Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The ComRes marginals’ poll would be a lot more valuable if

245

Comments

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,536

    If the marginals are polling at 39% Lab, 31% Con, then you'd expect a convincing Labour majority overall.

    With an 18% UKIP showing too, could we expect the decimation of the Tory Party to a rump and an undeserved Labour landslide?

    Either way, the Tories and DC are toast. Ed Miliband will be our next PM, and possibly for far longer than anyone ever conceived possible.

    The vote shares were 37/37% in 2010. On these figures, Labour would fall just short.
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    260,000 net migration in year to June 2014. Up from 182,000 prior.

    Great for the economy.

    So, you're saying the economy is in good shape, after all?
    Better shape than our EU partners certainly. Never disagreed with that observation.

    They saddled themselves with austerity too. But they have the euro, so the malign effects that we saw here are even worse for them.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,341
    TGOHF said:

    Can we deduce from the lack of outrage from Nats that they are reasonably satisfied with the Smith Commission ?

    Remember it would never happen - just like the referendum....

    Might be because the Smith Commission hasn't reported yet (well, today, but give them time).

    Much of the reportage seemed to be leakage/pre-emption to support one particular player, who is not a SNP.

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    260,000 net migration in year to June 2014. Up from 182,000 prior.

    Great for the economy.

    So, you're saying the economy is in good shape, after all?
    Without the infusion of tax paying immigrants, the economy will be in dire trouble.

    By the way, is the net dispoable income higher than 2010 in real terms ?
  • @Audrey

    "My hopes of educating some of the right-wingers on pb.com about Islam are very slim. "

    That doesn't mean you shouldn't try, otherwise the field is left to those who know little of the subject.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    32,000 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria in the last twelve months...
  • Times Red Box poll: 55% want "more redistribution"; specifically, 71% want the minimum wage increased, and 54% want the top rate of income tax to be 50% or higher. On the other hand, only 23% want higher benefits and 46% want lower benefits.
    Mostly this is just "I want other people to pay more" but the 71% on the minimum wage (which most people don't get) is different - combined with the low support for "benefits", this probably reflects a general mood that working should pay more at the lower rates and not working should pay less.

    The simple law of supply and demand. Reduce the supply of workers at the low end and pay will move up. The problem is the 2 million + immigrant workers. Even your John Denham pointed out the effect of Polish workers on daily rates for builders in Southampton during the boom time.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Marginal seats? 2 stage polling?
    We have a well recognised situation where 90% 0f the public can only recognise 10% of the cabinet let alone the shadow cabinet. On a good day.
    2 stage polling? Aren't we getting a bit ahead of ourselves?
    Remind me again what is it about small sub samples? Margin of error??
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Carnyx said:

    TGOHF said:

    Can we deduce from the lack of outrage from Nats that they are reasonably satisfied with the Smith Commission ?

    Remember it would never happen - just like the referendum....

    Might be because the Smith Commission hasn't reported yet (well, today, but give them time).

    Much of the reportage seemed to be leakage/pre-emption to support one particular player, who is not a SNP.

    Carlotta has posted the link below to the full report.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited November 2014
    Non-EU migration now rising again, up 4% on the last quarter and 12% on previous year.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited November 2014
    Carnyx said:

    Socrates said:

    Scotland should set its own income tax:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-30223348

    Fine. As long as Scots MPs don't vote on English income tax.

    But they have to. Because London retains control of allowances. [Edit: if it happens.]

    I know. I don't understand it either.

    Nope......

    The Scottish Parliament should have the power to set income tax rates and bands, the commission on strengthening devolution has concluded.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30223348?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    edited November 2014
    Socrates said:

    Net migration now UP after four years of Theresa May. What a useless minister she is.

    Cameron's big EU speech needs to advocate a points system for EU immigration. The fallback option of an emergency brake isn't going to be enough.

    Cameron likes to leave himself as a hostage to fortune, but even he - as naive politically and diplomatically as he is - won't make such a foolish mistake.

    There are two ways of stopping EU migration:

    1. You leave the EU or, if you stay in
    2. You trash the economy relative to other economies in the EU.

    Both choices are very very bad for Britain, but I don't think it's possible to underestimate the stupidity of the British Right in attempting to make one of them!
  • Swinney:

    Regrettably, the Westminster parties were not prepared to deliver the powerhouse parliament the people of Scotland were promised - under these proposals, less than 30 per cent of our taxes will be set in Scotland and less than 20 per cent of welfare spending will be devolved to Scotland. That isn’t Home Rule - it’s continued Westminster rule.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/27/scotland-should-control-income-tax-says-smith-commission-reaction-politics-live-blog#block-5476ed76e4b05735abcbf568
  • BenM said:

    Socrates said:

    Net migration now UP after four years of Theresa May. What a useless minister she is.

