pass to the whomever might be his replacement.
He'll have to make a calculation; it has been suggested down thread that he can come back in another seat if he wishes so can stand down. But local associations may not be sympathetic if he leaves parliament now, whereas if he fights and loses his seat (a la Portillo) they'd be more ready to give him another chance. Potentially at an early by-election.
My guess is that he will go, particularly, if seems likely Truss becomes PM. Truss is continuity Johnson- she is the populist party candidate and is more likely to keep the Tory party in that direction, which El Bozo will see as the best chance of him securing some kind of populist legacy, rather than the party return to it's serious and sensible roots. he will also know that it is very unlikely that he will get the support needed from the PCP that he would need to make a comeback. He is essentially a busted flush. And let's just rejoice at that news.
Other than Brexit, what distinguishes "populist" from "sensible" Toryism?
Boris will stay. There is no obligation to do anything as MP, so it’s free money essentially.
If I recall, quite a few members of this board were VERY critical of one Gordon Brown sitting as an MP between 2010 and 2015 and doing very little (other than write a book).
I hope we'll be equally critical of Johnson doing the same.
It should probably be a requirement that an MP actually attends a minimum number of surgeries a year, only exempted if they are of sufficient stature that there would be a security risk if they did so (so, Cabinet level or LotO - and even then, it should be expected a member of their office would conduct the surgeries instead and convey their constituents issues to the MP). Should they fail to do so then its considered they've called a by-election similar to a recall petition.
I don't know where that would leave the Speaker, and Sinn Fein MPs. Maybe it would force people to sort out the Speaker problem (I know we've suggested here the Speaker is the MPs MP and a by-election in the Speakers seat) and as for Sinn Fein, maybe they'll be forced to fight a by-election annually.
The more we've defined the MPs role and put requirements on them with regard to how they must operate, the lower the quality of our MPs has become.
I don't really agree with that. I'm quite sure there were loads of MPs from the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries who were utter shits.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
I think the US is going to have a “soft landing”, but Europe including the UK seems quite astonishingly fucked.
Certainly in the short term. This winter will be brutal; what happens next year is not yet decided.
Whatever happens in Ukraine, the gas situation is going to remain as is for a good while yet - relations between europe and Russia are going to be icy for a long time. Energy (Particularly gas) needs to be seen as a strategic national resource now by nation states now, rather than a global commodity. The decommissioning for gas in the North sea needs to have been stopped yesterday, and we need to remain good friends with the arabs no matter what tbh.
FPT, may I just say well done to @OnlyLivingBoy for coming up with a top notch @Leon style post. It may could have done with the addition of taking heroin before breakfast as well as vivid descriptions of threesomes with stunning Armenian / Bosnian / Georgian Montenegrin etc students while pleasuring them with artisanal dildos tipped with cocaine powder...
In the back of a taxi driven by Aleister Crowley's grandson, surely ?
Boris will stay. There is no obligation to do anything as MP, so it’s free money essentially.
If I recall, quite a few members of this board were VERY critical of one Gordon Brown sitting as an MP between 2010 and 2015 and doing very little (other than write a book).
I hope we'll be equally critical of Johnson doing the same.
It should probably be a requirement that an MP actually attends a minimum number of surgeries a year, only exempted if they are of sufficient stature that there would be a security risk if they did so (so, Cabinet level or LotO - and even then, it should be expected a member of their office would conduct the surgeries instead and convey their constituents issues to the MP). Should they fail to do so then its considered they've called a by-election similar to a recall petition.
I don't know where that would leave the Speaker, and Sinn Fein MPs. Maybe it would force people to sort out the Speaker problem (I know we've suggested here the Speaker is the MPs MP and a by-election in the Speakers seat) and as for Sinn Fein, maybe they'll be forced to fight a by-election annually.
The more we've defined the MPs role and put requirements on them with regard to how they must operate, the lower the quality of our MPs has become.
I don't really agree with that. I'm quite sure there were loads of MPs from the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries who were utter shits.
Well of course; but in this political era (post WWII) the general quality has clearly fallen - take a look at the Cabinet now and compare it to any post war cabinet.
I think the US is going to have a “soft landing”, but Europe including the UK seems quite astonishingly fucked.
Certainly in the short term. This winter will be brutal; what happens next year is not yet decided.
Whatever happens in Ukraine, the gas situation is going to remain as is for a good while yet - relations between europe and Russia are going to be icy for a long time. Energy (Particularly gas) needs to be seen as a strategic national resource now by nation states now, rather than a global commodity. The decommissioning for gas in the North sea needs to have been stopped yesterday, and we need to remain good friends with the arabs no matter what tbh.
Tory MPs finally had the sense to put sufficient pressure on the lying clown to get rid of him. That they would give him a second bite of the cherry just seems like madness beyond compare.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing...
FPT, may I just say well done to @OnlyLivingBoy for coming up with a top notch @Leon style post. It may could have done with the addition of taking heroin before breakfast as well as vivid descriptions of threesomes with stunning Armenian / Bosnian / Georgian Montenegrin etc students while pleasuring them with artisanal dildos tipped with cocaine powder...
I think PB would be the less without such tale of debauched excess from both Leon and HYUFD. I enjoy the tales of both these modern day lotharios.
Here's one - What price will Boris be for next Tory leader when Truss wins ?
Good question
Stays on as MP and even hints at wanting the job back - 6 shortening to 3 a couple of months later Resigns seat - drifting back and forth between 10 and 25
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
His graph comparing GDP growth per capita and net migration doesn't support the oft repeated claim that immigration boosts productivity.
No, as he points out. And although I disagree with that particular premise, i believe it’s an interesting thread.
It is an interesting premise and like you I don't agree with everything he says, but I don't consider non-EU migration to be "worse" than EU migration.
I consider the loosening of non-EU migration rules as a positive side-effect of controlling EU migration. To have the whole world migrating on a looser but level playing field is better than uncontrolled on one side and draconianly restricted on the other.
The origin of the immigrants is not itself, important. Rather it's a question of the characteristics of immigrants. In order to take a view statistics would be required about the education and skills of immigrants and an 'objective' view of those be taken.
There is a massive amount of immigration from the Philippines into nursing for example (and thank god), but it might be argued that this is 'unproductive' immigration, whereas young creative French and Italians were more likely to generate economic growth.
My very primitive theory is that Philippinos have replaced the Portuguese, but that the Portuguese were more likely in aggregate to attain middle-classness.
But the astonishing thing to me is that the UK now has *more* immigration, and labour shortages to boot. I have no idea how to explain that.
Someone notes in the thread that family reunions are up a lot.
A common explanation is that many people in their 50s stopped work during Covid and never started again. I have not seen figures, though.
On EU nurses, this always seems to get forgotten in amongst all the Brexit talk:
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing...
Or, in your case, the precise opposite ?
I'm literally saying that my bias is towards the prosaic explanation, in quite an overt, maybe unreliable way
What do you think is in that photo? I genuinely have no idea, and am open to any explanation
I think the US is going to have a “soft landing”, but Europe including the UK seems quite astonishingly fucked.
Certainly in the short term. This winter will be brutal; what happens next year is not yet decided.
Whatever happens in Ukraine, the gas situation is going to remain as is for a good while yet - relations between europe and Russia are going to be icy for a long time. Energy (Particularly gas) needs to be seen as a strategic national resource now by nation states now, rather than a global commodity. The decommissioning for gas in the North sea needs to have been stopped yesterday, and we need to remain good friends with the arabs no matter what tbh.
Russia provides ~40% of Europe's gas consumption – generating electricity, providing heat in homes and industry and used as a feedstock.
Our third Explainer sets out options to replace Russian gas within a year
Stuff like turning down thermostats is pure hopium, people have a temperature they're comfortable with - so they'd have done that already. It's just not possible to replace 1800 terrawatt hours in one year. Not without far more radical intervention than they're wanting anyway.
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
His graph comparing GDP growth per capita and net migration doesn't support the oft repeated claim that immigration boosts productivity.
No, as he points out. And although I disagree with that particular premise, i believe it’s an interesting thread.
It is an interesting premise and like you I don't agree with everything he says, but I don't consider non-EU migration to be "worse" than EU migration.
I consider the loosening of non-EU migration rules as a positive side-effect of controlling EU migration. To have the whole world migrating on a looser but level playing field is better than uncontrolled on one side and draconianly restricted on the other.
