Immigration and asylum - UKIP's main thrust - is popular among the electorate (except the idealist LibDems and Labourites who see no wrong done by their party).
Today, John Denham advocates a fair, diverse and multicultural UK - but when did any politician ask the electorate if that was/is their choice - but made assumptions which were often for political purposes.
Today, Tony Blair has said that mass immigration made no difference to the job prospects of unemployed Britons and that politicians hostile to immigration were guilty of pandering to unpleasant prejudice (why not use the word 'racist' as did/do so many of his party). No doubt he is worried about his speaking fees from potential immigrant countries.
Today, yet another immigrant (who knowing caused the death of one of her children and was in prison for 3 years) has used Clause 8 of the ECHR to "have her right to a family life" and to be allowed to stay in the UK under an anonymous identity.
To most voters the EU and ECHR are synonymous and they do not recognise arguments that detail the niceties of their separation. To them such laws and judgements are nonsensical.
Mrs May has made several attempts to deport this woman and will appeal the judgement. Through the recently passed Immigration Act, it should be easier to remove people from the UK and harder for individuals to prolong their stay with spurious appeals, by cutting the number of appeal rights from 17 to four. It should also ensure that judges deal with Article 8 claims in the right way — making clear the right to a family life is not regarded as absolute and unqualified.
100 years of misgovernment by the Lab/Lib/Con. 75 years of mismanaging Britain's decline by the Lab/Lib/Con. 40 years of surrender to the EU by the Lab/Lib/Con.
New Thread please!
Which countries have done better than the UK, and what lessons have UKIP learned from those counties?
The Adam Smith Professor of Political Economy at Glasgow University spots the flaw in the Nats "independence dividend" - it's based on faster productivity growth than rUK. Yet the sterling zone they also want is predicated on having similar productivity growth to rUK.....
I am a staunch unionist who will vote no no matter what the numbers show because some things are just more important but I really wonder if the Professor really knows what he is talking about.
He is claiming that a 2% increase in productivity relative to the rest of the UK would reduce Scotland's competitiveness. That is plainly nonsense and I think he has got productivity and growth mixed up.
A good recent example of the effects of an increase in relative productivity is Germany in the EZ. The consequences all around have been disastrous but not for the Germans who accumulated ever larger surpluses as they out competed their EZ partners and sold them more as a result. And by the way that more rapid productivity resulted in lower inflation than their trading partners not higher.
The real problem with the 2% hypothesis on which the SNP figures is based is that it is a complete fantasy and it demonstrates the complete paucity of their case that they now have to invent such dividends to fill the gap created by declining north sea output and tax revenue. Why on earth should an independent Scotland have higher productivity? It will have:
* an even larger public sector filling in the gaps that are not currently filled in non-devolved departments without the efficiencies of scale of a larger unit. * A vastly reduced domestic market without the straightforward access to the English market that takes over 90% of our exports. * Currency uncertainty (I agree with the professor about that). *Investment uncertainty (which will of course reduce productivity growth). * the uncertainty relating to a new tax structure in a government that is promising the unaffordable. * EU uncertainty.
I could go on but the idea that an independent Scotland is going to immediately benefit from a productivity bonus is just absurd and the idea that we should base our budgeting on such a scenario is only for the seriously delusional and dishonest. The Professor's guns are pointed in the wrong direction.
100 years of misgovernment by the Lab/Lib/Con. 75 years of mismanaging Britain's decline by the Lab/Lib/Con. 40 years of surrender to the EU by the Lab/Lib/Con.
New Thread please!
As an aside, I agree. It was exactly 100 years ago, at the height of Britain's position in the world, that the decision to restrict entry to this country was taken.
That point, the point at which we started turning people away, marked the beginning of the end for Britain's glory.
I'm glad UKIP is planning on turning that around and ending the absurd restrictions on people from outside the EU coming to this country.
It seems Scotland's destined for devo-max, as it's called, whether they want it or not. Unless England finally gets some sort of equality in the realm of devolution they might as well divide the union now.
Not on offer from anyone. What we are being offered is devo-a-wee-bit-more. Important distinction, being completely lost, no doubt deliberately, by many media commentators.
Mr. 1000, not sure that you can attribute as a prime factor the immigration change a century ago. Surely the rise of America and forthcoming global wars were more important?
Rome's decline accelerated when it stopped fighting barbarians and started allowing them to settle.
My apologies, Mr. Carnyx. The total absence of any devolution in England makes it perhaps more difficult to correctly assess the varying degrees currently in operation in Scotland and likely to occur in the immediate future.
That might tend to contradict the Better Together messaging to some extent?
Anyway, fair play to them if they genuinely manage to go forward with this. Perhaps they might chuck out the House of Lords as well, while they're at the mighty constitutional convention business
I disappear for a night and the Tory vote melts down! Looks like a clear move agin voting Tory post-Euros. My prediction now has Ed in number 10, just short of a majority. Having said that, Ashcrofts 25% is surely suspect! the Tories can't possibly be at Euro election level support for a GE (can they?!)
Mr. Smarmeron, no. We need now what Rome needed then: a strong and stable political structure (which it notably enjoyed at the height of its glory in the Second Punic War) and the willingness and ability to get rid of barbarians that are here and bar those we do not want from entry.
Allowing murderers to remain because they have a pet cactus* is deranged. The right of Britons to be safe from foreign murderers must trump the right of foreign murderers to a family life, or even security from persecution in their own country.
Salmond did not win a mandate for DevoMax - he won a mandate for Independence - can you imagine the shrieking (to use their favourite word) from the Nats if it was a Devomax and not independence referendum?
But the decision to accept any referendum decision was Westminster's wasn't it? So presumably Westminster could have mandated a referendum on devomax (they could have made it UK wide too)
(Please imagine some kind of "lighthearted" font here- I'm not being entirely serious)
This Strathclyde business does look like replaciong the West Lothian questions with a few hundred other questions tho...
Mr Bandier is quite correct. It was most certainly Mr Cameron's (et al) decision to oppose a third option in the form of demo-a-bit-more, devo-max, etc. Yet it was quite clear at the time (of the runup to the Edinburgh Agreement) that he would have won instantly if he had offered devo-quite-a-lot-more. This was so incongruous that I remember being astounded by his decision to go for broke.
Mr Salmond did not want devo plus as an option - the SNP are for indpendence, after all - but said that so many people wanted it that the decent thing to do was to offer it as an option.
So it is interesting, to put it mildly, that all the unionist parties have made a major U-turn (not least Ms Davidson personally, with her rhetoric about not crossing lines in the sand and all that). Two thoughts on that. Firstly, they might or might not happen, depending on the result of the UKGE. [Edit: Secondly,] Memories of 1979 meld here with the prospect of Mr Farage and Co putting a spanner in the works.
On trying to solve the WLQ, I am reminded of the Irish Question in 1066 and All That and the Irish Question, and Alex Massie's article in the Speccy arguing that ti is best never to ask the WLQ ...
Today's YouGov (Lab +6) reminds us of what a fearful world UKIP voters live in:
VI: UKIP (Con)
Not have enough money to live comfortably: 61 (41) Be victim of burglary, robbery or mugging: 49 (24) Suffer directly from public service spending cuts: 71 (38) Lose out to foreign factories/workers: 68 (37) Lose job: 61 (40) Lose home: 50 (21) Suffer discrimination from local councils/employers: 50 (19) Suffer ill-health: 58 (38)
I dont know whether you are tryng to put down UKIP supporters or empathising with them? I hope it is the latter.
A lot of working class peoples lives have become much worse thanks to mass immigration. A lot of these people now vote UKIP. They live in crummy areas and those concerns are real and understandable.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to JNN the launch of the ARSE 2015 General Election "JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will determine the nature of the contest.
The 13 seats are a geographically and political spread of various target and marginal seats - 3 seats from the joint London and the South region, 3 from the East including a Ukip target, 2 each from the North and Midlands and 1 seat each from the West country, Wales and Scotland.
From Tuesday 10th June the regular ARSE 2015 national projection will be joined by the "JackW Dozen" and will be called as follows :
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Under 500 votes. LIKELY HOLD/GAIN - 500 - 2500 votes. HOLD/GAIN - Over 2500 votes.
