A few years ago, I was in favour of leaving the EU, but now I'm definitely an inner.
I believe SeanT has under gone a similar change.
What's the reason? UKIP?
No directly.
I've decided that way some people go on and on about immigration, I was probably the best placed to make the positive case for immigration to this country.
Plus, I've always been a fan of the principle of the ECHR.
Do you think all immigration is good?
In cumulative sense, yes, all the immigration to this country, all the total benefits outweigh any disadvantages.
It's comments like these that confirm to me that I was right in my decision to resign from the Conservative Party. I have not joined UKIP, but I don't think it likely I will ever go back. The remaining Conservative Party is likely to mould into a soft-centre middle-class pro-EU, pro-immigration liberal party, with a membership to match.
The legacy of Cameron's leadership will be a permanent split in the right, made all the more final by the contemptuous sneering of the views of those who've split as 'nasty'. There is nothing wrong in believing in limits on immigration. The moderniser strategy for the Conservatives was totally mistargeted, and even more ineptly executed. It was all totally unnecessary but previously life-long loyal Conservatives like me aren't coming back. We've been ignored, patronised and insulted too much.
We've always been pro-immigration party.
Lady Thatcher and Lord Tebbit, the great Euro-sceptics, did more to bring in immigration to this country than any other politicians with the Single European Act.
I have, in the past, spoken to both Lord Tebbit and Lady Thatcher (RIP) on the subject of immigration. Both held (and Lord Tebbit still holds) similar views to my own. Both came to later regret the SEA, and realise the folly of closer EEC/EC integration in the late 1980s and its implications. They both (famously, and publicly) fought against ever-closer-union in the 1990s and beyond.
Besides which there was no indication that mass immigration would result from the EEC/EC in 1985, that came later. Margaret Thatcher famously made a speech on immigration that led to a collapse in support for the National Front at the 1979 general election. She then tightened up on immigration controls during her government, and it went away as an issue for the best part of 20 years.
Did support for the NF actually collapse at the 79GE ?
...Margaret Thatcher famously made a speech on immigration that led to a collapse in support for the National Front at the 1979 general election. She then tightened up on immigration controls during her government, and it went away as an issue for the best part of 20 years.
Immigration was higher when Thatcher left office then when she entered.
Net migration was negative in all but one of the years in the decade before Thatcher became PM, but was positive in roughly half of the years while she was PM and was last negative in 1993.
This appears to contradict your recollection of events.
The Single European Act was signed when the EU had 12 members, most of them with similar standards of living to our own, not when it had 27, some of them far poorer.
Maybe my memory's playing tricks on me but didn't she do a lot to make enlargement happen? There was a geo-political goal (integrating ex-Communist countries) and the "wider not deeper" theory that more members would slow down the core, which ultimately didn't work out as well as the anti-integration people hoped.
Yes, and? I agree with that geo-political goal. She didn't foresee that 'freedom of movement' would subsequently become a conduit for mass immigration into the UK. Neither did I.
There's nothing controversial in this. Plenty of government policy objectives later turn out to have unforseen side-effects, and, subsequently, the legislation amended. There's normally no problem with this, as parliament is sovereign, and it doesn't preclude you from revisiting earlier decisions.
Only in the EU are you obliged to chain yourself forever an irreversible principle that can never be amended. That's exactly why so many people are fed up with it.
For me, it's common-sense: it's just as non-sensical to have totally open borders as it is to have totally closed borders. The sensible middle-ground is managed migration: we establish an annual immigration cap which we can debate (and set as high, or low, as we like) through parliament, together with a points system.
The deficit is down considerably, and has been done at the limit of the politically tolerable. Any attempts to close the gap more rapidly would certainly have lead to greater pain and public resentment and may not have improved the growth situation we are now enjoying. I think the idea that any govt could have repaired the damage in just 4 years is risible.
Quite extraordinary spin. In the Emergency Budget of 2010, HM Chancellor of the Exchequer said that his policies would eliminate the structural deficit by the end of the Parliament. Furthermore, he set a fiscal mandate that net government debt would be falling as a proportion of gross national product by 2013-2014. It seems that the Chancellor was coming up with 'risible' ideas.
M'Lud, you need to be better informed.
GO set a clear fiscal policy in 2010.
The primary fiscal mandate required the government :
to balance the cyclically-adjusted current budget (CACB) – the amount the Government has to borrow to finance non-investment spending, adjusted for the state of the economy – five years ahead.