The origin of the immigrants is not itself, important. Rather it's a question of the characteristics of immigrants. In order to take a view statistics would be required about the education and skills of immigrants and an 'objective' view of those be taken.
There is a massive amount of immigration from the Philippines into nursing for example (and thank god), but it might be argued that this is 'unproductive' immigration, whereas young creative French and Italians were more likely to generate economic growth.
My very primitive theory is that Philippinos have replaced the Portuguese, but that the Portuguese were more likely in aggregate to attain middle-classness.
But the astonishing thing to me is that the UK now has *more* immigration, and labour shortages to boot. I have no idea how to explain that.
Someone notes in the thread that family reunions are up a lot.
A common explanation is that many people in their 50s stopped work during Covid and never started again. I have not seen figures, though.
On EU nurses, this always seems to get forgotten in amongst all the Brexit talk:
And I don't think we have any NI posters on here (do we?) but how does it work in Sinn Fein constituencies?
Drifting off topic (or maybe not - I'm discussing MPs who don't bother turning up - Johnson is in the header after all!), but how does this work? I know Sinn Fein advertise themselves as 'elect us and we WON'T attend Parliament' so the electorate can't say they don't know what they're getting but do they hold surgeries, and if they do, how do they convey their concerns to the UK Parliament?
And what would happen if there was a local political crisis that required an MP [1]. Would they still continue to ignore Parliament and say nothing?
[1] I realise a 'local' political crisis in those seats is only likely to be about one thing, and decisions are likely to be taken elsewere therefore (London, Dublin.... Washington!) but still......
The Shinners actually lobby the government hard for the constituents etc, collect all the allowances etc. they just don’t enter the chamber or vote.
The transparency obligations on an MP are an issue; the risks of an unfavourable Privileges Committee finding are real (hence attempts by Team Johnson to discredit members); and the income is trivial compared with that on offer on speaker circuit.
In terms of causing a difficult by-election for his successor, Johnson doesn't care about other people, so that's not a factor.
On the possibility of a comeback, he's returned to the Commons before and may do again. The particular seat he is in is less than ideal, and he could find another with minimum effort should he wish to do so.
Yes. It is the one chance of getting out of a loseable seat without much loss of face, avoiding the committee, making lots of money without voters to worry about for now and keeping in reserve the possibility of a comeback in a much safer seat at a GE, including crucially at the next one. I put Yes at 60%.
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
That’s always been the case since the UK joined the EU .
EU nationals overall were a positive for the treasury , they were more likely to be younger and fitter and in well paid jobs .
Non EU nationals were a negative for the treasury especially as family reunion was a larger part of those coming and they brought older family members who took up more resources.
All the UK has done is replace EU nationals with non EU ones from countries which didn’t reciprocate any freedom of movement rights so in effect UK citizens lost their chance to live in 27 other countries and ended up with more immigration .
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot . It’s noticeable now how quiet the right wing press are about current levels of immigration , seeing as they went full on with the anti EU hate , clearly highlighting how they duped their readers is something they want to avoid !
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing...
Or, in your case, the precise opposite ?
I'm literally saying that my bias is towards the prosaic explanation, in quite an overt, maybe unreliable way
What do you think is in that photo? I genuinely have no idea, and am open to any explanation
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing...
Or, in your case, the precise opposite ?
I'm literally saying that my bias is towards the prosaic explanation, in quite an overt, maybe unreliable way
What do you think is in that photo? I genuinely have no idea, and am open to any explanation
Old grainy photo ? I'm not really interested.
Show me several dozen recent ones and I might be.
That's quite boring, and also, I suspect, a bit of a fib. You don't want to take a guess which might make you look foolish, later?
However I can hardly force you to reply, so fair dos
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
His graph comparing GDP growth per capita and net migration doesn't support the oft repeated claim that immigration boosts productivity.
No, as he points out. And although I disagree with that particular premise, i believe it’s an interesting thread.
It is an interesting premise and like you I don't agree with everything he says, but I don't consider non-EU migration to be "worse" than EU migration.
I consider the loosening of non-EU migration rules as a positive side-effect of controlling EU migration. To have the whole world migrating on a looser but level playing field is better than uncontrolled on one side and draconianly restricted on the other.
The origin of the immigrants is not itself, important. Rather it's a question of the characteristics of immigrants. In order to take a view statistics would be required about the education and skills of immigrants and an 'objective' view of those be taken.
There is a massive amount of immigration from the Philippines into nursing for example (and thank god), but it might be argued that this is 'unproductive' immigration, whereas young creative French and Italians were more likely to generate economic growth.
My very primitive theory is that Philippinos have replaced the Portuguese, but that the Portuguese were more likely in aggregate to attain middle-classness.
But the astonishing thing to me is that the UK now has *more* immigration, and labour shortages to boot. I have no idea how to explain that.
Someone notes in the thread that family reunions are up a lot.
A common explanation is that many people in their 50s stopped work during Covid and never started again. I have not seen figures, though.
On EU nurses, this always seems to get forgotten in amongst all the Brexit talk:
My guess is that he will go, particularly, if seems likely Truss becomes PM. Truss is continuity Johnson- she is the populist party candidate and is more likely to keep the Tory party in that direction, which El Bozo will see as the best chance of him securing some kind of populist legacy, rather than the party return to it's serious and sensible roots. he will also know that it is very unlikely that he will get the support needed from the PCP that he would need to make a comeback. He is essentially a busted flush. And let's just rejoice at that news.
Other than Brexit, what distinguishes "populist" from "sensible" Toryism?
Sensible Toryism seeks to resolve problems (albeit often in a clumsy partisan way which disproportionately benefits the wealthy).
Populist Toryism does not seek to resolve problems. It seeks primarily to exploit them to whip up the division it judges to be its best bet for winning elections.
That's my take on this interesting question you've posed.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
If you go to Makrahanish on google maps and navigate to the little yellow man, there's a little wooden octagonal roofed hut just over the fences on a golf course. Viewed from low down you could argue the top of the hut roof is very similar in shape to the ufo triangle.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
Whatever is going on in that photograph is very very unlikely to be a temperature inversion (cloud sea). I've seen quite a few of these in Scotland.
For a start they usually have a clear sky above, and although you can occasionally see layers during fronts these are normally very local and you can't see distant objects.
What definition there is in the sky in the photograph is also visible both above and below the 'object'. Layered cloud of any kind would be visible as a line across the image.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing...
Or, in your case, the precise opposite ?
I'm literally saying that my bias is towards the prosaic explanation, in quite an overt, maybe unreliable way
What do you think is in that photo? I genuinely have no idea, and am open to any explanation
Old grainy photo ? I'm not really interested.
Show me several dozen recent ones and I might be.
Unless I get to meet ET or they start breaking Star Trek's prime directive I could not care less about any aliens visiting earth, or not.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
Whatever is going on in that photograph is very very unlikely to be a temperature inversion (cloud sea). I've seen quite a few of these in Scotland.
For a start they usually have a clear sky above, and although you can occasionally see layers during fronts these are normally very local and you can't see distant objects.
What definition there is in the sky in the photograph is also visible both above and below the 'object'. Layered cloud of any kind would be visible as a line across the image.
Interesting. So that rules out the mountain hypothesis?
I think the US is going to have a “soft landing”, but Europe including the UK seems quite astonishingly fucked.
Certainly in the short term. This winter will be brutal; what happens next year is not yet decided.
Whatever happens in Ukraine, the gas situation is going to remain as is for a good while yet - relations between europe and Russia are going to be icy for a long time. Energy (Particularly gas) needs to be seen as a strategic national resource now by nation states now, rather than a global commodity. The decommissioning for gas in the North sea needs to have been stopped yesterday, and we need to remain good friends with the arabs no matter what tbh.
Russia provides ~40% of Europe's gas consumption – generating electricity, providing heat in homes and industry and used as a feedstock.
Our third Explainer sets out options to replace Russian gas within a year
Stuff like turning down thermostats is pure hopium, people have a temperature they're comfortable with - so they'd have done that already. It's just not possible to replace 1800 terrawatt hours in one year. Not without far more radical intervention than they're wanting anyway.
One that particular point, it's less than 15% of the 740TWh they claim could be comparatively easily replaced - and no one turned down their thermostats last winter; a 1deg drop this winter isn't totally implausible.