The "JackW Dozen" with the 2010 winner, majority and second placed party are :
Bury North - Con - 2,243 - Lab Pudsey - Con - 1,659 - Lab Broxtowe - Con - 389 - Lab Warwickshire North - Con - 54 - Lab Cambridge - LibDem - 6792 - Con - 3 way marginal. Ipswich - Con - 2,079 - Lab Watford - Con - 1,425 - LibDem - 3 way marginal. Croydon Central - Con - 2,879 - Lab Enfield North - Con - 1,692 - Lab Cornwall North - LibDem - 2,981- Con Vale of Glamorgan - Con - 4,276 - Lab Ochil & South Perthshire - Lab - 5,187 - SNP Great Yarmouth - Con - 4,276 - Lab - Ukip target
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
Thanks Jack, a good range of interesting seats - although I'm surprised that Watford made the cut - had thought you would avoid given previous experience... ;-)
Also,a fifteen point lead in a by election is not consistent with a nine point deficit and only six ahead of UKIP in a GE intention poll. Guess we are somewhere around the 35/30/17/9 mark right now.
As long as you are not suggesting Dave and George parading about in togas. I would like my breakfast to maintain it's usual course, rather than make a sudden and violent "U" turn.
You can never our-UKIP UKIP. And more to the point it, seeking to do so could get you into trouble with the majority of the electorate which has a negative view of the party:
It's worth repeating Kellner's point that UKIP "won" the Euro-election with 9% of the electorate. Treating low turnout elections the same as General Elections is surely unwise, however tempting to party activists of all colours.
And that probably is the most fearful part of the electorate - if only because survival in the 21st century demands an education (and indeed a level of self-esteem) they haven't got.
Its great the way that people have suddenly decided to include non voters in the percentages, to try and devalue UKIPs success in the Euros... how utterly desperate
So David Cameron is PM despite only 23% of the UK voting for him? Illegitimate!
Mr. 1000, not sure that you can attribute as a prime factor the immigration change a century ago. Surely the rise of America and forthcoming global wars were more important?
Rome's decline accelerated when it stopped fighting barbarians and started allowing them to settle.
The 250 years of global British dominance from 1650 to 1900 coincided with the most open immigration policy this country has ever known. I am not really claiming that was a dominant factor in British growth in that period, merely pointing out to MikeK that the Britain of 100 years ago (which he harks back to) was one where any Romanian or Bulgarian could move to the UK without any issue whatsoever. Personally, I quite like the Adam Smith policy, where anyone can come and work and live in the UK, but it'll cost them £50,000. This would mean there'd be no need for any bureaucracy (I hate the idea of the government deciding who should live here), and would eliminate @isam's concerns about the effects of low skilled immigration.
(At an intellectual level I hate the idea that, if you worked hard at school, then you should face international competition. But if you were lazy and didn't bother getting sensible skills, then you should be protected from the consequences of your actions. But I hate government interference much more.)
More seriously, if you are going to talk about the 'misrule' of the last 100 years, I think you have to look at countries with similar GDP's per capita in 1914, and ask "who's done better, and what policies have they had that we could learn from?"
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to JNN the launch of the ARSE 2015 General Election "JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will determine the nature of the contest.
The 13 seats are a geographically and political spread of various target and marginal seats - 3 seats from the joint London and the South region, 3 from the East including a Ukip target, 2 each from the North and Midlands and 1 seat each from the West country, Wales and Scotland.
From Tuesday 10th June the regular ARSE 2015 national projection will be joined by the "JackW Dozen" and will be called as follows :
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Under 500 votes. LIKELY HOLD/GAIN - 500 - 2500 votes. HOLD/GAIN - Over 2500 votes.
The "JackW Dozen" with the 2010 winner, majority and second placed party are :
Bury North - Con - 2,243 - Lab Pudsey - Con - 1,659 - Lab Broxtowe - Con - 389 - Lab Warwickshire North - Con - 54 - Lab Cambridge - LibDem - 6792 - Con - 3 way marginal. Ipswich - Con - 2,079 - Lab Watford - Con - 1,425 - LibDem - 3 way marginal. Croydon Central - Con - 2,879 - Lab Enfield North - Con - 1,692 - Lab Cornwall North - LibDem - 2,981- Con Vale of Glamorgan - Con - 4,276 - Lab Ochil & South Perthshire - Lab - 5,187 - SNP Great Yarmouth - Con - 4,276 - Lab - Ukip target
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
Thanks Jack, a good range of interesting seats - although I'm surprised that Watford made the cut - had thought you would avoid given previous experience... ;-)
Thank you.
As for Watford - I'm going for the gamblers ultimate and usually losing gambit of double or quits !!
Today's YouGov (Lab +6) reminds us of what a fearful world UKIP voters live in:
VI: UKIP (Con)
Not have enough money to live comfortably: 61 (41) Be victim of burglary, robbery or mugging: 49 (24) Suffer directly from public service spending cuts: 71 (38) Lose out to foreign factories/workers: 68 (37) Lose job: 61 (40) Lose home: 50 (21) Suffer discrimination from local councils/employers: 50 (19) Suffer ill-health: 58 (38)
I dont know whether you are tryng to put down UKIP supporters or empathising with them? I hope it is the latter.
A lot of working class peoples lives have become much worse thanks to mass immigration. A lot of these people now vote UKIP. They live in crummy areas and those concerns are real and understandable.
I am merely observing that their world view is very different from that of other voters'. It is no more nor less valid for that. This makes them difficult to 'reach' for politicians of the major parties - and possibly counter productive for them to attempt to.
My apologies, Mr. Carnyx. The total absence of any devolution in England makes it perhaps more difficult to correctly assess the varying degrees currently in operation in Scotland and likely to occur in the immediate future.
That's a very good point, not least because it ultimately also depends on political support, or at least the lack of opposition, in the numerically dominant English media and electorate. In that context, the threat of UKIP has to have an impact on one's judgement of the credibility of any devo-plus offers (all of whch are predicated on their respective party winning in the 2015 UKGE).
I don't think the impact of UKIP has completely worked out in the indyref debate yet. For instance, this week, it looks as if we may be seeing the Unionist parties in Scotland adopt UKIP like arguments in the indy debate (on immigration, etc.). Early days yet but how that will go down with the key target demographics (e.g. left wing Labour voters disenchanted with London Labour and Mr M) is a very good question.
Mr. Smarmeron, no. We need now what Rome needed then: a strong and stable political structure (which it notably enjoyed at the height of its glory in the Second Punic War) and the willingness and ability to get rid of barbarians that are here and bar those we do not want from entry.
Allowing murderers to remain because they have a pet cactus* is deranged. The right of Britons to be safe from foreign murderers must trump the right of foreign murderers to a family life, or even security from persecution in their own country.
*Yes, yes, I exaggerate for comedic purposes
I think this is a complex area, and not helped by ludicrous reportage. The numbers are tiny. Right to a family life is awkward because to an extent what you are trying to secure is the imported right for the other members of the family who have not been criminal. Do we have the right and is it fair to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty? On the security from persecution the situation is far clearer, we should not put people in harms way regardless of how despicable their behaviour. If someone has fled from a situation where they face torture or death then nothing they do should involve us attempting to send them back.
(At an intellectual level I hate the idea that, if you worked hard at school, then you should face international competition. But if you were lazy and didn't bother getting sensible skills, then you should be protected from the consequences of your actions. But I hate government interference much more.)
I think your binary division into "hard working" and "lazy" is somewhat simplistic. The major differences between peoples academic success are down to innate ability modulated by environmental factors. Some of us will never reach great heights regardless of how hard we work. So what are we going to do with the 50% of us who will be below average intellectually (roughly speaking)? Are we not going to protect the weaker members of our community?
Today's YouGov (Lab +6) reminds us of what a fearful world UKIP voters live in:
VI: UKIP (Con)
Not have enough money to live comfortably: 61 (41) Be victim of burglary, robbery or mugging: 49 (24) Suffer directly from public service spending cuts: 71 (38) Lose out to foreign factories/workers: 68 (37) Lose job: 61 (40) Lose home: 50 (21) Suffer discrimination from local councils/employers: 50 (19) Suffer ill-health: 58 (38)
I dont know whether you are tryng to put down UKIP supporters or empathising with them? I hope it is the latter.
