Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Starmer has better than a 56% chance of being PM after the next election – politicalbetting.com

1235»

Comments

  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,923

    Interesting from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/08/29/britains-open-door-immigration-entirely-changes-economics-brexit/

    As of next week, Britain will have the most ethnically-diverse cabinet of any major country in the OECD bloc. That will be apparent to the world.

    Less understood is that the new Prime Minister will also preside over one of the most liberal and open immigration systems among the developed economies, and considerably more open in key respects than the large EU states.

    This is so far removed from the catechism of the global intelligentsia – let us call it the New York Times view – that many will simply refuse to acknowledge the facts.

    Whatever may have been said by certain people during the Referendum, and whatever Theresa May thought Brexit was supposed to mean, the actual regime established by Boris Johnson for work visas and the resettlement of legal refugees is strikingly expansionary. Furthermore, it has been obvious for some time that this is the direction of travel.

    “I am delighted to say that I have been proved wrong. When it comes to work visas, we have one of the most liberal immigration systems in the world,” said Professor Jonathan Portes from the London School of Economics.

    Just read that article myself. Very good indeed. Even if one disagrees with AEP's conclusions (which I don't) he makes some very good points about the assumptions made by think tanks prior to Brexit being proved by reality to be fundamentally flawed. I was not aware of the numbers involved but given my views on immigration I am delighted that the fears perpetuated by many supposed authorities have turned out to be false.
    Tbh I thought everyone knew Boris was pro-immigration, he said it often enough, and
    also that immigration had increased. The standard pb Brexiteer defence has been that we are now, post-Brexit, free to choose.
    Anyone with half a brain knew immigration would not fall post-Brexit. All that’s happened is that UK citizens and businesses have lost significant freedoms and rights they previously enjoyed.
    As is obvious with Brexit, the benefit is not conferred by leaving itself, but by the Government being able to control the borders if it so wishes.
    Ridiculous. We have always been able to control our borders. It's the will that was missing.
  • Interesting from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/08/29/britains-open-door-immigration-entirely-changes-economics-brexit/

    As of next week, Britain will have the most ethnically-diverse cabinet of any major country in the OECD bloc. That will be apparent to the world.

    Less understood is that the new Prime Minister will also preside over one of the most liberal and open immigration systems among the developed economies, and considerably more open in key respects than the large EU states.

    This is so far removed from the catechism of the global intelligentsia – let us call it the New York Times view – that many will simply refuse to acknowledge the facts.

    Whatever may have been said by certain people during the Referendum, and whatever Theresa May thought Brexit was supposed to mean, the actual regime established by Boris Johnson for work visas and the resettlement of legal refugees is strikingly expansionary. Furthermore, it has been obvious for some time that this is the direction of travel.

    “I am delighted to say that I have been proved wrong. When it comes to work visas, we have one of the most liberal immigration systems in the world,” said Professor Jonathan Portes from the London School of Economics.

    Just read that article myself. Very good indeed. Even if one disagrees with AEP's conclusions (which I don't) he makes some very good points about the assumptions made by think tanks prior to Brexit being proved by reality to be fundamentally flawed. I was not aware of the numbers involved but given my views on immigration I am delighted that the fears perpetuated by many supposed authorities have turned out to be false.
    Tbh I thought everyone knew Boris was pro-immigration, he said it often enough, and
    also that immigration had increased. The standard pb Brexiteer defence has been that we are now, post-Brexit, free to choose.
    Anyone with half a brain knew immigration would not fall post-Brexit. All that’s happened is that UK citizens and businesses have lost significant freedoms and rights they previously enjoyed.
    As is obvious with Brexit, the benefit is not conferred by leaving itself, but by the Government being able to control the borders if it so wishes.
    Yes, I get that. But as the government isn’t going to close the borders all we’ve done is given up our own freedoms and rights. It seems rather self-defeating to me - but I lost and am getting over it.

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Nigelb said:

    High-ranking Ukrainian quisling official murdered in occupied Kherson Oblast

    Oleksii Kovaliov, a Ukrainian MP who was the quisling "Dep Head of Kherson Oblast Administration for Agriculture," was shot dead in Hola Prystan. Earlier, he survived car bombing

    https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1564499586726727681

    Looking at Google translate I think they mean "assassinated."
  • On Truss running away from Robinson, it seems pretty obvious to me that she never intended to do the interview. She fibbed when she said she would. She agreed to make fear of scrutiny go away as an issue during the contest with Sunak. She wasn’t smart enough to realise she would create a foundational “frit” narrative for her time as PM.

    Everything Truss says and does indicates she is woefully out of her depth.