The rest of the 1100TWh is labelled 'tricky tradeoffs'.
Nothing about this is simple, but some mitigation is certainly possible within the next twelve months.
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
His graph comparing GDP growth per capita and net migration doesn't support the oft repeated claim that immigration boosts productivity.
No, as he points out. And although I disagree with that particular premise, i believe it’s an interesting thread.
It is an interesting premise and like you I don't agree with everything he says, but I don't consider non-EU migration to be "worse" than EU migration.
I consider the loosening of non-EU migration rules as a positive side-effect of controlling EU migration. To have the whole world migrating on a looser but level playing field is better than uncontrolled on one side and draconianly restricted on the other.
The origin of the immigrants is not itself, important. Rather it's a question of the characteristics of immigrants. In order to take a view statistics would be required about the education and skills of immigrants and an 'objective' view of those be taken.
There is a massive amount of immigration from the Philippines into nursing for example (and thank god), but it might be argued that this is 'unproductive' immigration, whereas young creative French and Italians were more likely to generate economic growth.
My very primitive theory is that Philippinos have replaced the Portuguese, but that the Portuguese were more likely in aggregate to attain middle-classness.
But the astonishing thing to me is that the UK now has *more* immigration, and labour shortages to boot. I have no idea how to explain that.
Someone notes in the thread that family reunions are up a lot.
A common explanation is that many people in their 50s stopped work during Covid and never started again. I have not seen figures, though.
On EU nurses, this always seems to get forgotten in amongst all the Brexit talk:
So essentially; it’s the over 50s dropping out because of “long term sickness”, along with some anecdotal suggestions that the dropout skews female with mental health issues.
Oliver Blanchard, quoted in the piece, suggests that Covid demonstrated that for some it was quite nice to stay at home and a decent chunk of older people do not need to work (at least for financial reasons).
The cost of living may change minds, but I suspect certain carrots may be required, though don’t push me on what. Jobs need to provide something more than just money.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing...
Or, in your case, the precise opposite ?
I'm literally saying that my bias is towards the prosaic explanation, in quite an overt, maybe unreliable way
What do you think is in that photo? I genuinely have no idea, and am open to any explanation
Old grainy photo ? I'm not really interested.
Show me several dozen recent ones and I might be.
Unless I get to meet ET or they start breaking Star Trek's prime directive I could not care less about any aliens visiting earth, or not.
You honestly don't care if non-human but intelligent beings are buzzing around our skies and diving in our seas? And sodomizing our poor domestic animals?
In all seriousness, you don't have any interest at all? To me it would be one of the most interesting revelations in the history of humankind. Perhaps THE most interesting
My guess is that he will go, particularly, if seems likely Truss becomes PM. Truss is continuity Johnson- she is the populist party candidate and is more likely to keep the Tory party in that direction, which El Bozo will see as the best chance of him securing some kind of populist legacy, rather than the party return to it's serious and sensible roots. he will also know that it is very unlikely that he will get the support needed from the PCP that he would need to make a comeback. He is essentially a busted flush. And let's just rejoice at that news.
Other than Brexit, what distinguishes "populist" from "sensible" Toryism?
Sensible Toryism seeks to resolve problems (albeit often in a clumsy partisan way which disproportionately benefits the wealthy).
Populist Toryism does not seek to resolve problems. It seeks primarily to exploit them to whip up the division it judges to be its best bet for winning elections.
That's my take on this interesting question you've posed.
Very well put . It was bad enough with sensible Toryism , now with the populist version its truly depressing . All they care about is stirring up division and othering . They need to spend a long period in opposition and it doesn’t bear thinking about if they manage to win the next election .
Does it pay out if he's found in contempt of Parliament, recalled, and loses?
Should do - so long as a by-election is triggered. Is that likely though ? Does it need a Commons vote to recall him ?
I believe it needs a commons vote for him to be found in contempt, but it's hard to imagine that would fail given the way he's regarded by his fellow MPs. And surely even Truss isn't stupid enough to have a second Paterson on her hands at the very start of her tenure by whipping the vote.
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
His graph comparing GDP growth per capita and net migration doesn't support the oft repeated claim that immigration boosts productivity.
No, as he points out. And although I disagree with that particular premise, i believe it’s an interesting thread.
It is an interesting premise and like you I don't agree with everything he says, but I don't consider non-EU migration to be "worse" than EU migration.
I consider the loosening of non-EU migration rules as a positive side-effect of controlling EU migration. To have the whole world migrating on a looser but level playing field is better than uncontrolled on one side and draconianly restricted on the other.
The origin of the immigrants is not itself, important. Rather it's a question of the characteristics of immigrants. In order to take a view statistics would be required about the education and skills of immigrants and an 'objective' view of those be taken.
There is a massive amount of immigration from the Philippines into nursing for example (and thank god), but it might be argued that this is 'unproductive' immigration, whereas young creative French and Italians were more likely to generate economic growth.
My very primitive theory is that Philippinos have replaced the Portuguese, but that the Portuguese were more likely in aggregate to attain middle-classness.
But the astonishing thing to me is that the UK now has *more* immigration, and labour shortages to boot. I have no idea how to explain that.
Someone notes in the thread that family reunions are up a lot.
A common explanation is that many people in their 50s stopped work during Covid and never started again. I have not seen figures, though.
On EU nurses, this always seems to get forgotten in amongst all the Brexit talk:
So essentially; it’s the over 50s dropping out because of “long term sickness”, along with some anecdotal suggestions that the dropout skews female with mental health issues.
Oliver Blanchard, quoted in the piece, suggests that Covid demonstrated that for some it was quite nice to stay at home and a decent chunk of older people do not need to work (at least for financial reasons).
The cost of living may change minds, but I suspect certain carrots may be required, though don’t push me on what. Jobs need to provide something more than just money.
yes a big rise in mental health settlements and benefits
I think the US is going to have a “soft landing”, but Europe including the UK seems quite astonishingly fucked.
Certainly in the short term. This winter will be brutal; what happens next year is not yet decided.
Whatever happens in Ukraine, the gas situation is going to remain as is for a good while yet - relations between europe and Russia are going to be icy for a long time. Energy (Particularly gas) needs to be seen as a strategic national resource now by nation states now, rather than a global commodity. The decommissioning for gas in the North sea needs to have been stopped yesterday, and we need to remain good friends with the arabs no matter what tbh.
Russia provides ~40% of Europe's gas consumption – generating electricity, providing heat in homes and industry and used as a feedstock.
Our third Explainer sets out options to replace Russian gas within a year
Stuff like turning down thermostats is pure hopium, people have a temperature they're comfortable with - so they'd have done that already. It's just not possible to replace 1800 terrawatt hours in one year. Not without far more radical intervention than they're wanting anyway.
One that particular point, it's less than 15% of the 740TWh they claim could be comparatively easily replaced - and no one turned down their thermostats last winter; a 1deg drop this winter isn't totally implausible.
The rest of the 1100TWh is labelled 'tricky tradeoffs'.
Nothing about this is simple, but some mitigation is certainly possible within the next twelve months.
What proportion of households are on fixed tariffs taken out on or before September 2021? They wont have the same incentive to turn the heating down, altruism aside.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
Whatever is going on in that photograph is very very unlikely to be a temperature inversion (cloud sea). I've seen quite a few of these in Scotland.
For a start they usually have a clear sky above, and although you can occasionally see layers during fronts these are normally very local and you can't see distant objects.
What definition there is in the sky in the photograph is also visible both above and below the 'object'. Layered cloud of any kind would be visible as a line across the image.
Interesting. So that rules out the mountain hypothesis?
Well, I don't buy it, anyway. For what that's worth.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing...
Or, in your case, the precise opposite ?
I'm literally saying that my bias is towards the prosaic explanation, in quite an overt, maybe unreliable way
What do you think is in that photo? I genuinely have no idea, and am open to any explanation
Old grainy photo ? I'm not really interested.
Show me several dozen recent ones and I might be.
Unless I get to meet ET or they start breaking Star Trek's prime directive I could not care less about any aliens visiting earth, or not.
You honestly don't care if non-human but intelligent beings are buzzing around our skies and diving in our seas? And sodomizing our poor domestic animals?
In all seriousness, you don't have any interest at all? To me it would be one of the most interesting revelations in the history of humankind. Perhaps THE most interesting
Not really. What am I supposed to do about it? Cower in fear? Jump for joy? Try to make contact? Or just enjoy living my life as I was before I found out?