A lot of working class peoples lives have become much worse thanks to mass immigration. A lot of these people now vote UKIP. They live in crummy areas and those concerns are real and understandable.
I am merely observing that their world view is very different from that of other voters'. It is no more nor less valid for that. This makes them difficult to 'reach' for politicians of the major parties - and possibly counter productive for them to attempt to.
Fair enough
A lot of people like to put down UKIP supporters using words like "frightened" or "fearful" thinking they are being morally superior, because they do so from a place where the likelyhood of going skint/becoming unemployed etc is close to nil... Many UKIP voters are genuinely anxious about their families economic future, and govenment policy on immigration is the reason for that
(At an intellectual level I hate the idea that, if you worked hard at school, then you should face international competition. But if you were lazy and didn't bother getting sensible skills, then you should be protected from the consequences of your actions. But I hate government interference much more.)
I think your binary division into "hard working" and "lazy" is somewhat simplistic. The major differences between peoples academic success are down to innate ability modulated by environmental factors. Some of us will never reach great heights regardless of how hard we work. So what are we going to do with the 50% of us who will be below average intellectually (roughly speaking)? Are we not going to protect the weaker members of our community?
I believe it is within the ability of everybody to improve their skills.
Reducing the incentives to do so is morally questionable, to say the least.
My apologies, Mr. Carnyx. The total absence of any devolution in England makes it perhaps more difficult to correctly assess the varying degrees currently in operation in Scotland and likely to occur in the immediate future.
I don't think the impact of UKIP has completely worked out in the indyref debate yet. For instance, this week, it looks as if we may be seeing the Unionist parties in Scotland adopt UKIP like arguments in the indy debate (on immigration, etc.).
Could that be because Scots (well, Con & SNP in particular) agree with them?
Seven out of ten Scots 'back Ukip policy on immigration' The survey shows nearly seven out of 10 Scots back stricter immigration controls, a key pledge in Ukip's manifesto for tomorrow's European elections.
Just over half want international aid budgets to be cut, while six out of 10 people say benefits should only be available to those who have lived in the UK for at least five years.
The findings show Conservative voters are the most likely to endorse Ukip's manifesto promises.
But there is also significant backing from SNP voters, despite Alex Salmond's European election campaign pitch that tomorrow's poll offers a chance to reject Ukip's "nasty politics". Labour and LibDem voters are less likely to favour Ukip policies, the poll found.
Mr. Jim, are you really saying a serial rapist/killer should be allowed to stay here?
If people commit crimes of that magnitude they forfeit their right to safe harbour.
If they cannot be removed without serious harm or death coming to them then yes. I'm less wedded to the family life example you cited but offered debating points. Nobody deserves to have their life removed from them, and we should not be removing people to places where that is a possibility. We have to uphold standards of behaviour.
My apologies, Mr. Carnyx. The total absence of any devolution in England makes it perhaps more difficult to correctly assess the varying degrees currently in operation in Scotland and likely to occur in the immediate future.
I don't think the impact of UKIP has completely worked out in the indyref debate yet. For instance, this week, it looks as if we may be seeing the Unionist parties in Scotland adopt UKIP like arguments in the indy debate (on immigration, etc.).
Could that be because Scots (well, Con & SNP in particular) agree with them?
Seven out of ten Scots 'back Ukip policy on immigration' The survey shows nearly seven out of 10 Scots back stricter immigration controls, a key pledge in Ukip's manifesto for tomorrow's European elections.
Just over half want international aid budgets to be cut, while six out of 10 people say benefits should only be available to those who have lived in the UK for at least five years.
The findings show Conservative voters are the most likely to endorse Ukip's manifesto promises.
But there is also significant backing from SNP voters, despite Alex Salmond's European election campaign pitch that tomorrow's poll offers a chance to reject Ukip's "nasty politics". Labour and LibDem voters are less likely to favour Ukip policies, the poll found.
All the Euros showed was that UKIP gained about 3 percentage points from non-rightist/antiEU parties compared to the last Euro election, squeaking a MEP, and the SNP vote was pretty much constant, so the implications are rtetty clear ...
I was not particularly convinced by that Herald article either - it was by Magnus Gardham who has, let's say, an interesting style of logic and argument when it comes to indyref. To say that voters want stricter immigration controls is not the same as supporting UKIP. And there are other factors than immigration in the UKIP issue - not least the wish to abolish the Scottish Parliament, which would be hugely unpopular. [Technically, IIRC, Mr Farage wanted to replace it with what was effectively a Grand Committee of Scottish MPs, but that is not the same thing at all.]
My apologies, Mr. Carnyx. The total absence of any devolution in England makes it perhaps more difficult to correctly assess the varying degrees currently in operation in Scotland and likely to occur in the immediate future.
I don't think the impact of UKIP has completely worked out in the indyref debate yet. For instance, this week, it looks as if we may be seeing the Unionist parties in Scotland adopt UKIP like arguments in the indy debate (on immigration, etc.).
Could that be because Scots (well, Con & SNP in particular) agree with them?
Seven out of ten Scots 'back Ukip policy on immigration' The survey shows nearly seven out of 10 Scots back stricter immigration controls, a key pledge in Ukip's manifesto for tomorrow's European elections.
Just over half want international aid budgets to be cut, while six out of 10 people say benefits should only be available to those who have lived in the UK for at least five years.
The findings show Conservative voters are the most likely to endorse Ukip's manifesto promises.
But there is also significant backing from SNP voters, despite Alex Salmond's European election campaign pitch that tomorrow's poll offers a chance to reject Ukip's "nasty politics". Labour and LibDem voters are less likely to favour Ukip policies, the poll found.
"Overall, 68.4 per cent of those surveyed backed Ukip's headline pledge to impose stricter immigration controls.
Among Conservatives, the figure rose to 84.4 per cent. The policy was also backed by 68.8 per cent of SNP voters, 67.5 per cent of Labour voters and 60.2 per cent of LibDems."
I know we've been through all this zillions of times, but I can't help being totally gobsmacked every time by the sheer inanity of the SNP's extraordinary bluster on the most basic points of fact. From the Telegraph report on the Business for New Europe paper:
A spokesman for Mr Salmond said: "Scotland is already part of the EU, and we therefore already meet all the requirements for membership. There is no treaty provision for Scotland's expulsion, as this report implies"
I'm not sure which is more worrying: the possibility that they really believe this palpable nonsense, or the alternative explanation that they don't.
My apologies, Mr. Carnyx. The total absence of any devolution in England makes it perhaps more difficult to correctly assess the varying degrees currently in operation in Scotland and likely to occur in the immediate future.
I don't think the impact of UKIP has completely worked out in the indyref debate yet. For instance, this week, it looks as if we may be seeing the Unionist parties in Scotland adopt UKIP like arguments in the indy debate (on immigration, etc.).
Could that be because Scots (well, Con & SNP in particular) agree with them?
Seven out of ten Scots 'back Ukip policy on immigration' The survey shows nearly seven out of 10 Scots back stricter immigration controls, a key pledge in Ukip's manifesto for tomorrow's European elections.
Just over half want international aid budgets to be cut, while six out of 10 people say benefits should only be available to those who have lived in the UK for at least five years.
The findings show Conservative voters are the most likely to endorse Ukip's manifesto promises.
But there is also significant backing from SNP voters, despite Alex Salmond's European election campaign pitch that tomorrow's poll offers a chance to reject Ukip's "nasty politics". Labour and LibDem voters are less likely to favour Ukip policies, the poll found.
"Overall, 68.4 per cent of those surveyed backed Ukip's headline pledge to impose stricter immigration controls.
Among Conservatives, the figure rose to 84.4 per cent. The policy was also backed by 68.8 per cent of SNP voters, 67.5 per cent of Labour voters and 60.2 per cent of LibDems."
"I think you have to look at countries with similar GDP's per capita in 1914, and ask "who's done better, and what policies have they had that we could learn from?""
Germany, education.
The German education system was recognised as superior, especially in turning out skilled workers, as long ago as the 1870s when a parliamentary commission recommended the UK adopt it. Our own educational establishment blocked any such move. The 1944 Act was another go at actually producing an education system fit for an industrial society, the third leg (technical schools) was never properly implemented because our education establishment didn't hold with it.