    Nice spin: “Truss cleverly closed down an issue when it mattered and this proves she is out of her depth.”
    Closed it down as in its getting wide coverage in the media and everyone is talking about her hiding in fridges.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,522
    Nigelb said:

    Totally agree, it isn't just doleys and plebs who will need support, some of us face the choice of heating or cancelling our skiing holidays.

    Just put on your skiware at home.
    Under the duvet, like @Big_G_NorthWales .
    Unironically everybody should get themselves one of these:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotatsu
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,306

    On Truss running away from Robinson, it seems pretty obvious to me that she never intended to do the interview. She fibbed when she said she would. She agreed to make fear of scrutiny go away as an issue during the contest with Sunak. She wasn’t smart enough to realise she would create a foundational “frit” narrative for her time as PM.

    Everything Truss says and does indicates she is woefully out of her depth.

    Nice spin: “Truss cleverly closed down an issue when it mattered and this proves she is out of her depth.”
    Closed it down as in its getting wide coverage in the media and everyone is talking about her hiding in fridges.
    “Everyone”
  • Good morning

    I understand a conservative spokesperson has admitted this morning that the campaign for the leadership has gone on too long and the rules need to be reviewed

    You don't say

    The damage Brady and the 1922 have done to the party is unforgiveable and may well be seen in the next GE

    As far as Truss is concerned I have no problem with her cancelling a BBC interview if she announces a comprehensive support package for the public and businesses which seem to be at breaking point

    However, I hope that celebrities, footballers and company bosses etc are expected to pay their own way
  • darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Interesting from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/08/29/britains-open-door-immigration-entirely-changes-economics-brexit/

    As of next week, Britain will have the most ethnically-diverse cabinet of any major country in the OECD bloc. That will be apparent to the world.

    Less understood is that the new Prime Minister will also preside over one of the most liberal and open immigration systems among the developed economies, and considerably more open in key respects than the large EU states.

    This is so far removed from the catechism of the global intelligentsia – let us call it the New York Times view – that many will simply refuse to acknowledge the facts.

    Whatever may have been said by certain people during the Referendum, and whatever Theresa May thought Brexit was supposed to mean, the actual regime established by Boris Johnson for work visas and the resettlement of legal refugees is strikingly expansionary. Furthermore, it has been obvious for some time that this is the direction of travel.

    “I am delighted to say that I have been proved wrong. When it comes to work visas, we have one of the most liberal immigration systems in the world,” said Professor Jonathan Portes from the London School of Economics.

    Legal immigration is a very different beast to illegal immigration and is arguably being managed reasonably well.
    I think we do a reasonable job with legal migration. Some bits we do poorly: such as poor @Sandpit, who can't bring his Ukrainian wife back to the UK, because she doesn't earn enough. Others, like tech worker visas we do a pretty good job with.
    Not because she doesn’t earn enough, but because *I* don’t earn enough to support her. Which of course I do, just not in the UK so it doesn’t count. Ironically, under the new system, she can probably apply in her own right and get a better result.

    It’s moot now anyway, we are buying a place out here and will make a few more years of it.
    As I understand it the policy is that - if you are an expat - even if you can earn a decent wage in the UK, you cannot move back to the UK with a foreign spouse unless they can get a working visa in their own right. This seems to be a legacy of the 'reduce net immigration by any means possible' policy of the early 2010's. It should be reformed to apply a similar income test to that which applies to existing residents of the UK applying for spouse visas.
    You could if your foreign spouse was from an EU country. Not any more, I presume.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779

    Energy crisis: Early kick-off for football could cut floodlight costs

    Football bosses are to discuss whether matches in the lower divisions could kick off earlier to save money on floodlights, among measures to deal with rising energy costs.

    The English Football League, which runs the three divisions below the Premier League, will discuss the energy crisis at its board meeting next month with some clubs fearing their costs will rise by hundreds of thousands of pounds.

    It comes as pub and brewing companies urged the government to act in order to avoid “real and serious irreversible” damage to the sector.

    Andy Holt, chairman of the League One side Accrington Stanley, told The Times: “We don’t use a lot compared with some clubs but our bills are going to quadruple. It’s going to be hundreds of thousands of pounds a year and it’s going to be a disaster in the winter.

    “It’s floodlights, heating, electricity in the concession areas, everything. The only way we can cover the extra costs is by raising the price of tickets — but our fans will be struggling themselves with the energy price rises, this is Accrington not Belgravia. Their available income will be going down so can we really raise prices?”

    He added: “I’m not sure moving the kick-off earlier would have much impact — we still need to heat the stadium in winter.” Holt said floodlights had to be used for TV purposes if the natural light was dull.