Sure if I could have a friendly conversation with ET where he/she/it/they tells me all about life on planet zog and space travel, great, I would be up for that, but doubt that is on offer.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
Whatever is going on in that photograph is very very unlikely to be a temperature inversion (cloud sea). I've seen quite a few of these in Scotland.
For a start they usually have a clear sky above, and although you can occasionally see layers during fronts these are normally very local and you can't see distant objects.
What definition there is in the sky in the photograph is also visible both above and below the 'object'. Layered cloud of any kind would be visible as a line across the image.
Interesting. So that rules out the mountain hypothesis?
Well, I don't buy it, anyway. For what that's worth.
All opinions are worth something, and yours is quite persuasive here
I tend to agree. The shape being so similar to a mountaintop is probably coincidence. Nothing else supports this thesis. How could it happen, photographically? Psychologically? How come the plane is in the photo but no other landscape features? Nor does this hypothesis remotely square with the eye-witness accounts (which might all be lies, of course)
I'm down to three explanations
1. A long elaborate hoax 2. Surprising human tech 3. Aliens!???!
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
That’s always been the case since the UK joined the EU .
EU nationals overall were a positive for the treasury , they were more likely to be younger and fitter and in well paid jobs .
Non EU nationals were a negative for the treasury especially as family reunion was a larger part of those coming and they brought older family members who took up more resources.
All the UK has done is replace EU nationals with non EU ones from countries which didn’t reciprocate any freedom of movement rights so in effect UK citizens lost their chance to live in 27 other countries and ended up with more immigration .
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot . It’s noticeable now how quiet the right wing press are about current levels of immigration , seeing as they went full on with the anti EU hate , clearly highlighting how they duped their readers is something they want to avoid !
Sorry but you're mixing up a few myths to put together into a case you want to make.
Each individual can be net positive or net negative for the Treasury, to lump together all of a nationality together and claim what's true for some is true for all is what could be termed 'racism'.
Some EU nationals were a net positive being young and fit and in well paid jobs. Some EU nationals were a net negative being unskilled who came to work in minimum wage jobs as it was better than their minimum wage.
Some non-EU nationals were net negative engaging in family reunion etc Some non-EU nationals were net positive being young and fit and skilled etc
What's changed post-Brexit is we've tightened up rules on unskilled Europeans coming her to work minimum wage jobs (so skilled Europeans can still get a visa) while loosening restrictions on skilled non-Europeans who were struggling to get a visa in the past.
If that means more skilled non-Europeans compensating for fewer less skilled EU nationals then that is a net improvement and will see the net compensation to the Treasury for both groups improving potentially as the skilled Europeans are no longer deflated by their unskilled counterparts, while skilled non-Europeans have an easier route in which they were blocked from in the past.
Win/win, best of both worlds. Unless you're a racist who wants to keep out non-Europeans.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing...
Or, in your case, the precise opposite ?
I'm literally saying that my bias is towards the prosaic explanation, in quite an overt, maybe unreliable way
What do you think is in that photo? I genuinely have no idea, and am open to any explanation
Old grainy photo ? I'm not really interested.
Show me several dozen recent ones and I might be.
Unless I get to meet ET or they start breaking Star Trek's prime directive I could not care less about any aliens visiting earth, or not.
You honestly don't care if non-human but intelligent beings are buzzing around our skies and diving in our seas? And sodomizing our poor domestic animals?
In all seriousness, you don't have any interest at all? To me it would be one of the most interesting revelations in the history of humankind. Perhaps THE most interesting
Not really. What am I supposed to do about it? Cower in fear? Jump for joy? Try to make contact? Or just enjoy living my life as I was before I found out?
Sure if I could have a friendly conversation with ET where he/she/it/they tells me all about life on planet zog and space travel, great, I would be up for that, but doubt that is on offer.
I find it intrinsically fascinating, and I honestly cannot get my head around a perspective like yours. But of course each to their own
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
His graph comparing GDP growth per capita and net migration doesn't support the oft repeated claim that immigration boosts productivity.
You are slightly straw manning, no?
The oft repeated claim on PB is that immigration discourages capital investment, and therefore depresses productivity growth.
Now, that may or may not be true, but that chart basically tells you that in 2008/9, GDP per Capita growth basically shifted down a gear.
Here's the thing: that's true in pretty much every developed country, irrespective of whether they are high immigration, low immigration, or net emigration.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing...
Or, in your case, the precise opposite ?
I'm literally saying that my bias is towards the prosaic explanation, in quite an overt, maybe unreliable way
What do you think is in that photo? I genuinely have no idea, and am open to any explanation
Old grainy photo ? I'm not really interested.
Show me several dozen recent ones and I might be.
Unless I get to meet ET or they start breaking Star Trek's prime directive I could not care less about any aliens visiting earth, or not.
You honestly don't care if non-human but intelligent beings are buzzing around our skies and diving in our seas? And sodomizing our poor domestic animals?
In all seriousness, you don't have any interest at all? To me it would be one of the most interesting revelations in the history of humankind. Perhaps THE most interesting
Not really. What am I supposed to do about it? Cower in fear? Jump for joy? Try to make contact? Or just enjoy living my life as I was before I found out?
Sure if I could have a friendly conversation with ET where he/she/it/they tells me all about life on planet zog and space travel, great, I would be up for that, but doubt that is on offer.
I find it intrinsically fascinating, and I honestly cannot get my head around a perspective like yours. But of course each to their own
Or live long and prosper, as they say on my home planet.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
Whatever is going on in that photograph is very very unlikely to be a temperature inversion (cloud sea). I've seen quite a few of these in Scotland.
For a start they usually have a clear sky above, and although you can occasionally see layers during fronts these are normally very local and you can't see distant objects.
What definition there is in the sky in the photograph is also visible both above and below the 'object'. Layered cloud of any kind would be visible as a line across the image.
Interesting. So that rules out the mountain hypothesis?
Well, I don't buy it, anyway. For what that's worth.
All opinions are worth something, and yours is quite persuasive here
I tend to agree. The shape being so similar to a mountaintop is probably coincidence. Nothing else supports this thesis. How could it happen, photographically? Psychologically? How come the plane is in the photo but no other landscape features? Nor does this hypothesis remotely square with the eye-witness accounts (which might all be lies, of course)
I'm down to three explanations
1. A long elaborate hoax 2. Surprising human tech 3. Aliens!???!
I'm suspicious of those branches at the top: suggests they've hung something - perhaps some symmetrical stone object - from them with transparent thread.
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
His graph comparing GDP growth per capita and net migration doesn't support the oft repeated claim that immigration boosts productivity.
You are slightly straw manning, no?
The oft repeated claim on PB is that immigration discourages capital investment, and therefore depresses productivity growth.
Now, that may or may not be true, but that chart basically tells you that in 2008/9, GDP per Capita growth basically shifted down a gear.
Here's the thing: that's true in pretty much every developed country, irrespective of whether they are high immigration, low immigration, or net emigration.
It's an argument that @Gardenwalker has made many times:
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
That’s always been the case since the UK joined the EU .
EU nationals overall were a positive for the treasury , they were more likely to be younger and fitter and in well paid jobs .
Non EU nationals were a negative for the treasury especially as family reunion was a larger part of those coming and they brought older family members who took up more resources.
All the UK has done is replace EU nationals with non EU ones from countries which didn’t reciprocate any freedom of movement rights so in effect UK citizens lost their chance to live in 27 other countries and ended up with more immigration .
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot . It’s noticeable now how quiet the right wing press are about current levels of immigration , seeing as they went full on with the anti EU hate , clearly highlighting how they duped their readers is something they want to avoid !
Sorry but you're mixing up a few myths to put together into a case you want to make.
Each individual can be net positive or net negative for the Treasury, to lump together all of a nationality together and claim what's true for some is true for all is what could be termed 'racism'.
Some EU nationals were a net positive being young and fit and in well paid jobs. Some EU nationals were a net negative being unskilled who came to work in minimum wage jobs as it was better than their minimum wage.
Some non-EU nationals were net negative engaging in family reunion etc Some non-EU nationals were net positive being young and fit and skilled etc
What's changed post-Brexit is we've tightened up rules on unskilled Europeans coming her to work minimum wage jobs (so skilled Europeans can still get a visa) while loosening restrictions on skilled non-Europeans who were struggling to get a visa in the past.