    Cameron's big EU speech needs to advocate a points system for EU immigration. The fallback option of an emergency brake isn't going to be enough.

    Cameron likes to leave himself as a hostage to fortune, but even he - as naive politically and diplomatically as he is - won't make such a foolish mistake.

    There are two ways of stopping EU migration:

    1. You leave the EU or, if you stay in
    2. You trash the economy relative to other economies in the EU.

    Both choices are very very bad for Britain, but I don't think it's possible to underestimate the stupidity of the British Right.
    Of course you are wrong as usual - at least in part. Leaving the EU would be extremely good for the UK both economically and politically. I don't think it's possible to underestimate the stupidity of the British Europhiles.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    338,000 non-tourist entry visas from Asia. 64,000 from Africa.
  • One of the biggest days for politics in England. The devolution of income tax to Scotland is probably a materstroke by Cameron. No more can Labour use Scottish MPs to vote through a 50% tax rate. For the Scots they face a Hobsons choice. If they put through a 50% tax rate then many top rate income tax payers, including myself, will just switch their residency to England. However if they set the rates low then they will have to cut welfare.

    Stat on Newsnight was that just 16,000 people in Scotland would be hit by 50p rate and that represents only an extra £250m if all stay and pay the full whack with no tax planning tactics.

    Clear that going to a 50p rate will reduce the overall tax take as many of those above it or close to it, will realign their affairs accordingly. But it will be an interesting experiment to watch!
  • If Scottish income tax is devolved it becomes democratically indefensible to have Scottish MPs voting on English income tax. It's not rocket science.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,536
    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    260,000 net migration in year to June 2014. Up from 182,000 prior.

    Great for the economy.

    So, you're saying the economy is in good shape, after all?
    Without the infusion of tax paying immigrants, the economy will be in dire trouble.

    By the way, is the net dispoable income higher than 2010 in real terms ?
    Economic growth was higher in the period 1960-2000 than it has been since, despite far lower levels of immigration.

    I think that real household disposable incomes are slightly higher than in 2010.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Swinney:

    Regrettably, the Westminster parties were not prepared to deliver the powerhouse parliament the people of Scotland were promised - under these proposals, less than 30 per cent of our taxes will be set in Scotland and less than 20 per cent of welfare spending will be devolved to Scotland. That isn’t Home Rule - it’s continued Westminster rule.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/27/scotland-should-control-income-tax-says-smith-commission-reaction-politics-live-blog#block-5476ed76e4b05735abcbf568

    She can fix that - by raising taxes and welfare she can achieve 20% of tax and 30% of welfare...
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Socrates said:

    32,000 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria in the last twelve months...

    Not the 29 million pledged by Farage then.

    Little wonder politicians are so mistrusted when they fail to keep their promises.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    JackW said:

    Socrates said:

    32,000 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria in the last twelve months...

    Not the 29 million pledged by Farage then.

    Little wonder politicians are so mistrusted when they fail to keep their promises.

    He was only out by a factor of 900+
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    BenM said:

    Socrates said:

    Net migration now UP after four years of Theresa May. What a useless minister she is.

    Cameron's big EU speech needs to advocate a points system for EU immigration. The fallback option of an emergency brake isn't going to be enough.

    Cameron likes to leave himself as a hostage to fortune, but even he - as naive politically and diplomatically as he is - won't make such a foolish mistake.

    There are two ways of stopping EU migration:

    1. You leave the EU or, if you stay in
    2. You trash the economy relative to other economies in the EU.

    Both choices are very very bad for Britain, but I don't think it's possible to underestimate the stupidity of the British Right in attempting to make one of them!
    Let's have a look at the growth rates of developed EU and non-EU economies

    EU:

    Germany 0.4%
    France 0.2%
    Italy 0.5%
    Spain -0.2%
    Netherlands 0.3%
    Portugal -0.5%

    Non-EU:

    Norway 0.6%
    Switzerland 1.9%
    Australia 1.8%
    Canada 1.2%
    USA 1.9%

    God, all those non-EU countries must feel awful about how they're falling behind!
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    Socrates said:

    338,000 non-tourist entry visas from Asia. 64,000 from Africa.

    Quite a lot of the latter will be for south African whites, so I guess you're ok with that.
  • Stat on Newsnight was that just 16,000 people in Scotland would be hit by 50p rate

    That would depend on the threshold at which it was introduced.

    Scotland will presumably see three or four years of 'bash the rich' followed by a panic attempt at a U-turn as the effects become clear. Rather like France.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    JackW said:

    Socrates said:

    32,000 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria in the last twelve months...

    Not the 29 million pledged by Farage then.

    Little wonder politicians are so mistrusted when they fail to keep their promises.