What really hacks me off is that if you read the conclusions of that !874 commission they are as valid and relevant today as they were then. And we still have an education establishment that will not even consider any reform that will benefit the majority of pupils and the Nation, preferring instead to fret about academic standards that are really only relevant to about 10% of school children.
My apologies, Mr. Carnyx. The total absence of any devolution in England makes it perhaps more difficult to correctly assess the varying degrees currently in operation in Scotland and likely to occur in the immediate future.
I don't think the impact of UKIP has completely worked out in the indyref debate yet. For instance, this week, it looks as if we may be seeing the Unionist parties in Scotland adopt UKIP like arguments in the indy debate (on immigration, etc.).
Could that be because Scots (well, Con & SNP in particular) agree with them?
Seven out of ten Scots 'back Ukip policy on immigration' The survey shows nearly seven out of 10 Scots back stricter immigration controls, a key pledge in Ukip's manifesto for tomorrow's European elections.
Just over half want international aid budgets to be cut, while six out of 10 people say benefits should only be available to those who have lived in the UK for at least five years.
The findings show Conservative voters are the most likely to endorse Ukip's manifesto promises.
But there is also significant backing from SNP voters, despite Alex Salmond's European election campaign pitch that tomorrow's poll offers a chance to reject Ukip's "nasty politics". Labour and LibDem voters are less likely to favour Ukip policies, the poll found.
"Overall, 68.4 per cent of those surveyed backed Ukip's headline pledge to impose stricter immigration controls.
Among Conservatives, the figure rose to 84.4 per cent. The policy was also backed by 68.8 per cent of SNP voters, 67.5 per cent of Labour voters and 60.2 per cent of LibDems."
Salmond's losing touch with the Scots.
The Nat's have a lot in common with the Kippers though - a vote for Independence will take Scotland out of Europe, which is what the latter want.
I wonder if the electorate would agree to rejoining in the unlikely event of any 'Yes' vote? Could be very interesting.
My apologies, Mr. Carnyx. The total absence of any devolution in England makes it perhaps more difficult to correctly assess the varying degrees currently in operation in Scotland and likely to occur in the immediate future.
I don't think the impact of UKIP has completely worked out in the indyref debate yet. For instance, this week, it looks as if we may be seeing the Unionist parties in Scotland adopt UKIP like arguments in the indy debate (on immigration, etc.).
Could that be because Scots (well, Con & SNP in particular) agree with them?
Seven out of ten Scots 'back Ukip policy on immigration' The survey shows nearly seven out of 10 Scots back stricter immigration controls, a key pledge in Ukip's manifesto for tomorrow's European elections.
Just over half want international aid budgets to be cut, while six out of 10 people say benefits should only be available to those who have lived in the UK for at least five years.
The findings show Conservative voters are the most likely to endorse Ukip's manifesto promises.
But there is also significant backing from SNP voters, despite Alex Salmond's European election campaign pitch that tomorrow's poll offers a chance to reject Ukip's "nasty politics". Labour and LibDem voters are less likely to favour Ukip policies, the poll found.
I was not particularly convinced by that Herald article either - it was by Magnus Gardham who has, let's say, an interesting style of logic and argument when it comes to indyref.
That wouldn't count as 'playing the man, not the ball' would it?
Surely the point of the poll, was that the majority of Scots' views on immigration are much closer to UKIP's than Salmond's - and for Salmond to go around denouncing those views as 'engendering fear' may be unwise?
As it happens, I am with Salmond on the immigration question - but I am not an elected politician, let alone the FM of a country whose voters are not.
I know we've been through all this zillions of times, but I can't help being totally gobsmacked every time by the sheer inanity of the SNP's extraordinary bluster on the most basic points of fact. From the Telegraph report on the Business for New Europe paper:
A spokesman for Mr Salmond said: "Scotland is already part of the EU, and we therefore already meet all the requirements for membership. There is no treaty provision for Scotland's expulsion, as this report implies"
I'm not sure which is more worrying: the possibility that they really believe this palpable nonsense, or the alternative explanation that they don't.
How can Scotland meet the requirements for membership when it does not even exist as an independent country? And it is not expulsion when an area chooses to leave a member state, it is a voluntary departure.
The willingness of Yes supporters to say anything that they think will resonate has been a real weakness of Salmond's long march to this vote. Absolute nonsense such as the White Paper and their latest economic fantasy has been picked away at at leisure, something that could not have happened in a short campaign.
Interesting, but not necessary of course, as Britain is not very corrupt. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27670756 Will this "crackdown" apply to the banking sector as well? Or will it be allowed to continue with "corporate liability"?
How can Scotland meet the requirements for membership when it does not even exist as an independent country? And it is not expulsion when an area chooses to leave a member state, it is a voluntary departure.
Quite, it is absolutely basic stuff. And what makes it even more remarkable is there is absolutely no need to spout such nonsense. Why not just say "As part of the UK, Scotland already meets all the criteria for membership, and we are confident that the terms of our application for membership as an independent country could be negotiated smoothly"?
I know we've been through all this zillions of times, but I can't help being totally gobsmacked every time by the sheer inanity of the SNP's extraordinary bluster on the most basic points of fact. From the Telegraph report on the Business for New Europe paper:
A spokesman for Mr Salmond said: "Scotland is already part of the EU, and we therefore already meet all the requirements for membership. There is no treaty provision for Scotland's expulsion, as this report implies"
I'm not sure which is more worrying: the possibility that they really believe this palpable nonsense, or the alternative explanation that they don't.
How can Scotland meet the requirements for membership when it does not even exist as an independent country? And it is not expulsion when an area chooses to leave a member state, it is a voluntary departure.
The willingness of Yes supporters to say anything that they think will resonate has been a real weakness of Salmond's long march to this vote. Absolute nonsense such as the White Paper and their latest economic fantasy has been picked away at at leisure, something that could not have happened in a short campaign.
While the legal case for Article 49 accession is pretty clear, the Nat's response is 'its politics' - here are the political issues:
The country most likely to object to an enlargement under Article 48 is clearly Spain – due to the impact it might have upon separatist sentiment in Catalonia - but it is by no means the only Member State likely to take such a view. Both Italy (where the Venetian independence movement and Northern League are the main, but not the only challenges to Italian territorial unity) and France (where Breton and Corsican separatism is a growing phenomenon) can be expected to oppose an Article 48 enlargement. In addition, the Upper Silesian autonomy movement in Poland, and the existence of Hungarians in Slovakia and Romania, further increase the list of countries that may perceive a strong national interest to insist upon Article 49.
How can Scotland meet the requirements for membership when it does not even exist as an independent country? And it is not expulsion when an area chooses to leave a member state, it is a voluntary departure.
Why not just say "As part of the UK, Scotland already meets all the criteria for membership, and we are confident that the terms of our application for membership as an independent country could be negotiated smoothly"?
Because that concede's 'application' which blows one of their fairy stories negotiation strategies - continuity of effect (i.e. nothing changes) out of the water - which leads to no rebate, no zero-rated VAT and so forth....
If I didn't know the SNP hadn't been founded 80 years ago I might begin to wonder whether they'd thought this whole 'independence' thing through.....
On topic: Isn't it remarkable how the Gay Marriage issue - which was causing very considerable trouble for Cameron a year ago - has gone away?
I'd say the 13% who named that are proportionately far more likely to be lost to the Conservatives than the 74% who named immigration. Numerical order is not always the most important order.
My apologies, Mr. Carnyx. The total absence of any devolution in England makes it perhaps more difficult to correctly assess the varying degrees currently in operation in Scotland and likely to occur in the immediate future.
I don't think the impact of UKIP has completely worked out in the indyref debate yet. For instance, this week, it looks as if we may be seeing the Unionist parties in Scotland adopt UKIP like arguments in the indy debate (on immigration, etc.).
Could that be because Scots (well, Con & SNP in particular) agree with them?
Seven out of ten Scots 'back Ukip policy on immigration' The survey shows nearly seven out of 10 Scots back stricter immigration controls, a key pledge in Ukip's manifesto for tomorrow's European elections.
Just over half want international aid budgets to be cut, while six out of 10 people say benefits should only be available to those who have lived in the UK for at least five years.