If that means more skilled non-Europeans compensating for fewer less skilled EU nationals then that is a net improvement and will see the net compensation to the Treasury for both groups improving potentially as the skilled Europeans are no longer deflated by their unskilled counterparts, while skilled non-Europeans have an easier route in which they were blocked from in the past.
Win/win, best of both worlds. Unless you're a racist who wants to keep out non-Europeans.
Not sure Leavers should be accusing Remainers of being racist! The Leave campaign won because of anti immigrant rhetoric pushed by people like Farage and the cesspit right wing press . I’m pro immigration and was merely pointing out what the treasury figures showed and the irony of those voting leave who were duped into voting for a lie .
I think the US is going to have a “soft landing”, but Europe including the UK seems quite astonishingly fucked.
Certainly in the short term. This winter will be brutal; what happens next year is not yet decided.
Whatever happens in Ukraine, the gas situation is going to remain as is for a good while yet - relations between europe and Russia are going to be icy for a long time. Energy (Particularly gas) needs to be seen as a strategic national resource now by nation states now, rather than a global commodity. The decommissioning for gas in the North sea needs to have been stopped yesterday, and we need to remain good friends with the arabs no matter what tbh.
Russia provides ~40% of Europe's gas consumption – generating electricity, providing heat in homes and industry and used as a feedstock.
Our third Explainer sets out options to replace Russian gas within a year
Stuff like turning down thermostats is pure hopium, people have a temperature they're comfortable with - so they'd have done that already. It's just not possible to replace 1800 terrawatt hours in one year. Not without far more radical intervention than they're wanting anyway.
More to the point, assume we do all this stuff and they've got the numbers right... and we still need 25% of Russia's normal level of imports. Mr Putin closes off the big gas tap and we're still stuffed.
Personally I'm beyond worrying about how I'm going to pay the gas bill, and more thinking through what I would do in the event of either the electric or gas grids collapsing this winter during a cold snap. I'm very fortunate, I own a company permanently sat on what in domestic terms is a huge amount of energy (I've stockpiles of Diesel, LPG and Coal), some of which I can borrow, so I won't freeze to death - however if the electric grid goes down the lack of clean water and sewerage will get unfunny quite quickly.
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
His graph comparing GDP growth per capita and net migration doesn't support the oft repeated claim that immigration boosts productivity.
You are slightly straw manning, no?
The oft repeated claim on PB is that immigration discourages capital investment, and therefore depresses productivity growth.
Now, that may or may not be true, but that chart basically tells you that in 2008/9, GDP per Capita growth basically shifted down a gear.
Here's the thing: that's true in pretty much every developed country, irrespective of whether they are high immigration, low immigration, or net emigration.
It's an argument that @Gardenwalker has made many times:
"...most economists (but not all) believe that immigration increases wages over time, by increasing firm productivity."
Fair enough: but the most common argument posited on here - including by me on occasion - is that immigration has reduced the need for firms to make capital investments.
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
His graph comparing GDP growth per capita and net migration doesn't support the oft repeated claim that immigration boosts productivity.
No, as he points out. And although I disagree with that particular premise, i believe it’s an interesting thread.
It is an interesting premise and like you I don't agree with everything he says, but I don't consider non-EU migration to be "worse" than EU migration.
I consider the loosening of non-EU migration rules as a positive side-effect of controlling EU migration. To have the whole world migrating on a looser but level playing field is better than uncontrolled on one side and draconianly restricted on the other.
The origin of the immigrants is not itself, important. Rather it's a question of the characteristics of immigrants. In order to take a view statistics would be required about the education and skills of immigrants and an 'objective' view of those be taken.
There is a massive amount of immigration from the Philippines into nursing for example (and thank god), but it might be argued that this is 'unproductive' immigration, whereas young creative French and Italians were more likely to generate economic growth.
My very primitive theory is that Philippinos have replaced the Portuguese, but that the Portuguese were more likely in aggregate to attain middle-classness.
But the astonishing thing to me is that the UK now has *more* immigration, and labour shortages to boot. I have no idea how to explain that.
Someone notes in the thread that family reunions are up a lot.
A common explanation is that many people in their 50s stopped work during Covid and never started again. I have not seen figures, though.
On EU nurses, this always seems to get forgotten in amongst all the Brexit talk:
So essentially; it’s the over 50s dropping out because of “long term sickness”, along with some anecdotal suggestions that the dropout skews female with mental health issues.
Oliver Blanchard, quoted in the piece, suggests that Covid demonstrated that for some it was quite nice to stay at home and a decent chunk of older people do not need to work (at least for financial reasons).
The cost of living may change minds, but I suspect certain carrots may be required, though don’t push me on what. Jobs need to provide something more than just money.
I'm in that group. There are structural problems, including pensions that can easily be fixed; doctors maxed-out funds is well-known but at a lower level, once any pension has been taken, tax relief on future contributions is limited, thus reducing effective salary for oldies. Then there is discrimination by employers. For instance, requiring a degree (most oldies would not have gone to university) or believing older employees are less suited to physical labour, less susceptible to training (some tech firms are being sued for discriminating against oldies) or would not "fit in" with younger workers.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
Whatever is going on in that photograph is very very unlikely to be a temperature inversion (cloud sea). I've seen quite a few of these in Scotland.
For a start they usually have a clear sky above, and although you can occasionally see layers during fronts these are normally very local and you can't see distant objects.
What definition there is in the sky in the photograph is also visible both above and below the 'object'. Layered cloud of any kind would be visible as a line across the image.
Interesting. So that rules out the mountain hypothesis?
Well, I don't buy it, anyway. For what that's worth.
All opinions are worth something, and yours is quite persuasive here
I tend to agree. The shape being so similar to a mountaintop is probably coincidence. Nothing else supports this thesis. How could it happen, photographically? Psychologically? How come the plane is in the photo but no other landscape features? Nor does this hypothesis remotely square with the eye-witness accounts (which might all be lies, of course)
I'm down to three explanations
1. A long elaborate hoax 2. Surprising human tech 3. Aliens!???!
I'm suspicious of those branches at the top: suggests they've hung something - perhaps some symmetrical stone object - from them with transparent thread.
If you were going to hang something, you'd make very sure there was no visible means of support, surely!
Anyway, here's a cropped picture of Schiehallion (being a suitable hill for an EXPERIMENT) in a cloud inversion. I took this in January, not August, but you get the idea. The location is only a few miles from Calvine (in the Drumochter hills).
Even with a serious overexposure I think you'd struggle to get something similar to the mystery image.
I still think it is a reflection but am prepared to be convinced.
I totally understand the obsession with ALIENS. Are we alone? It is a fundamental question which will shape how we see the universe if it can ever answered in the negative.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing...
Or, in your case, the precise opposite ?
I'm literally saying that my bias is towards the prosaic explanation, in quite an overt, maybe unreliable way
What do you think is in that photo? I genuinely have no idea, and am open to any explanation
Old grainy photo ? I'm not really interested.
Show me several dozen recent ones and I might be.
Unless I get to meet ET or they start breaking Star Trek's prime directive I could not care less about any aliens visiting earth, or not.
You honestly don't care if non-human but intelligent beings are buzzing around our skies and diving in our seas? And sodomizing our poor domestic animals?
In all seriousness, you don't have any interest at all? To me it would be one of the most interesting revelations in the history of humankind. Perhaps THE most interesting
Not really. What am I supposed to do about it? Cower in fear? Jump for joy? Try to make contact? Or just enjoy living my life as I was before I found out?
Sure if I could have a friendly conversation with ET where he/she/it/they tells me all about life on planet zog and space travel, great, I would be up for that, but doubt that is on offer.
I find it intrinsically fascinating, and I honestly cannot get my head around a perspective like yours. But of course each to their own
Or live long and prosper, as they say on my home planet.
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
His graph comparing GDP growth per capita and net migration doesn't support the oft repeated claim that immigration boosts productivity.
No, as he points out. And although I disagree with that particular premise, i believe it’s an interesting thread.
It is an interesting premise and like you I don't agree with everything he says, but I don't consider non-EU migration to be "worse" than EU migration.
I consider the loosening of non-EU migration rules as a positive side-effect of controlling EU migration. To have the whole world migrating on a looser but level playing field is better than uncontrolled on one side and draconianly restricted on the other.