The EFO has concluded that the government has consistently complied with this mandate and in its most recent Economic and Fiscal Outlook (EFO) concluded:
We [the OBR] now forecast the surplus in 2018-19 to be 1.5 per cent of GDPy
Osborne also set a secondary target:
for public sector net debt (PSND [ex]) to be falling as a share of GDP in 2015-16.
Unlike the primary mandate, this is a single event which can only be measured at the end of the 2015-16 fiscal year. The OBR therefore makes forecasts of whether the government is likely to meet the secondary target. Up to date the forecasts have shown a miss but by narrowing amounts as time has progressed.
The current forecast is as follows
We now expect PSND to peak at 78.7 per cent of GDP in 2015-16, to fall by a small margin in 2016-17 and then to fall more rapidly to 74.2 per cent of GDP by 2018-19. Debt as a share of GDP is lower in each year of our forecast than in December, reflecting lower borrowing and upward revisions to our nominal GDP forecast.
So it is touch and go whether GO will meet the secondary target in year five or year six from 2010.
Everything is about to be turned upside down by the changes being introduced to public finances reporting due to the requirement for the government to introduce in September of this year the changes to GDP and debt/deficit measurement required by ESA 2010.
Even setting aside the proposed changes, and with the assumption that sales of the government's remaining stake in Lloyds Bank Group is likely to be completed by the end of 2015-16, there is a very strong probabilitiy that Osborne will meet his secondary target in a final run at the tape.
A few years ago, I was in favour of leaving the EU, but now I'm definitely an inner.
I believe SeanT has under gone a similar change.
What's the reason? UKIP?
No directly.
I've decided that way some people go on and on about immigration, I was probably the best placed to make the positive case for immigration to this country.
Plus, I've always been a fan of the principle of the ECHR.
Do you think all immigration is good?
In cumulative sense, yes, all the immigration to this country, all the total benefits outweigh any disadvantages.
It's comments like these that confirm to me that I was right in my decision to resign from the Conservative Party. I have not joined UKIP, but I don't think it likely I will ever go back. The remaining Conservative Party is likely to mould into a soft-centre middle-class pro-EU, pro-immigration liberal party, with a membership to match.
The legacy of Cameron's leadership will be a permanent split in the right, made all the more final by the contemptuous sneering of the views of those who've split as 'nasty'. There is nothing wrong in believing in limits on immigration. The moderniser strategy for the Conservatives was totally mistargeted, and even more ineptly executed. It was all totally unnecessary but previously life-long loyal Conservatives like me aren't coming back. We've been ignored, patronised and insulted too much.
I wonder whether you'll still think that after five years of Ed Milliband rolling back the years to 1975.
This sort of argument irritates me. It is remarkably unthinking. It is straight out of the moderniser hymnbook of 'it doesn't matter how badly we treat our own party members, and their beliefs/principles, because they will always have no choice other than return to us over Labour'
It might win over a few floating voters in the marginals in 2015, who wish to see the lesser of two evils. If you're after me rejoining the party, making donations to it, actively campaigning for it and enthusiastically supporting it - as I used to do - forget it.
This is an arrogant, patronising and negative message to give out.
The deficit is down considerably, and has been done at the limit of the politically tolerable. Any attempts to close the gap more rapidly would certainly have lead to greater pain and public resentment and may not have improved the growth situation we are now enjoying. I think the idea that any govt could have repaired the damage in just 4 years is risible.
Quite extraordinary spin. In the Emergency Budget of 2010, HM Chancellor of the Exchequer said that his policies would eliminate the structural deficit by the end of the Parliament. Furthermore, he set a fiscal mandate that net government debt would be falling as a proportion of gross national product by 2013-2014. It seems that the Chancellor was coming up with 'risible' ideas.
Exactly. Labour proposed the path of deficit reduction we have experienced over the last few years during the 2010 election campaign, and Osborne et al derided them as deficit deniers who would cause a Greek-style loss of confidence in the ability of the UK to pay its debts.
Osborne has either been very lucky in the mild reaction of the markets to the continuing size of the deficit, or he has been successful in pulling off one of the most amazing confidence tricks in the history of economics.
Whichever is the case it's a very long way from what was promised by Cameron and Osborne in the 2010 election campaign.
So would you prefer to be in France, or Spain's or Portugals position?