    A League Two club chairman, who asked not to be named, said he would raise the idea of earlier kick-offs with the EFL. Football clubs are vulnerable because there is no price cap on businesses, with fears some could go into administration.

    An EFL spokesman said: “The league is currently engaging with clubs on the impact of rising energy prices on their operations. This does include floodlight usage and cost through the winter months.

    “Once the position is established, the matter will be discussed with the board at its next meeting in September.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/energy-crisis-early-kick-off-for-football-could-cut-floodlight-costs-xjq5glsmx

    Do tyhey heat the terraces, or just the private boxes, or solely the changing rooms/offices/bars?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779
    THis thread has had the Truss interview treatment.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433
    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Interesting from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/08/29/britains-open-door-immigration-entirely-changes-economics-brexit/

    As of next week, Britain will have the most ethnically-diverse cabinet of any major country in the OECD bloc. That will be apparent to the world.

    Less understood is that the new Prime Minister will also preside over one of the most liberal and open immigration systems among the developed economies, and considerably more open in key respects than the large EU states.

    This is so far removed from the catechism of the global intelligentsia – let us call it the New York Times view – that many will simply refuse to acknowledge the facts.

    Whatever may have been said by certain people during the Referendum, and whatever Theresa May thought Brexit was supposed to mean, the actual regime established by Boris Johnson for work visas and the resettlement of legal refugees is strikingly expansionary. Furthermore, it has been obvious for some time that this is the direction of travel.

    “I am delighted to say that I have been proved wrong. When it comes to work visas, we have one of the most liberal immigration systems in the world,” said Professor Jonathan Portes from the London School of Economics.

    Legal immigration is a very different beast to illegal immigration and is arguably being managed reasonably well.
    I think we do a reasonable job with legal migration. Some bits we do poorly: such as poor @Sandpit, who can't bring his Ukrainian wife back to the UK, because she doesn't earn enough. Others, like tech worker visas we do a pretty good job with.
    Not because she doesn’t earn enough, but because *I* don’t earn enough to support her. Which of course I do, just not in the UK so it doesn’t count. Ironically, under the new system, she can probably apply in her own right and get a better result.

    It’s moot now anyway, we are buying a place out here and will make a few more years of it.
    As I understand it the policy is that - if you are an expat - even if you can earn a decent wage in the UK, you cannot move back to the UK with a foreign spouse unless they can get a working visa in their own right. This seems to be a legacy of the 'reduce net immigration by any means possible' policy of the early 2010's. It should be reformed to apply a similar income test to that which applies to existing residents of the UK applying for spouse visas.
    Yes. Basically the system is set up for UK residents to bring a wife over to live with them in the UK. The idea that a UK citizen might spend some years abroad, get married while abroad, and wish to relocate with their wife back to the UK, is totally anomalous to the authorities. The issue is the requirement for two years’ documentation of my income, for which only UK employment income is accepted, not overseas nor self-employed income.

    It’s not an insurmountable problem, but might for example mean that we were separated for several months as I moved back first, or that she moved back on a visit visa and was unable to work for two or three years in the UK.

    The issue this is trying to solve, from the government’s perspective, is dubious arranged marriages from the sub-continent, which was quite a big problem a couple of decades ago. 90+% of ‘family reunion’ immigration is covered by this, I am in the other 10%, to whom it seems very unfair that I can’t automatically live with my wife of seven years in my own country.

    Anyway, as I said it’s moot now, we will be staying in the sandpit for a few more years.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644

    Good morning

    I understand a conservative spokesperson has admitted this morning that the campaign for the leadership has gone on too long and the rules need to be reviewed

    You don't say

    The damage Brady and the 1922 have done to the party is unforgiveable and may well be seen in the next GE

    As far as Truss is concerned I have no problem with her cancelling a BBC interview if she announces a comprehensive support package for the public and businesses which seem to be at breaking point

    However, I hope that celebrities, footballers and company bosses etc are expected to pay their own way

    Maybe it’s not the length of the Conservative leadership campaign that is the problem, but the quality of the candidates?

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103

    Good morning

    I understand a conservative spokesperson has admitted this morning that the campaign for the leadership has gone on too long and the rules need to be reviewed

    You don't say

    The damage Brady and the 1922 have done to the party is unforgiveable and may well be seen in the next GE

    As far as Truss is concerned I have no problem with her cancelling a BBC interview if she announces a comprehensive support package for the public and businesses which seem to be at breaking point

    However, I hope that celebrities, footballers and company bosses etc are expected to pay their own way

    The bold fact is that the membership should not choose the leader when the Party are in office. The successor PM should be chosen by Cabinet/MPs and immediately put into office to get on with the job.