The findings show Conservative voters are the most likely to endorse Ukip's manifesto promises.
But there is also significant backing from SNP voters, despite Alex Salmond's European election campaign pitch that tomorrow's poll offers a chance to reject Ukip's "nasty politics". Labour and LibDem voters are less likely to favour Ukip policies, the poll found.
I was not particularly convinced by that Herald article either - it was by Magnus Gardham who has, let's say, an interesting style of logic and argument when it comes to indyref.
That wouldn't count as 'playing the man, not the ball' would it?
Surely the point of the poll, was that the majority of Scots' views on immigration are much closer to UKIP's than Salmond's - and for Salmond to go around denouncing those views as 'engendering fear' may be unwise?
As it happens, I am with Salmond on the immigration question - but I am not an elected politician, let alone the FM of a country whose voters are not.
Not the man so much as what he does with the ball. Mr Gardham's front page article on immigration in the Herald a couple of days ago was remarkable in the way it was written to give an impression that Mr Salmond wanted 24K more immigrants a year, especially in its headline and first few paras, while keeping the information that recent immigration is already at nearly this level (albeit with a drop in the last year or two, I add) to very late in the article. One has one's suspicions about such an odd article structure.
Mr. Smarmeron, no. We need now what Rome needed then: a strong and stable political structure (which it notably enjoyed at the height of its glory in the Second Punic War) and the willingness and ability to get rid of barbarians that are here and bar those we do not want from entry.
Allowing murderers to remain because they have a pet cactus* is deranged. The right of Britons to be safe from foreign murderers must trump the right of foreign murderers to a family life, or even security from persecution in their own country.
*Yes, yes, I exaggerate for comedic purposes
I think this is a complex area, and not helped by ludicrous reportage. The numbers are tiny. Right to a family life is awkward because to an extent what you are trying to secure is the imported right for the other members of the family who have not been criminal. Do we have the right and is it fair to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty? On the security from persecution the situation is far clearer, we should not put people in harms way regardless of how despicable their behaviour. If someone has fled from a situation where they face torture or death then nothing they do should involve us attempting to send them back.
When we imprison criminals, we are possibly harming other members of their families, by depriving them of their parent/principal breadwinner. But, that is no reason not to punish criminals.
Likewise, if one has committed an offence so serious as to merit deportation, then that should be the penalty that is invariably applied. If foreign nationals have committed serious offences in this country, then I believe they have forfeited all right to the protection of the British State. They must take their chance of persecution in their country of origin.
I know we've been through all this zillions of times, but I can't help being totally gobsmacked every time by the sheer inanity of the SNP's extraordinary bluster on the most basic points of fact. From the Telegraph report on the Business for New Europe paper:
A spokesman for Mr Salmond said: "Scotland is already part of the EU, and we therefore already meet all the requirements for membership. There is no treaty provision for Scotland's expulsion, as this report implies"
I'm not sure which is more worrying: the possibility that they really believe this palpable nonsense, or the alternative explanation that they don't.
It's typical SNP infantile solipsism. They genuinely believe Salmond's self-centred fairy tales.
100 years of misgovernment by the Lab/Lib/Con. 75 years of mismanaging Britain's decline by the Lab/Lib/Con. 40 years of surrender to the EU by the Lab/Lib/Con.
New Thread please!
As an aside, I agree. It was exactly 100 years ago, at the height of Britain's position in the world, that the decision to restrict entry to this country was taken.
That point, the point at which we started turning people away, marked the beginning of the end for Britain's glory.
I'm glad UKIP is planning on turning that around and ending the absurd restrictions on people from outside the EU coming to this country.
That was a feature of the UK becoming a democracy. The newly-enfranchised working classes demanded immigration controls.
On topic: Isn't it remarkable how the Gay Marriage issue - which was causing very considerable trouble for Cameron a year ago - has gone away?
I'd say the 13% who named that are proportionately far more likely to be lost to the Conservatives than the 74% who named immigration. Numerical order is not always the most important order.
That's true, but I think in the local elections a year ago the gay marriage issue was a significant one. Now it really does seem to have faded.
Incidentally one of our Conservative local councillors told me last year that he had had a phone call before the election from a long-time supporter who wanted to tell him that he was going to vote for another candidate because of the gay marriage issue. The councillor said he was sorry to hear that, and asked which party the chap was switching to. The answer was the Greens!
On topic: Isn't it remarkable how the Gay Marriage issue - which was causing very considerable trouble for Cameron a year ago - has gone away?
I'd say the 13% who named that are proportionately far more likely to be lost to the Conservatives than the 74% who named immigration. Numerical order is not always the most important order.
That's true, but I think in the local elections a year ago the gay marriage issue was a significant one. Now it really does seem to have faded.
Incidentally one of our Conservative local councillors told me last year that he had had a phone call before the election from a long-time supporter who wanted to tell him that he was going to vote for another candidate because of the gay marriage issue. The councillor said he was sorry to hear that, and asked which party the chap was switching to. The answer was the Greens!
That's like people who supported Enoch Powell in the Seventies, saying that they'd vote Liberal.
How can Scotland meet the requirements for membership when it does not even exist as an independent country? And it is not expulsion when an area chooses to leave a member state, it is a voluntary departure.
Quite, it is absolutely basic stuff. And what makes it even more remarkable is there is absolutely no need to spout such nonsense. Why not just say "As part of the UK, Scotland already meets all the criteria for membership, and we are confident that the terms of our application for membership as an independent country could be negotiated smoothly"?
I think that goes back to my earlier post today about the slightly wayward professor. The latest fantasy is that somehow Scotland is going to enjoy a surge in productivity and growth once we have independence which will somehow make the books balance and allow us to build a socialist nirvanna.
This is complete nonsense for the reasons I set out earlier but is demonstrably so if there is any disruption in our terms of trade. So the companies who yesterday estimated that it might take 3 years for Scotland to regain membership of the EU must be wrong. They just must. Independence is a cost free option with no downsides. Obvious isn't it?
You can never our-UKIP UKIP. And more to the point it, seeking to do so could get you into trouble with the majority of the electorate which has a negative view of the party:
It's worth repeating Kellner's point that UKIP "won" the Euro-election with 9% of the electorate. Treating low turnout elections the same as General Elections is surely unwise, however tempting to party activists of all colours.
That's just silly. UKIP won more votes than Labour, Conservatives, and LDs. People who chose not to vote did not have a say.
Indeed. Support from 20% of the electorate might be sufficient for a party to win the next general election.
I'm not sure which is more worrying: the possibility that they really believe this palpable nonsense, or the alternative explanation that they don't.
Of course they don't. It's a referendum campaign. Since the voters won't get a do-over for decades if at all, there's basically zero downside to lying, so everybody lies, all the time.
The 250 years of global British dominance from 1650 to 1900 coincided with the most open immigration policy this country has ever known. I am not really claiming that was a dominant factor in British growth in that period, merely pointing out to MikeK that the Britain of 100 years ago (which he harks back to) was one where any Romanian or Bulgarian could move to the UK without any issue whatsoever.
And how many people actually moved here each year during this time? How does that compare with how many moved here each year in the last 15 years? You're like one of those Reagan purists who can't accept that the appropriate policy for one period isn't the appropriate policy for another. The world changes. Policy needs to change with it.
At an intellectual level I hate the idea that, if you worked hard at school, then you should face international competition. But if you were lazy and didn't bother getting sensible skills, then you should be protected from the consequences of your actions. But I hate government interference much more.
You are just showing how incredibly insulated you are with this comment. If you really think that people that did badly in school do not face consequences from that, even in a low immigration scenario, then you have no fucking clue about how tough life is for people working in minimum wage jobs. Plus, the assumption that people on minimum wage jobs were just lazy at school is just the sort of out-of-touch arrogance that make people hate the establishment. I have a cousin with special needs who struggles by in part-time retail work, unable to get her hours extended, despite being the hardest worker I know. Other people have autism, OCD, or even just low academic aptitude. The latest research, for anybody that bothers to learn about these things before making sweeping moral judgments on the plebs, is that the 3-6 period is likely the most critical one for lifetime academic attainment. Those damn feckless five year olds, hey? And there are also a lot of people that go into fields because they want to help other people, like nursing or social work, rather than an entirely self-interested fields like finance.