The origin of the immigrants is not itself, important. Rather it's a question of the characteristics of immigrants. In order to take a view statistics would be required about the education and skills of immigrants and an 'objective' view of those be taken.
There is a massive amount of immigration from the Philippines into nursing for example (and thank god), but it might be argued that this is 'unproductive' immigration, whereas young creative French and Italians were more likely to generate economic growth.
It's a complex topic:
Personally, I think that in most occasions, immigration is a symptom of deeper problems. And one is best off seeking to solve the underlying issues, rather than attempting to band aid the problem at the symptom level.
If your country doesn't produce enough trained plumbers or electricians, and is importing 24 year olds with those skills, well maybe you have a problem with education and training. Likewise, if you have a problem with low labourforce participation rates for certain segments of the population, you might want to ask why that is.
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
His graph comparing GDP growth per capita and net migration doesn't support the oft repeated claim that immigration boosts productivity.
You are slightly straw manning, no?
The oft repeated claim on PB is that immigration discourages capital investment, and therefore depresses productivity growth.
Now, that may or may not be true, but that chart basically tells you that in 2008/9, GDP per Capita growth basically shifted down a gear.
Here's the thing: that's true in pretty much every developed country, irrespective of whether they are high immigration, low immigration, or net emigration.
It's an argument that @Gardenwalker has made many times:
"...most economists (but not all) believe that immigration increases wages over time, by increasing firm productivity."
Fair enough: but the most common argument posited on here - including by me on occasion - is that immigration has reduced the need for firms to make capital investments.
Does that depend on the type of immigration? High skilled immigration vs low skilled immigration.
You could argue that current capital investment in digital et al. is replacing skilled employees, rather than low skilled; so a surplus of high skilled employees could reduce capital investment?
Given the nature of our economy, services vs manufacturing, capital investment is more around digital assets today rather than heavy plant.
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
His graph comparing GDP growth per capita and net migration doesn't support the oft repeated claim that immigration boosts productivity.
You are slightly straw manning, no?
The oft repeated claim on PB is that immigration discourages capital investment, and therefore depresses productivity growth.
Now, that may or may not be true, but that chart basically tells you that in 2008/9, GDP per Capita growth basically shifted down a gear.
Here's the thing: that's true in pretty much every developed country, irrespective of whether they are high immigration, low immigration, or net emigration.
It's an argument that @Gardenwalker has made many times:
"...most economists (but not all) believe that immigration increases wages over time, by increasing firm productivity."
Fair enough: but the most common argument posited on here - including by me on occasion - is that immigration has reduced the need for firms to make capital investments.
It depends on the sector and the job.
U.K. small building sites are visibly less automated than their French equivalents, for example.
My guess is that he will go, particularly, if seems likely Truss becomes PM. Truss is continuity Johnson- she is the populist party candidate and is more likely to keep the Tory party in that direction, which El Bozo will see as the best chance of him securing some kind of populist legacy, rather than the party return to it's serious and sensible roots. he will also know that it is very unlikely that he will get the support needed from the PCP that he would need to make a comeback. He is essentially a busted flush. And let's just rejoice at that news.
Other than Brexit, what distinguishes "populist" from "sensible" Toryism?
Sensible Toryism seeks to resolve problems (albeit often in a clumsy partisan way which disproportionately benefits the wealthy).
Populist Toryism does not seek to resolve problems. It seeks primarily to exploit them to whip up the division it judges to be its best bet for winning elections.
That's my take on this interesting question you've posed.
Very well put . It was bad enough with sensible Toryism , now with the populist version its truly depressing . All they care about is stirring up division and othering . They need to spend a long period in opposition and it doesn’t bear thinking about if they manage to win the next election .
It sure doesn't. But the great news is I've assessed this very hard over the last few days - really done a number on it - and I'm almost certain they are on their way out. The sell of yet another term of Tory government - given the overwhelmingly likely state of the country after 14 years of it - would need a political colossus to pull off and Liz Truss is some way short of that.
He will stay. He needs to be in a position to destroy Truss in HoC if it all goes utterly pear shaped, and he needs to keep all options open.
I suspect you are correct.
A handful of months on the back benches and a VONC on the hapless Truss, and Johnson returns, stronger faster, fitter. All his misbehaviour will have been purged and BigDog is saved again.
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
His graph comparing GDP growth per capita and net migration doesn't support the oft repeated claim that immigration boosts productivity.
No, as he points out. And although I disagree with that particular premise, i believe it’s an interesting thread.
It is an interesting premise and like you I don't agree with everything he says, but I don't consider non-EU migration to be "worse" than EU migration.
I consider the loosening of non-EU migration rules as a positive side-effect of controlling EU migration. To have the whole world migrating on a looser but level playing field is better than uncontrolled on one side and draconianly restricted on the other.
The origin of the immigrants is not itself, important. Rather it's a question of the characteristics of immigrants. In order to take a view statistics would be required about the education and skills of immigrants and an 'objective' view of those be taken.
There is a massive amount of immigration from the Philippines into nursing for example (and thank god), but it might be argued that this is 'unproductive' immigration, whereas young creative French and Italians were more likely to generate economic growth.
It's a complex topic:
Personally, I think that in most occasions, immigration is a symptom of deeper problems. And one is best off seeking to solve the underlying issues, rather than attempting to band aid the problem at the symptom level.
If your country doesn't produce enough trained plumbers or electricians, and is importing 24 year olds with those skills, well maybe you have a problem with education and training. Likewise, if you have a problem with low labourforce participation rates for certain segments of the population, you might want to ask why that is.
Skill-based selection of immigrants responds to the needs of the economy.
High-skilled immigrants have better labor market prospects in general than immigrants admitted based on kinship ties or for humanitarian reasons.
High-skilled immigrants boost innovation, a key to long-term economic growth.
High-skilled immigrants in the labor market can raise wages for low-skilled native workers struggling with declining labor market prospects.
Highly paid skill-based immigrants widen the tax base and help offset growing fiscal challenges. Cons
The design of selection systems for skill-based admissions is complicated and requires frequent updating as the economic environment changes.
Skill-based immigrants face formidable economic integration challenges due to skill and credential transferability problems and underutilization of their human capital.
Identifying short-term skill shortages as a basis for admissions is difficult and may not be in line with long-term needs of the economy.
Allocating a higher share of immigrant admissions based on skills usually comes at the expense of kinship- and humanitarian-based admissions.
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
Whatever is going on in that photograph is very very unlikely to be a temperature inversion (cloud sea). I've seen quite a few of these in Scotland.
For a start they usually have a clear sky above, and although you can occasionally see layers during fronts these are normally very local and you can't see distant objects.
What definition there is in the sky in the photograph is also visible both above and below the 'object'. Layered cloud of any kind would be visible as a line across the image.
Interesting. So that rules out the mountain hypothesis?
Well, I don't buy it, anyway. For what that's worth.
All opinions are worth something, and yours is quite persuasive here
I tend to agree. The shape being so similar to a mountaintop is probably coincidence. Nothing else supports this thesis. How could it happen, photographically? Psychologically? How come the plane is in the photo but no other landscape features? Nor does this hypothesis remotely square with the eye-witness accounts (which might all be lies, of course)
I'm down to three explanations
1. A long elaborate hoax 2. Surprising human tech 3. Aliens!???!
I'm suspicious of those branches at the top: suggests they've hung something - perhaps some symmetrical stone object - from them with transparent thread.
If you were going to hang something, you'd make very sure there was no visible means of support, surely!
Anyway, here's a cropped picture of Schiehallion (being a suitable hill for an EXPERIMENT) in a cloud inversion. I took this in January, not August, but you get the idea. The location is only a few miles from Calvine (in the Drumochter hills).
Even with a serious overexposure I think you'd struggle to get something similar to the mystery image.
I still think it is a reflection but am prepared to be convinced.
I totally understand the obsession with ALIENS. Are we alone? It is a fundamental question which will shape how we see the universe if it can ever answered in the negative.
I doubt we'll discover them in this way, though.
The mountain top/stone in loch theories ignore the backstory to the photo. They would be great if there were none, and this was just a photo of unknown provenance bought at a car boot sale. But there is, there's the statement of the guys who took the photo (or at least provided it) who say it was a thing in the sky, which shot upwards after 10 minutes. So if they are lying, what's the theory? That a stone in a loch is the best way of faking the UAP or that they took a picture of an uninteresting lochstone and later looked at it and said Hey, that looks like a spaceship? Neither sems likely. The photo is 1 of 6 by the way, so the mountain in clouds claim looks a non starter unlessly they were spookily static clouds.