    Fine to have these long contests with members involved when choosing opposition leader.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433
    edited August 2022

    Sandpit said:

    Energy crisis: Early kick-off for football could cut floodlight costs

    Football bosses are to discuss whether matches in the lower divisions could kick off earlier to save money on floodlights, among measures to deal with rising energy costs.

    The English Football League, which runs the three divisions below the Premier League, will discuss the energy crisis at its board meeting next month with some clubs fearing their costs will rise by hundreds of thousands of pounds.

    It comes as pub and brewing companies urged the government to act in order to avoid “real and serious irreversible” damage to the sector.

    Andy Holt, chairman of the League One side Accrington Stanley, told The Times: “We don’t use a lot compared with some clubs but our bills are going to quadruple. It’s going to be hundreds of thousands of pounds a year and it’s going to be a disaster in the winter.

    “It’s floodlights, heating, electricity in the concession areas, everything. The only way we can cover the extra costs is by raising the price of tickets — but our fans will be struggling themselves with the energy price rises, this is Accrington not Belgravia. Their available income will be going down so can we really raise prices?”

    He added: “I’m not sure moving the kick-off earlier would have much impact — we still need to heat the stadium in winter.” Holt said floodlights had to be used for TV purposes if the natural light was dull.

    A League Two club chairman, who asked not to be named, said he would raise the idea of earlier kick-offs with the EFL. Football clubs are vulnerable because there is no price cap on businesses, with fears some could go into administration.

    An EFL spokesman said: “The league is currently engaging with clubs on the impact of rising energy prices on their operations. This does include floodlight usage and cost through the winter months.

    “Once the position is established, the matter will be discussed with the board at its next meeting in September.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/energy-crisis-early-kick-off-for-football-could-cut-floodlight-costs-xjq5glsmx

    Good. This was mentioned early on, have football and rugby kick off at 1pm rather than 3pm, so they don’t need the floodlights. Modern TV cameras work effectively in pretty dark environments.

    There’s a shortage of gas, and demand for power has to be reduced irrespective of price. The only arguments are where that reduction can occur without too much economic damage.
    Is that right? Aiui there is no shortage of gas here yet. The problem is the high price of electricity which is in large part due to the cost of gas (and partly to a pricing formula HMG should perhaps take another look at). That is not to dispute that we do need to reduce power consumption and that a lot of businesses as well as people will likely go under.
    There will be a shortage over the winter, of 15-20% of gas requirements, whether that be for for direct gas supply or electricity generation.

    No matter what the price, the demand needs to drop by that much otherwise there will be rationing.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,019
    edited August 2022

    Good morning

    I understand a conservative spokesperson has admitted this morning that the campaign for the leadership has gone on too long and the rules need to be reviewed

    You don't say

    The damage Brady and the 1922 have done to the party is unforgiveable and may well be seen in the next GE

    As far as Truss is concerned I have no problem with her cancelling a BBC interview if she announces a comprehensive support package for the public and businesses which seem to be at breaking point

    However, I hope that celebrities, footballers and company bosses etc are expected to pay their own way

    Maybe it’s not the length of the Conservative leadership campaign that is the problem, but the quality of the candidates?

    It's a good selection of candidates. One seemingly mad previous party leader clone who will say anything to gain favour with the (160k-strong) electorate; and one grey, professorial type who is apparently telling it like it is and as a result is 1/20 with the bookies to win.

    While the Conservative Party membership is a small, select band it is by no means untypical of a large proportion of the electorate as a whole, both Cons and Lab, who want to hear a certain message delivered in a certain way and don't want to hear the obverse.

    Which means that actually the problem is not the quality of the candidates, but of the electorate.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Interesting from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/08/29/britains-open-door-immigration-entirely-changes-economics-brexit/

    As of next week, Britain will have the most ethnically-diverse cabinet of any major country in the OECD bloc. That will be apparent to the world.

    Less understood is that the new Prime Minister will also preside over one of the most liberal and open immigration systems among the developed economies, and considerably more open in key respects than the large EU states.

    This is so far removed from the catechism of the global intelligentsia – let us call it the New York Times view – that many will simply refuse to acknowledge the facts.

    Whatever may have been said by certain people during the Referendum, and whatever Theresa May thought Brexit was supposed to mean, the actual regime established by Boris Johnson for work visas and the resettlement of legal refugees is strikingly expansionary. Furthermore, it has been obvious for some time that this is the direction of travel.

    “I am delighted to say that I have been proved wrong. When it comes to work visas, we have one of the most liberal immigration systems in the world,” said Professor Jonathan Portes from the London School of Economics.