No-one is arguing for hard work and good decisions not to be rewarded here. We're just arguing about the size of that reward. I'm very comfortable with people that have done well for themselves earning a lot of money, and that people that made bad decisions to not do as well as that. But I just want to look out for those that didn't do so well to have a basic standard of life that isn't a constant struggle, in substandard housing in a grim estate, on an income that's barely enough to scrape by. I think it's a huge shame our sense of national community has broken down so much that the people at the top don't worry about this.
Clegg and Cable on Sky News in a Central London boozer
Clegg: "Just popping into the pub"
Clegg sipping a pint, just a normal bloke
What before noon? Drinking at lunchtime is already regarded as a sign of rampant alcoholism these days, let alone drinking in the morning. Cue rant about what sort of example are they setting and much, much more.
I know we've been through all this zillions of times, but I can't help being totally gobsmacked every time by the sheer inanity of the SNP's extraordinary bluster on the most basic points of fact. From the Telegraph report on the Business for New Europe paper:
A spokesman for Mr Salmond said: "Scotland is already part of the EU, and we therefore already meet all the requirements for membership. There is no treaty provision for Scotland's expulsion, as this report implies"
I'm not sure which is more worrying: the possibility that they really believe this palpable nonsense, or the alternative explanation that they don't.
How can Scotland meet the requirements for membership when it does not even exist as an independent country? And it is not expulsion when an area chooses to leave a member state, it is a voluntary departure.
The willingness of Yes supporters to say anything that they think will resonate has been a real weakness of Salmond's long march to this vote. Absolute nonsense such as the White Paper and their latest economic fantasy has been picked away at at leisure, something that could not have happened in a short campaign.
While the legal case for Article 49 accession is pretty clear, the Nat's response is 'its politics' - here are the political issues:
The country most likely to object to an enlargement under Article 48 is clearly Spain – due to the impact it might have upon separatist sentiment in Catalonia - but it is by no means the only Member State likely to take such a view. Both Italy (where the Venetian independence movement and Northern League are the main, but not the only challenges to Italian territorial unity) and France (where Breton and Corsican separatism is a growing phenomenon) can be expected to oppose an Article 48 enlargement. In addition, the Upper Silesian autonomy movement in Poland, and the existence of Hungarians in Slovakia and Romania, further increase the list of countries that may perceive a strong national interest to insist upon Article 49.
Personally, I quite like the Adam Smith policy, where anyone can come and work and live in the UK, but it'll cost them £50,000. This would mean there'd be no need for any bureaucracy (I hate the idea of the government deciding who should live here), and would eliminate @isam's concerns about the effects of low skilled immigration.
I'm not sure that it would. If you're moving to a country where a house typically costs a quarter of a million pounds, quite a few people would take out a £50,000 visa mortgage even if they intended to start out with a fairly shitty job.
Personally, I quite like the Adam Smith policy, where anyone can come and work and live in the UK, but it'll cost them £50,000. This would mean there'd be no need for any bureaucracy (I hate the idea of the government deciding who should live here), and would eliminate @isam's concerns about the effects of low skilled immigration.
I'm not sure that it would. If you're moving to a country where a house typically costs a quarter of a million pounds, quite a few people would take out a £50,000 visa mortgage even if they intended to start out with a fairly shitty job.
A counterpoint to the question of secession movements is the example of how East Germany came within the EU's remit. Simply merging with West Germany was sufficient. It seems to show that the formal legal entity is the primary legal consideration rather than whether the geographical territory covered is already under the auspices of the EU.
There is, of course, the entirely separate political debate where I would have thought in practice the Scots are on much stronger ground. They are fortunate that neither Italy nor Spain really like playing the bad cops in the EU.
Incidentally, the German example is not necessarily of academic interest only. Moldova has flirted with merging with Romania in the recent past. It may do so again in the near future, depending on what happens with Transnistria and Gagauzia.
A counterpoint to the question of secession movements is the example of how East Germany came within the EU's remit. Simply merging with West Germany was sufficient. It seems to show that the formal legal entity is the primary legal consideration rather than whether the geographical territory covered is already under the auspices of the EU.
There is, of course, the entirely separate political debate where I would have thought in practice the Scots are on much stronger ground. They are fortunate that neither Italy nor Spain really like playing the bad cops in the EU.
Incidentally, the German example is not necessarily of academic interest only. Moldova has flirted with merging with Romania in the recent past. It may do so again in the near future, depending on what happens with Transnistria and Gagauzia.
This poll leaves me with the impression, that any party that tries to “OutUKIP” UKIP will fail in winning back those who voted UKIP in the European elections because I don’t think any party will be able to offer policies that will satisfy these voters.
Clegg dives into pub...
Now which other politician in recent times has done that ?
A counterpoint to the question of secession movements is the example of how East Germany came within the EU's remit. Simply merging with West Germany was sufficient. It seems to show that the formal legal entity is the primary legal consideration rather than whether the geographical territory covered is already under the auspices of the EU.
There is, of course, the entirely separate political debate where I would have thought in practice the Scots are on much stronger ground. They are fortunate that neither Italy nor Spain really like playing the bad cops in the EU.
Incidentally, the German example is not necessarily of academic interest only. Moldova has flirted with merging with Romania in the recent past. It may do so again in the near future, depending on what happens with Transnistria and Gagauzia.
This poll leaves me with the impression, that any party that tries to “OutUKIP” UKIP will fail in winning back those who voted UKIP in the European elections because I don’t think any party will be able to offer policies that will satisfy these voters.
Clegg dives into pub...
Now which other politician in recent times has done that ?
Now, let's think.
Privately educated, privileged upbringing, foreign wife, adores riding on the EU expenses gravy train, fringe party.
Clegg and Cable on Sky News in a Central London boozer
Clegg: "Just popping into the pub"
Clegg sipping a pint, just a normal bloke
What before noon? Drinking at lunchtime is already regarded as a sign of rampant alcoholism these days, let alone drinking in the morning. Cue rant about what sort of example are they setting and much, much more.
It probably would seem more normal if they said they werent drinking at this time of day!
Presumably they'd want a down-payment as well, but allegedly people are often paying 1/10 of that from somewhere just to get smuggled in, which is by no means a sure thing and leaves you without papers or a job lined up even if you make it. I doubt that's always being done without debt. This would be a debt that would be enforceable in court, and you'd probably package it with the initial housing and work placement with the payments automatically deducted from wages, so if you wanted to run out on the debt you'd need another initial capital sum to get started. Designing it with a tolerably low level of defaults wouldn't be trivial, but it doesn't sound impossible.
The other way to handle the trust problem is to use existing family and friend relationships. Again, there's probably a certain amount of this going on already to fund people getting through illegally.
"This poll leaves me with the impression, that any party that tries to “OutUKIP” UKIP will fail in winning back those who voted UKIP in the European elections because I don’t think any party will be able to offer policies that will satisfy these voters."
Presumably they'd want a down-payment as well, but allegedly people are often paying 1/10 of that from somewhere just to get smuggled in, which is by no means a sure thing and leaves you without papers or a job lined up even if you make it. I doubt that's always being done without debt. This would be a debt that would be enforceable in court, and you'd probably package it with the initial housing and work placement with the payments automatically deducted from wages, so if you wanted to run out on the debt you'd need another initial capital sum to get started. Designing it with a tolerably low level of defaults wouldn't be trivial, but it doesn't sound impossible.
The other way to handle the trust problem is to use existing family and friend relationships. Again, there's probably a certain amount of this going on already to fund people getting through illegally.
It would also have the advantage of requiring proof that the loan / cash comes from a legitimate source
David Whitley @mrdavidwhitley 13m Pints in the Lib Dem Pub cost £3, but the landlord promises to give them away for free before actually charging £9. #libdempubs
"This poll leaves me with the impression, that any party that tries to “OutUKIP” UKIP will fail in winning back those who voted UKIP in the European elections because I don’t think any party will be able to offer policies that will satisfy these voters."
"This poll leaves me with the impression, that any party that tries to “OutUKIP” UKIP will fail in winning back those who voted UKIP in the European elections because I don’t think any party will be able to offer policies that will satisfy these voters."
Tens of thousands. They're the prime cause of unemployment and underemployment and not just in this country but throughout the EU.