FPT: Very interesting thread (and associated article) from Neil O’Brien MP in which he notes that the “Johnson government” actually increased immigration, seemingly by swapping Europeans with those from poorer countries “who pay less tax”.
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
That’s always been the case since the UK joined the EU .
EU nationals overall were a positive for the treasury , they were more likely to be younger and fitter and in well paid jobs .
Non EU nationals were a negative for the treasury especially as family reunion was a larger part of those coming and they brought older family members who took up more resources.
All the UK has done is replace EU nationals with non EU ones from countries which didn’t reciprocate any freedom of movement rights so in effect UK citizens lost their chance to live in 27 other countries and ended up with more immigration .
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot . It’s noticeable now how quiet the right wing press are about current levels of immigration , seeing as they went full on with the anti EU hate , clearly highlighting how they duped their readers is something they want to avoid !
Sorry but you're mixing up a few myths to put together into a case you want to make.
Each individual can be net positive or net negative for the Treasury, to lump together all of a nationality together and claim what's true for some is true for all is what could be termed 'racism'.
Some EU nationals were a net positive being young and fit and in well paid jobs. Some EU nationals were a net negative being unskilled who came to work in minimum wage jobs as it was better than their minimum wage.
Some non-EU nationals were net negative engaging in family reunion etc Some non-EU nationals were net positive being young and fit and skilled etc
What's changed post-Brexit is we've tightened up rules on unskilled Europeans coming her to work minimum wage jobs (so skilled Europeans can still get a visa) while loosening restrictions on skilled non-Europeans who were struggling to get a visa in the past.
If that means more skilled non-Europeans compensating for fewer less skilled EU nationals then that is a net improvement and will see the net compensation to the Treasury for both groups improving potentially as the skilled Europeans are no longer deflated by their unskilled counterparts, while skilled non-Europeans have an easier route in which they were blocked from in the past.
Win/win, best of both worlds. Unless you're a racist who wants to keep out non-Europeans.
Not sure Leavers should be accusing Remainers of being racist! The Leave campaign won because of anti immigrant rhetoric pushed by people like Farage and the cesspit right wing press . I’m pro immigration and was merely pointing out what the treasury figures showed and the irony of those voting leave who were duped into voting for a lie .
I'm pro-immigration too and the notion that Brexit was a good idea as it would lead to less racist immigration policies treating people from around the globe more equally rather than being biased towards Europeans was a common notion being spread by a certain strand of positive Brexiteer.
Those who voted for that, like me, have got exactly what we voted for.
Those who are now saying "Brexit means more non-Europeans and that's bad" are being racist.
FPT: The IFS predicts inflation will reach 18% for the poorest 20% of households.
I heard Hammond talking about the dire position we are in on the lunchtime news. It seems a done deal.....
Is there an obvious reason why no one's prepared to discuss the elephant in the room? The next Prime Minister and the Leader of the opposition share one thing in common.
Both were staunch Remainers.
Even a pro hanging blue passport loving Daily Express reader from Hartlepool who is over 70 and left school at 16 would by now have joined the dots.....
I can understand- just-why Truss might be squirming in embarrassment at the choices she subsequently made but not Starmer. His hands were clean. As large swathes of the country slip into penury why is he keeping up his omerta?
What's going on and where is this fabled brain of his?
Comments
There is no obligation to do anything as MP, so it’s free money essentially.
Indeed if Truss wins I would say Sunak is more likely to leave the Commons for the private sector than Boris is to depart
https://twitter.com/neildotobrien/status/1559058038736277506?s=21&t=OEra92fTH5N3oYqK1xwnMg
I don’t know how this squares with the labour shortages. You could argue we now have the “worst of both worlds”.
Again, there is no obligation to do anything as MP, you don’t really even need to turn up.
Boris will do the bare minimum, thereby having his cake and eating it.
And although I disagree with that particular premise, i believe it’s an interesting thread.
The worst that happens is that he has to declare his earnings, and it's possible that he will quite enjoy that.
To a large degree, it comes down to Truss's attitude. She could throw him to the wolves if she were so minded. In a lot of ways, it would make her life easier. But she has surrounded herself by the Justice4Boris crew.
1.09 Liz Truss 92%
11.5 Rishi Sunak 9%
Next Conservative leader
1.09 Liz Truss 92%
11.5 Rishi Sunak 9%
I consider the loosening of non-EU migration rules as a positive side-effect of controlling EU migration. To have the whole world migrating on a looser but level playing field is better than uncontrolled on one side and draconianly restricted on the other.
The transparency obligations on an MP are an issue; the risks of an unfavourable Privileges Committee finding are real (hence attempts by Team Johnson to discredit members); and the income is trivial compared with that on offer on speaker circuit.
In terms of causing a difficult by-election for his successor, Johnson doesn't care about other people, so that's not a factor.
On the possibility of a comeback, he's returned to the Commons before and may do again. The particular seat he is in is less than ideal, and he could find another with minimum effort should he wish to do so.
Figure 1. Expected inflation by income quintile in October 2022
Figure 2. Changes in real take-home income, this year (2022/23) compared to last
I hope we'll be equally critical of Johnson doing the same.
It should probably be a requirement that an MP actually attends a minimum number of surgeries a year, only exempted if they are of sufficient stature that there would be a security risk if they did so (so, Cabinet level or LotO - and even then, it should be expected a member of their office would conduct the surgeries instead and convey their constituents issues to the MP). Should they fail to do so then its considered they've called a by-election similar to a recall petition.
I don't know where that would leave the Speaker, and Sinn Fein MPs. Maybe it would force people to sort out the Speaker problem (I know we've suggested here the Speaker is the MPs MP and a by-election in the Speakers seat) and as for Sinn Fein, maybe they'll be forced to fight a by-election annually.
There is a massive amount of immigration from the Philippines into nursing for example (and thank god), but it might be argued that this is 'unproductive' immigration, whereas young creative French and Italians were more likely to generate economic growth.
The voters of Uxbridge might put a little more thought into their vote next time.
I don't think he'd fancy the possibility of losing, and wouldn't care about the hospital pass to the whomever might be his replacement.
But the astonishing thing to me is that the UK now has *more* immigration, and labour shortages to boot. I have no idea how to explain that.
Someone notes in the thread that family reunions are up a lot.
Drifting off topic (or maybe not - I'm discussing MPs who don't bother turning up - Johnson is in the header after all!), but how does this work? I know Sinn Fein advertise themselves as 'elect us and we WON'T attend Parliament' so the electorate can't say they don't know what they're getting but do they hold surgeries, and if they do, how do they convey their concerns to the UK Parliament?
And what would happen if there was a local political crisis that required an MP [1]. Would they still continue to ignore Parliament and say nothing?
[1] I realise a 'local' political crisis in those seats is only likely to be about one thing, and decisions are likely to be taken elsewere therefore (London, Dublin.... Washington!) but still......
This winter will be brutal; what happens next year is not yet decided.
https://twitter.com/gordonhudsonnu/status/1559136861616046080?s=20&t=_Y4lIvDowIRhR6LDX_hj1Q
This *feels* quite convincing. But then the "rock in a loch" hypothesis felt equally convincing
So I wonder if there is - as I suggested before - a human urge to believe the least weird explanation for something weird, to the extent that you will mentally overrule what your eyes are seeing
What the photo shows is a whacking big weird thing hanging in the sky. What my brains tells me I am seeing is just a rock in a puddle! No, it's just a mountain!
Never "it's a really big weird thing hanging in the sky"
Energy (Particularly gas) needs to be seen as a strategic national resource now by nation states now, rather than a global commodity.
The decommissioning for gas in the North sea needs to have been stopped yesterday, and we need to remain good friends with the arabs no matter what tbh.
https://twitter.com/ETC_energy/status/1559110148089683969
How much European gas is supplied by Russia and where is it used?
Russia provides ~40% of Europe's gas consumption – generating electricity, providing heat in homes and industry and used as a feedstock.