    Legal immigration is a very different beast to illegal immigration and is arguably being managed reasonably well.
    I think we do a reasonable job with legal migration. Some bits we do poorly: such as poor @Sandpit, who can't bring his Ukrainian wife back to the UK, because she doesn't earn enough. Others, like tech worker visas we do a pretty good job with.
    Not because she doesn’t earn enough, but because *I* don’t earn enough to support her. Which of course I do, just not in the UK so it doesn’t count. Ironically, under the new system, she can probably apply in her own right and get a better result.

    It’s moot now anyway, we are buying a place out here and will make a few more years of it.
    As I understand it the policy is that - if you are an expat - even if you can earn a decent wage in the UK, you cannot move back to the UK with a foreign spouse unless they can get a working visa in their own right. This seems to be a legacy of the 'reduce net immigration by any means possible' policy of the early 2010's. It should be reformed to apply a similar income test to that which applies to existing residents of the UK applying for spouse visas.
    You could if your foreign spouse was from an EU country. Not any more, I presume.
    Yes, that was the case. Even worse, if I were a non-UK EU citizen I could live in the UK with my wife, irrespective of where she was from, thanks the EU law on the ‘right to a family life’.

    All of which rubs it in even more, and was a massive reason behind my vote to leave the EU.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,183
    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Interesting from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/08/29/britains-open-door-immigration-entirely-changes-economics-brexit/

    As of next week, Britain will have the most ethnically-diverse cabinet of any major country in the OECD bloc. That will be apparent to the world.

    Less understood is that the new Prime Minister will also preside over one of the most liberal and open immigration systems among the developed economies, and considerably more open in key respects than the large EU states.

    This is so far removed from the catechism of the global intelligentsia – let us call it the New York Times view – that many will simply refuse to acknowledge the facts.

    Whatever may have been said by certain people during the Referendum, and whatever Theresa May thought Brexit was supposed to mean, the actual regime established by Boris Johnson for work visas and the resettlement of legal refugees is strikingly expansionary. Furthermore, it has been obvious for some time that this is the direction of travel.

    “I am delighted to say that I have been proved wrong. When it comes to work visas, we have one of the most liberal immigration systems in the world,” said Professor Jonathan Portes from the London School of Economics.

    Legal immigration is a very different beast to illegal immigration and is arguably being managed reasonably well.
    I think we do a reasonable job with legal migration. Some bits we do poorly: such as poor @Sandpit, who can't bring his Ukrainian wife back to the UK, because she doesn't earn enough. Others, like tech worker visas we do a pretty good job with.
    Not because she doesn’t earn enough, but because *I* don’t earn enough to support her. Which of course I do, just not in the UK so it doesn’t count. Ironically, under the new system, she can probably apply in her own right and get a better result.

    It’s moot now anyway, we are buying a place out here and will make a few more years of it.
    As I understand it the policy is that - if you are an expat - even if you can earn a decent wage in the UK, you cannot move back to the UK with a foreign spouse unless they can get a working visa in their own right. This seems to be a legacy of the 'reduce net immigration by any means possible' policy of the early 2010's. It should be reformed to apply a similar income test to that which applies to existing residents of the UK applying for spouse visas.
    You could if your foreign spouse was from an EU country. Not any more, I presume.
    Yes, that was the case. Even worse, if I were a non-UK EU citizen I could live in the UK with my wife, irrespective of where she was from, thanks the EU law on the ‘right to a family life’.

    All of which rubs it in even more, and was a massive reason behind my vote to leave the EU.
    You voted to take away other people's rights to live in the UK with their spouse out of spite because HMG had denied you that right?

    That seems astonishingly mean.

    It's the sort of thing people parody socialists for - making everyone equally miserable.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147

    Good morning

    I understand a conservative spokesperson has admitted this morning that the campaign for the leadership has gone on too long and the rules need to be reviewed

    You don't say

    The damage Brady and the 1922 have done to the party is unforgiveable and may well be seen in the next GE

    As far as Truss is concerned I have no problem with her cancelling a BBC interview if she announces a comprehensive support package for the public and businesses which seem to be at breaking point

    However, I hope that celebrities, footballers and company bosses etc are expected to pay their own way

    The bold fact is that the membership should not choose the leader when the Party are in office. The successor PM should be chosen by Cabinet/MPs and immediately put into office to get on with the job.

    Fine to have these long contests with members involved when choosing opposition leader.
    No, party rules are party rules whether in government or opposition. Had Tory members alone had the final say Kemi Badenoch would be about to be elected PM anyway, not Truss or Sunak which was the choice MPs gave them
This discussion has been closed.