No the prime cause of unemployment and underemployment is people choosing not to work and making any excuse not to.
If there was no welfare (not that I'm proposing that) you'd suddenly find a lot more people in work.
Nope, that's the media and political class' big lie.
What actually happened - starting 30+ years ago but going exponential in the last 14 - was employers in certain areas buying up cheap houses and importing 12+ illegal workers to do the unskilled work: labourers, shops, restaurants etc. This is one of the things that drove other people out of those areas looking for work elsewhere.
It's the main reason behind the youth unemployment all over Europe as it's mainly the jobs teenagers used to do.
A counterpoint to the question of secession movements is the example of how East Germany came within the EU's remit. Simply merging with West Germany was sufficient. It seems to show that the formal legal entity is the primary legal consideration rather than whether the geographical territory covered is already under the auspices of the EU.
There is, of course, the entirely separate political debate where I would have thought in practice the Scots are on much stronger ground. They are fortunate that neither Italy nor Spain really like playing the bad cops in the EU.
Incidentally, the German example is not necessarily of academic interest only. Moldova has flirted with merging with Romania in the recent past. It may do so again in the near future, depending on what happens with Transnistria and Gagauzia.
employers in certain areas buying up cheap houses and importing 12+ illegal workers to do the unskilled work
Oh, go on. Name one of these employers with sidelines in buy-to-let and illegal people trafficking then. Or are you conspiring with the political and media classes by staying silent?
Comments
Today, John Denham advocates a fair, diverse and multicultural UK - but when did any politician ask the electorate if that was/is their choice - but made assumptions which were often for political purposes.
Today, Tony Blair has said that mass immigration made no difference to the job prospects of unemployed Britons and that politicians hostile to immigration were guilty of pandering to unpleasant prejudice (why not use the word 'racist' as did/do so many of his party). No doubt he is worried about his speaking fees from potential immigrant countries.
Today, yet another immigrant (who knowing caused the death of one of her children and was in prison for 3 years) has used Clause 8 of the ECHR to "have her right to a family life" and to be allowed to stay in the UK under an anonymous identity.
To most voters the EU and ECHR are synonymous and they do not recognise arguments that detail the niceties of their separation. To them such laws and judgements are nonsensical.
Mrs May has made several attempts to deport this woman and will appeal the judgement. Through the recently passed Immigration Act, it should be easier to remove people from the UK and harder for individuals to prolong their stay with spurious appeals, by cutting the number of appeal rights from 17 to four. It should also ensure that judges deal with Article 8 claims in the right way — making clear the right to a family life is not regarded as absolute and unqualified.
He is claiming that a 2% increase in productivity relative to the rest of the UK would reduce Scotland's competitiveness. That is plainly nonsense and I think he has got productivity and growth mixed up.
A good recent example of the effects of an increase in relative productivity is Germany in the EZ. The consequences all around have been disastrous but not for the Germans who accumulated ever larger surpluses as they out competed their EZ partners and sold them more as a result. And by the way that more rapid productivity resulted in lower inflation than their trading partners not higher.
The real problem with the 2% hypothesis on which the SNP figures is based is that it is a complete fantasy and it demonstrates the complete paucity of their case that they now have to invent such dividends to fill the gap created by declining north sea output and tax revenue. Why on earth should an independent Scotland have higher productivity? It will have:
* an even larger public sector filling in the gaps that are not currently filled in non-devolved departments without the efficiencies of scale of a larger unit.
* A vastly reduced domestic market without the straightforward access to the English market that takes over 90% of our exports.
* Currency uncertainty (I agree with the professor about that).
*Investment uncertainty (which will of course reduce productivity growth).
* the uncertainty relating to a new tax structure in a government that is promising the unaffordable.
* EU uncertainty.
I could go on but the idea that an independent Scotland is going to immediately benefit from a productivity bonus is just absurd and the idea that we should base our budgeting on such a scenario is only for the seriously delusional and dishonest. The Professor's guns are pointed in the wrong direction.
That point, the point at which we started turning people away, marked the beginning of the end for Britain's glory.
I'm glad UKIP is planning on turning that around and ending the absurd restrictions on people from outside the EU coming to this country.
Rome's decline accelerated when it stopped fighting barbarians and started allowing them to settle.
"Rome's decline accelerated when it stopped fighting barbarians and started allowing them to settle"
Are you advocating constant invasion and war as a way to stem decline Morris?
Anyway, fair play to them if they genuinely manage to go forward with this. Perhaps they might chuck out the House of Lords as well, while they're at the mighty constitutional convention business
My prediction now has Ed in number 10, just short of a majority. Having said that, Ashcrofts 25% is surely suspect! the Tories can't possibly be at Euro election level support for a GE (can they?!)
Mr. Smarmeron, no. We need now what Rome needed then: a strong and stable political structure (which it notably enjoyed at the height of its glory in the Second Punic War) and the willingness and ability to get rid of barbarians that are here and bar those we do not want from entry.
Allowing murderers to remain because they have a pet cactus* is deranged. The right of Britons to be safe from foreign murderers must trump the right of foreign murderers to a family life, or even security from persecution in their own country.
*Yes, yes, I exaggerate for comedic purposes
Mr Salmond did not want devo plus as an option - the SNP are for indpendence, after all - but said that so many people wanted it that the decent thing to do was to offer it as an option.
So it is interesting, to put it mildly, that all the unionist parties have made a major U-turn (not least Ms Davidson personally, with her rhetoric about not crossing lines in the sand and all that). Two thoughts on that. Firstly, they might or might not happen, depending on the result of the UKGE. [Edit: Secondly,] Memories of 1979 meld here with the prospect of Mr Farage and Co putting a spanner in the works.
On trying to solve the WLQ, I am reminded of the Irish Question in 1066 and All That and the Irish Question, and Alex Massie's article in the Speccy arguing that ti is best never to ask the WLQ ...
A lot of working class peoples lives have become much worse thanks to mass immigration. A lot of these people now vote UKIP. They live in crummy areas and those concerns are real and understandable.
As long as you are not suggesting Dave and George parading about in togas. I would like my breakfast to maintain it's usual course, rather than make a sudden and violent "U" turn.
So David Cameron is PM despite only 23% of the UK voting for him? Illegitimate!
Methodology:
Take the raw LD + Con + Lab + UKIP figures and sum to 100%.
Mulitply through by 0.92 to reflect 8% Green/Nats/Others at GE time.
Tricky to find the nat/green/BNP etc raw figures in the polls - the only reason I haven't done it:
Anyway:
Ashcroft
~~~~~~~
CON 25.36%
LAB 38.66%
LD 6.18%
UKIP 21.80%
Populus
~~~~~~~
CON 25.31%
LAB 36.93%
LD 8.33%
UKIP 21.43%
Yougov
~~~~~~~
CON 30.74%
LAB 36.09%
LD 6.58%
UKIP 18.59%
Weighted average
~~~~~~~~~~
CON 27.42%
LAB 36.92%
LD 7.27%
UKIP 20.40%
They were proabably more wrong than ComRes
(At an intellectual level I hate the idea that, if you worked hard at school, then you should face international competition. But if you were lazy and didn't bother getting sensible skills, then you should be protected from the consequences of your actions. But I hate government interference much more.)
More seriously, if you are going to talk about the 'misrule' of the last 100 years, I think you have to look at countries with similar GDP's per capita in 1914, and ask "who's done better, and what policies have they had that we could learn from?"
As for Watford - I'm going for the gamblers ultimate and usually losing gambit of double or quits !!
I don't think the impact of UKIP has completely worked out in the indyref debate yet. For instance, this week, it looks as if we may be seeing the Unionist parties in Scotland adopt UKIP like arguments in the indy debate (on immigration, etc.). Early days yet but how that will go down with the key target demographics (e.g. left wing Labour voters disenchanted with London Labour and Mr M) is a very good question.
As it's Ed it'll be ~ 300.
If people commit crimes of that magnitude they forfeit their right to safe harbour.
A lot of people like to put down UKIP supporters using words like "frightened" or "fearful" thinking they are being morally superior, because they do so from a place where the likelyhood of going skint/becoming unemployed etc is close to nil... Many UKIP voters are genuinely anxious about their families economic future, and govenment policy on immigration is the reason for that
Reducing the incentives to do so is morally questionable, to say the least.