It really annoys me all these commentators, bloggers etc who think they are so brilliant and the government are so bad. This government has done a remarkable job given the worlds economic position and their inheritance. Just look at how brilliant British companies are doing and how this country is seen as a great place to invest. The UK economy is now flying, unemployment is incredibly low compared to our neighbors, public services are carrying on normally despite the government reducing the workforce by over a million, crime is falling and yet the Government are considered rubbish and people on here saying they voted Tory all their life but will never do again. It staggers me. What Nirvana have they been hoping for. A perverse side of me wants UKIP to actually win the next GE. Good old Nigel wouldn't be able to oppose everything like he does at the EU Parliament and pop down the pub for a pint. It would show them up for what they are.
A few years ago, I was in favour of leaving the EU, but now I'm definitely an inner.
I believe SeanT has under gone a similar change.
What's the reason? UKIP?
No directly.
I've decided that way some people go on and on about immigration, I was probably the best placed to make the positive case for immigration to this country.
Plus, I've always been a fan of the principle of the ECHR.
Do you think all immigration is good?
In cumulative sense, yes, all the immigration to this country, all the total benefits outweigh any disadvantages.
It's comments like these that confirm to me that I was right in my decision to resign from the Conservative Party. I have not joined UKIP, but I don't think it likely I will ever go back. The remaining Conservative Party is likely to mould into a soft-centre middle-class pro-EU, pro-immigration liberal party, with a membership to match.
The legacy of Cameron's leadership will be a permanent split in the right, made all the more final by the contemptuous sneering of the views of those who've split as 'nasty'. There is nothing wrong in believing in limits on immigration. The moderniser strategy for the Conservatives was totally mistargeted, and even more ineptly executed. It was all totally unnecessary but previously life-long loyal Conservatives like me aren't coming back. We've been ignored, patronised and insulted too much.
Sorry to hear that Casino - I always took you to be a Tory stalwart. Perhaps you can be persuaded to return to the fold if and when there is a new leader. Meanwhile hopefully the blues will receive your vote next May as being the least of several evils.
Thanks Peter. I always was, until 2011. I hope you're right. As things stand, I simply don't know where I belong anymore. I feel I've been pushed out of the big tent.
A good deal of the Conservative response to UKIP is to try and be more PC than thou. So, sneers are thrown at UKIP for being largely white, working class, and aged 40+, as if those are somehow reprehensible characteristics. Or else, trying to make an impassioned case for mass immigration and diversity, when they've spent decades opposing them.
None of this really works. There's nothing more embarassing than a Conservative who's trying to be PC.
It also shows up the Conservatives as being spineless themselves, and lacking in any integrity. Plenty of the same criticisms were thrown at them from 1997 to 2005.
No-one really knows what the Conservatives truly stand for anymore, because they so rarely clearly articulate, promote and defend Conservative principles. They apologise and avoid eye-contact on anything they're doing that might even be remotely *perceived* as Conservative. And no-one respects that.
Instead the electorate project their own prejudices of the type of individual that might become a Conservative onto the party instead. Then the modernists expend great deals of energy trying to explain why they aren't that sort of person, and so it goes on it a great big tedious loop of self-fulfilling prophecy.
Cameron might win by default in 2015, but he'll go down to a whopping great defeat in 2020. Because he isn't really leading the party and the country anywhere different.
@Socrates - "Most people in the country value British culture and traditional communities a lot."
Is that really true? I don't see many people marching in favour of retaining rural bus services or hunting with dogs outside of the areas affected. Most people in the country also seemed pretty happy to let communities built around heavy industry and trade unions fade away. I suspect that the views of a UKIP-voting pensioner about what constitutes British culture are very different to those of an 18 year-old who votes Green. I would be very suspicious of any party that started proscribing what should be considered British culture and what should not.
SO are you around over the next fortnight or so. I'd like to take Dr Sunil for a beer. I'm happy to chauffer and pick you up. Nice Warks country pub grab you ?
Yes - up for that. Any day next week except Wednesday is good for me. I am working on getting Malcolm down again before he needs a passport!
Shall we go for Wed or Thurs next week I'll check with Sunil ?
Can't do Wednesday, so let's shoot for Thursday.
Apols I meant Tuesday. I've hit the G&T early !
Ha, ha. Either is good for me. See what Sunil says.
Comments
Should morris dancing be banned ?