Our third Explainer sets out options to replace Russian gas within a year
Stays on as MP and even hints at wanting the job back - 6 shortening to 3 a couple of months later
Resigns seat - drifting back and forth between 10 and 25
On EU nurses, this always seems to get forgotten in amongst all the Brexit talk:
https://www.nursingtimes.net/roles/nurse-managers/new-english-language-test-agreed-for-european-nurses-08-10-2015/
What do you think is in that photo? I genuinely have no idea, and am open to any explanation
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-15/world-s-worst-dropout-rate-adds-to-headaches-for-uk-workforce
FLYING OVERHEAD!
oh no it's a plane
EU nationals overall were a positive for the treasury , they were more likely to be younger and fitter and in well paid jobs .
Non EU nationals were a negative for the treasury especially as family reunion was a larger part of those coming and they brought older family members who took up more resources.
All the UK has done is replace EU nationals with non EU ones from countries which didn’t reciprocate any freedom of movement rights so in effect UK citizens lost their chance to live in 27 other countries and ended up with more immigration .
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot . It’s noticeable now how quiet the right wing press are about current levels of immigration , seeing as they went full on with the anti EU hate , clearly highlighting how they duped their readers is something they want to avoid !
I'm not really interested.
Show me several dozen recent ones and I might be.
Does it need a Commons vote to recall him ?
However I can hardly force you to reply, so fair dos
We need to bring back the Vagrancy Laws.
Populist Toryism does not seek to resolve problems. It seeks primarily to exploit them to whip up the division it judges to be its best bet for winning elections.
That's my take on this interesting question you've posed.
For a start they usually have a clear sky above, and although you can occasionally see layers during fronts these are normally very local and you can't see distant objects.
What definition there is in the sky in the photograph is also visible both above and below the 'object'. Layered cloud of any kind would be visible as a line across the image.
The rest of the 1100TWh is labelled 'tricky tradeoffs'.
Nothing about this is simple, but some mitigation is certainly possible within the next twelve months.
So essentially; it’s the over 50s dropping out because of “long term sickness”, along with some anecdotal suggestions that the dropout skews female with mental health issues.
Oliver Blanchard, quoted in the piece, suggests that Covid demonstrated that for some it was quite nice to stay at home and a decent chunk of older people do not need to work (at least for financial reasons).
The cost of living may change minds, but I suspect certain carrots may be required, though don’t push me on what. Jobs need to provide something more than just money.
https://twitter.com/BAESystemsAir/status/1559179302918361090
Today, we’ve handed over the first of 24 @eurofighter Typhoons to the Qatar Emiri Air Force at a ceremony in Warton, Lancashire.
This jet will provide critical air support during @FIFAWorldCup this year.
In all seriousness, you don't have any interest at all? To me it would be one of the most interesting revelations in the history of humankind. Perhaps THE most interesting
The King over the Water routine only works if are not actually there...
His triumphant return will therefore include a spectacular constituency win as a precursor.
Sure if I could have a friendly conversation with ET where he/she/it/they tells me all about life on planet zog and space travel, great, I would be up for that, but doubt that is on offer.
I tend to agree. The shape being so similar to a mountaintop is probably coincidence. Nothing else supports this thesis. How could it happen, photographically? Psychologically? How come the plane is in the photo but no other landscape features? Nor does this hypothesis remotely square with the eye-witness accounts (which might all be lies, of course)
I'm down to three explanations
1. A long elaborate hoax
2. Surprising human tech
3. Aliens!???!
Each individual can be net positive or net negative for the Treasury, to lump together all of a nationality together and claim what's true for some is true for all is what could be termed 'racism'.
Some EU nationals were a net positive being young and fit and in well paid jobs.
Some EU nationals were a net negative being unskilled who came to work in minimum wage jobs as it was better than their minimum wage.
Some non-EU nationals were net negative engaging in family reunion etc
Some non-EU nationals were net positive being young and fit and skilled etc
What's changed post-Brexit is we've tightened up rules on unskilled Europeans coming her to work minimum wage jobs (so skilled Europeans can still get a visa) while loosening restrictions on skilled non-Europeans who were struggling to get a visa in the past.
If that means more skilled non-Europeans compensating for fewer less skilled EU nationals then that is a net improvement and will see the net compensation to the Treasury for both groups improving potentially as the skilled Europeans are no longer deflated by their unskilled counterparts, while skilled non-Europeans have an easier route in which they were blocked from in the past.
Win/win, best of both worlds. Unless you're a racist who wants to keep out non-Europeans.
The oft repeated claim on PB is that immigration discourages capital investment, and therefore depresses productivity growth.
Now, that may or may not be true, but that chart basically tells you that in 2008/9, GDP per Capita growth basically shifted down a gear.
Here's the thing: that's true in pretty much every developed country, irrespective of whether they are high immigration, low immigration, or net emigration.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3950282/#Comment_3950282
"...most economists (but not all) believe that immigration increases wages over time, by increasing firm productivity."
Personally I'm beyond worrying about how I'm going to pay the gas bill, and more thinking through what I would do in the event of either the electric or gas grids collapsing this winter during a cold snap. I'm very fortunate, I own a company permanently sat on what in domestic terms is a huge amount of energy (I've stockpiles of Diesel, LPG and Coal), some of which I can borrow, so I won't freeze to death - however if the electric grid goes down the lack of clean water and sewerage will get unfunny quite quickly.
It doesn't look as though Beto O'Rourke will be the next Texas Governor.
Anyway, here's a cropped picture of Schiehallion (being a suitable hill for an EXPERIMENT) in a cloud inversion. I took this in January, not August, but you get the idea. The location is only a few miles from Calvine (in the Drumochter hills).
Even with a serious overexposure I think you'd struggle to get something similar to the mystery image.
I still think it is a reflection but am prepared to be convinced.
I totally understand the obsession with ALIENS. Are we alone? It is a fundamental question which will shape how we see the universe if it can ever answered in the negative.
I doubt we'll discover them in this way, though.
Vulcam to Earth.
Personally, I think that in most occasions, immigration is a symptom of deeper problems. And one is best off seeking to solve the underlying issues, rather than attempting to band aid the problem at the symptom level.
If your country doesn't produce enough trained plumbers or electricians, and is importing 24 year olds with those skills, well maybe you have a problem with education and training. Likewise, if you have a problem with low labourforce participation rates for certain segments of the population, you might want to ask why that is.
You could argue that current capital investment in digital et al. is replacing skilled employees, rather than low skilled; so a surplus of high skilled employees could reduce capital investment?
Given the nature of our economy, services vs manufacturing, capital investment is more around digital assets today rather than heavy plant.
U.K. small building sites are visibly less automated than their French equivalents, for example.
A handful of months on the back benches and a VONC on the hapless Truss, and Johnson returns, stronger faster, fitter. All his misbehaviour will have been purged and BigDog is saved again.
https://wol.iza.org/articles/skill-based-immigration-economic-integration-and-economic-performance/long
Key findings
Pros
Skill-based selection of immigrants responds to the needs of the economy.
High-skilled immigrants have better labor market prospects in general than immigrants admitted based on kinship ties or for humanitarian reasons.
High-skilled immigrants boost innovation, a key to long-term economic growth.
High-skilled immigrants in the labor market can raise wages for low-skilled native workers struggling with declining labor market prospects.
Highly paid skill-based immigrants widen the tax base and help offset growing fiscal challenges.
Cons
The design of selection systems for skill-based admissions is complicated and requires frequent updating as the economic environment changes.
Skill-based immigrants face formidable economic integration challenges due to skill and credential transferability problems and underutilization of their human capital.
Identifying short-term skill shortages as a basis for admissions is difficult and may not be in line with long-term needs of the economy.
Allocating a higher share of immigrant admissions based on skills usually comes at the expense of kinship- and humanitarian-based admissions.
What it is, it's the USAF Aurora project.
Those who voted for that, like me, have got exactly what we voted for.
Those who are now saying "Brexit means more non-Europeans and that's bad" are being racist.
Is there an obvious reason why no one's prepared to discuss the elephant in the room? The next Prime Minister and the Leader of the opposition share one thing in common.
Both were staunch Remainers.
Even a pro hanging blue passport loving Daily Express reader from Hartlepool who is over 70 and left school at 16 would by now have joined the dots.....
I can understand- just-why Truss might be squirming in embarrassment at the choices she subsequently made but not Starmer. His hands were clean. As large swathes of the country slip into penury why is he keeping up his omerta?
What's going on and where is this fabled brain of his?