Seven out of ten Scots 'back Ukip policy on immigration'
The survey shows nearly seven out of 10 Scots back stricter immigration controls, a key pledge in Ukip's manifesto for tomorrow's European elections.
Just over half want international aid budgets to be cut, while six out of 10 people say benefits should only be available to those who have lived in the UK for at least five years.
The findings show Conservative voters are the most likely to endorse Ukip's manifesto promises.
But there is also significant backing from SNP voters, despite Alex Salmond's European election campaign pitch that tomorrow's poll offers a chance to reject Ukip's "nasty politics". Labour and LibDem voters are less likely to favour Ukip policies, the poll found.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/seven-out-of-ten-scots-back-ukip-policy-on-immigration.24278719
I was not particularly convinced by that Herald article either - it was by Magnus Gardham who has, let's say, an interesting style of logic and argument when it comes to indyref. To say that voters want stricter immigration controls is not the same as supporting UKIP. And there are other factors than immigration in the UKIP issue - not least the wish to abolish the Scottish Parliament, which would be hugely unpopular. [Technically, IIRC, Mr Farage wanted to replace it with what was effectively a Grand Committee of Scottish MPs, but that is not the same thing at all.]
Among Conservatives, the figure rose to 84.4 per cent. The policy was also backed by 68.8 per cent of SNP voters, 67.5 per cent of Labour voters and 60.2 per cent of LibDems."
Salmond's losing touch with the Scots.
A spokesman for Mr Salmond said: "Scotland is already part of the EU, and we therefore already meet all the requirements for membership. There is no treaty provision for Scotland's expulsion, as this report implies"
I'm not sure which is more worrying: the possibility that they really believe this palpable nonsense, or the alternative explanation that they don't.
Germany, education.
The German education system was recognised as superior, especially in turning out skilled workers, as long ago as the 1870s when a parliamentary commission recommended the UK adopt it. Our own educational establishment blocked any such move. The 1944 Act was another go at actually producing an education system fit for an industrial society, the third leg (technical schools) was never properly implemented because our education establishment didn't hold with it.
What really hacks me off is that if you read the conclusions of that !874 commission they are as valid and relevant today as they were then. And we still have an education establishment that will not even consider any reform that will benefit the majority of pupils and the Nation, preferring instead to fret about academic standards that are really only relevant to about 10% of school children.
I wonder if the electorate would agree to rejoining in the unlikely event of any 'Yes' vote? Could be very interesting.
Surely the point of the poll, was that the majority of Scots' views on immigration are much closer to UKIP's than Salmond's - and for Salmond to go around denouncing those views as 'engendering fear' may be unwise?
As it happens, I am with Salmond on the immigration question - but I am not an elected politician, let alone the FM of a country whose voters are not.
The willingness of Yes supporters to say anything that they think will resonate has been a real weakness of Salmond's long march to this vote. Absolute nonsense such as the White Paper and their latest economic fantasy has been picked away at at leisure, something that could not have happened in a short campaign.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27670756
Will this "crackdown" apply to the banking sector as well? Or will it be allowed to continue with "corporate liability"?
The country most likely to object to an enlargement under Article 48 is clearly Spain – due to the impact it might have upon separatist sentiment in Catalonia - but it is by no means the only Member State likely to take such a view.
Both Italy (where the Venetian independence movement and Northern League are the main, but not the only challenges to Italian territorial unity) and France (where Breton and Corsican separatism is a growing phenomenon) can be expected to oppose an Article 48 enlargement.
In addition, the Upper Silesian autonomy movement in Poland, and the existence of Hungarians in Slovakia and Romania, further increase the list of countries that may perceive a strong national interest to insist upon Article 49.
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/1abba2a22d4b60f72690f0683/files/995f6cba-7722-4211-ac2a-7e45deecd774.pdf
If I didn't know the SNP hadn't been founded 80 years ago I might begin to wonder whether they'd thought this whole 'independence' thing through.....
"UKIP has clear evidence that they aren't homophobic as poll shows Kippers hate immigrants more than gays"
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/03/Rise-of-the-career-politician-is-helping-UKIP
This appears to be another case of UKIP copying LD strategy (I think a local candidate used to be the LD recommendation for by-elections).
Is there any research into a local candidate effect on election results?
Likewise, if one has committed an offence so serious as to merit deportation, then that should be the penalty that is invariably applied. If foreign nationals have committed serious offences in this country, then I believe they have forfeited all right to the protection of the British State. They must take their chance of persecution in their country of origin.
Position at 13th May (Conservative high point, seemed to be...)
CON 31.37%
LAB 34.25%
LD 8.10%
UKIP 18.27%
Position Now
CON 27.42%
LAB 36.92%
LD 7.27%
UKIP 20.40%
Note - Others are forced at 8% !
Conservative sampling seems to vary the most -
The Lib Dem raw figures are consistently awful.
Incidentally one of our Conservative local councillors told me last year that he had had a phone call before the election from a long-time supporter who wanted to tell him that he was going to vote for another candidate because of the gay marriage issue. The councillor said he was sorry to hear that, and asked which party the chap was switching to. The answer was the Greens!
This is complete nonsense for the reasons I set out earlier but is demonstrably so if there is any disruption in our terms of trade. So the companies who yesterday estimated that it might take 3 years for Scotland to regain membership of the EU must be wrong. They just must. Independence is a cost free option with no downsides. Obvious isn't it?
Clegg: "Just popping into the pub"
Clegg sipping a pint, just a normal bloke
http://nottspolitics.org/2013/02/01/the-public-do-want-working-class-mps-and-more-local-ones-too/
No-one is arguing for hard work and good decisions not to be rewarded here. We're just arguing about the size of that reward. I'm very comfortable with people that have done well for themselves earning a lot of money, and that people that made bad decisions to not do as well as that. But I just want to look out for those that didn't do so well to have a basic standard of life that isn't a constant struggle, in substandard housing in a grim estate, on an income that's barely enough to scrape by. I think it's a huge shame our sense of national community has broken down so much that the people at the top don't worry about this.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1roY-VuzAUre3K5Tp74sf-sknXmfRPXaIoqtoPc7HMaA/edit#gid=0
Copying from Excel to google seems to kill all formulae.
At 11.30?!
Vince: "But it's only 11.30 am."
Barman: "Right, you're barred."
http://t.co/hHfRBHQUAk (h/t theousherwood)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2647142/British-pubs-envy-world-Clegg-takes-big-chains-leave-landlords-minimum-wage.html
There is, of course, the entirely separate political debate where I would have thought in practice the Scots are on much stronger ground. They are fortunate that neither Italy nor Spain really like playing the bad cops in the EU.
Incidentally, the German example is not necessarily of academic interest only. Moldova has flirted with merging with Romania in the recent past. It may do so again in the near future, depending on what happens with Transnistria and Gagauzia.
signed
The Political Class
Now which other politician in recent times has done that ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessarabia
Sorry to ruin your joke with facts ;-)
Privately educated, privileged upbringing, foreign wife, adores riding on the EU expenses gravy train, fringe party.
Nope, still stuck at Clegg.
The other way to handle the trust problem is to use existing family and friend relationships. Again, there's probably a certain amount of this going on already to fund people getting through illegally.
Must be all those UKIP MEPs in Brussels having an impact already.
How many houses like this are there in the UK?
http://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/local-news/update-men-from-dewsbury-and-heckmondwike-jailed-for-human-trafficking-1-6615353
Tens of thousands. They're the prime cause of unemployment and underemployment and not just in this country but throughout the EU.
"Scrap help to buy, increase council tax, spend more money"
http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2014/06/growing-london
Pints in the Lib Dem Pub cost £3, but the landlord promises to give them away for free before actually charging £9. #libdempubs
If there was no welfare (not that I'm proposing that) you'd suddenly find a lot more people in work.
What actually happened - starting 30+ years ago but going exponential in the last 14 - was employers in certain areas buying up cheap houses and importing 12+ illegal workers to do the unskilled work: labourers, shops, restaurants etc. This is one of the things that drove other people out of those areas looking for work elsewhere.
It's the main reason behind the youth unemployment all over Europe as it's mainly the jobs teenagers used to do.
D- must try harder