Immigration was higher when Thatcher left office then when she entered.
Net migration was negative in all but one of the years in the decade before Thatcher became PM, but was positive in roughly half of the years while she was PM and was last negative in 1993.
This appears to contradict your recollection of events.
There's nothing controversial in this. Plenty of government policy objectives later turn out to have unforseen side-effects, and, subsequently, the legislation amended. There's normally no problem with this, as parliament is sovereign, and it doesn't preclude you from revisiting earlier decisions.
Only in the EU are you obliged to chain yourself forever an irreversible principle that can never be amended. That's exactly why so many people are fed up with it.
For me, it's common-sense: it's just as non-sensical to have totally open borders as it is to have totally closed borders. The sensible middle-ground is managed migration: we establish an annual immigration cap which we can debate (and set as high, or low, as we like) through parliament, together with a points system.
GO set a clear fiscal policy in 2010.
The primary fiscal mandate required the government :
to balance the cyclically-adjusted current budget (CACB) – the amount the Government has to borrow to finance non-investment spending, adjusted for the state of the economy – five years ahead.
The EFO has concluded that the government has consistently complied with this mandate and in its most recent Economic and Fiscal Outlook (EFO) concluded:
We [the OBR] now forecast the surplus in 2018-19 to be 1.5 per cent of GDPy
Osborne also set a secondary target:
for public sector net debt (PSND [ex]) to be falling as a share of GDP in 2015-16.
Unlike the primary mandate, this is a single event which can only be measured at the end of the 2015-16 fiscal year. The OBR therefore makes forecasts of whether the government is likely to meet the secondary target. Up to date the forecasts have shown a miss but by narrowing amounts as time has progressed.
The current forecast is as follows
We now expect PSND to peak at 78.7 per cent of GDP in 2015-16, to fall by a small margin in 2016-17 and then to fall more rapidly to 74.2 per cent of GDP by 2018-19. Debt as a share of GDP is lower in each year of our forecast than in December, reflecting lower borrowing and upward revisions to our nominal GDP forecast.
So it is touch and go whether GO will meet the secondary target in year five or year six from 2010.
Everything is about to be turned upside down by the changes being introduced to public finances reporting due to the requirement for the government to introduce in September of this year the changes to GDP and debt/deficit measurement required by ESA 2010.
Even setting aside the proposed changes, and with the assumption that sales of the government's remaining stake in Lloyds Bank Group is likely to be completed by the end of 2015-16, there is a very strong probabilitiy that Osborne will meet his secondary target in a final run at the tape.
It might win over a few floating voters in the marginals in 2015, who wish to see the lesser of two evils. If you're after me rejoining the party, making donations to it, actively campaigning for it and enthusiastically supporting it - as I used to do - forget it.
This is an arrogant, patronising and negative message to give out.
It really annoys me all these commentators, bloggers etc who think they are so brilliant and the government are so bad. This government has done a remarkable job given the worlds economic position and their inheritance. Just look at how brilliant British companies are doing and how this country is seen as a great place to invest. The UK economy is now flying, unemployment is incredibly low compared to our neighbors, public services are carrying on normally despite the government reducing the workforce by over a million, crime is falling and yet the Government are considered rubbish and people on here saying they voted Tory all their life but will never do again. It staggers me. What Nirvana have they been hoping for. A perverse side of me wants UKIP to actually win the next GE. Good old Nigel wouldn't be able to oppose everything like he does at the EU Parliament and pop down the pub for a pint. It would show them up for what they are.
No-one really knows what the Conservatives truly stand for anymore, because they so rarely clearly articulate, promote and defend Conservative principles. They apologise and avoid eye-contact on anything they're doing that might even be remotely *perceived* as Conservative. And no-one respects that.
Instead the electorate project their own prejudices of the type of individual that might become a Conservative onto the party instead. Then the modernists expend great deals of energy trying to explain why they aren't that sort of person, and so it goes on it a great big tedious loop of self-fulfilling prophecy.
Cameron might win by default in 2015, but he'll go down to a whopping great defeat in 2020. Because he isn't really leading the party and the country anywhere different.
He's in office, not in power.
I appreciate that arguing on the Internets is probably a working definition of 'futile', but I think:
‘though this government has had to make some difficult decisions, we are making progress. We’re paying down Britain’s debts.’
is somewhat more damning than a mere slip of the tongue. It's not just a single instance of mispokery.