    Farage said 29 million would have the right to come here. That's entirely true. He didn't come 29 million would come here. The reason you Europhiles are losing the argument is that you just lie and lie again about such things.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited November 2014
    matt said:

    Socrates said:

    338,000 non-tourist entry visas from Asia. 64,000 from Africa.

    Quite a lot of the latter will be for south African whites, so I guess you're ok with that.
    Just because you're a thick racist doesn't mean others are.

    Presumably you have a source for your claim? Or are you just making stuff up as you go along?
  • JackW said:

    Socrates said:

    32,000 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria in the last twelve months...

    Not the 29 million pledged by Farage then.

    Little wonder politicians are so mistrusted when they fail to keep their promises.

    That's a trifle disingenuous Jack. Farage said the 29m million number was those would now have the unencumbered right to come here if they wished to - not a prognosis for the number that would actually do so.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    If Scottish income tax is devolved it becomes democratically indefensible to have Scottish MPs voting on English income tax. It's not rocket science.

    Westminster MP's are elected to a UK not English body and accordingly may vote on any aspect of legislation before them and rightly so.

    It's not rocket science.

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    JackW said:

    Socrates said:

    32,000 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria in the last twelve months...

    Not the 29 million pledged by Farage then.

    Little wonder politicians are so mistrusted when they fail to keep their promises.

    Farage never said that they would come; only that they COULD come. Get off the early wine JackW.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited November 2014
    MikeK said:

    JackW said:

    Socrates said:

    32,000 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria in the last twelve months...

    Not the 29 million pledged by Farage then.

    Little wonder politicians are so mistrusted when they fail to keep their promises.

    Farage never said that they would come; only that they COULD come.
    So it was a meaningless load of garbage, a silly attempt to stoke up fear over nothing, a bit like saying 2 million unemployed Britons could come and live in Cheltenham.
  • Mr. W, why should a Scottish MP be able to vote on English taxes? Why is devolution for Scotland right and necessary but the same measure for England unacceptable?

    You're entirely wrong on this. We can either address the West Lothian Question, or pretend it doesn't exist and guarantee the ultimate break-up of the UK through complacent negligence.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    260,000 net migration in year to June 2014. Up from 182,000 prior.

    Great for the economy.

    So, you're saying the economy is in good shape, after all?
    Without the infusion of tax paying immigrants, the economy will be in dire trouble.

    By the way, is the net dispoable income higher than 2010 in real terms ?
    You mean the immigrants that were a £113 billion drain on the economy, according to the latest analysis?
  • MikeK said:

    JackW said:

    Socrates said:

    32,000 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria in the last twelve months...

    Not the 29 million pledged by Farage then.

    Little wonder politicians are so mistrusted when they fail to keep their promises.

    Farage never said that they would come; only that they COULD come. Get off the early wine JackW.
    So it was a meaningless load of garbage, a silly attempt to stoke up fear over nothing.

    Glad you agree.
    Nope that is just your bigoted mis-interpretation of the statement of fact that Farage made. Something you Europhiles are very good at. As SOcrates says, this is why no one trusts you or believes you.

  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Socrates said:

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    260,000 net migration in year to June 2014. Up from 182,000 prior.

    Great for the economy.

    So, you're saying the economy is in good shape, after all?
    Without the infusion of tax paying immigrants, the economy will be in dire trouble.

    By the way, is the net dispoable income higher than 2010 in real terms ?
    You mean the immigrants that were a £113 billion drain on the economy, according to the latest analysis?
    Except they weren't. They were £5bn contributors.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited November 2014
    Pulpstar said:

    One of the biggest days for politics in England. The devolution of income tax to Scotland is probably a materstroke by Cameron. No more can Labour use Scottish MPs to vote through a 50% tax rate. For the Scots they face a Hobsons choice. If they put through a 50% tax rate then many top rate income tax payers, including myself, will just switch their residency to England. However if they set the rates low then they will have to cut welfare.

    I suggest that the Tories will probably win 2 or 3 MPs in Scotland. The SNP have moved to the left and UKIP are no major force leaving areas such as Pentlands a prime target. It may be a good time for Jim Murphy to become a MSP as he may lose his seat as well to the Tories as his Labour vote defects to the SNP.

    I also see the Lib Dems keeping the majority of their Scottish seats.

    Murphy losing his seat... TO THE TORIES

    I'd like some of what you're smoking.
    The anti-tory vote may just split the right way for the tories to come through the middle in somewhere like Edinburgh south. The constituency voted 65% No, has a massive LD vote to squeeze and no UKIP factor.

    It all depends on the extent of the LAB>SNP and LD>SNP shift. There's a sweet spot where the tories could win it on ~30%, which makes the 20/1 (PP) decent value.

    Those odds won't last IMO.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    260,000 net migration in year to June 2014. Up from 182,000 prior.

    Great for the economy.

    So, you're saying the economy is in good shape, after all?
    It reflects a good economy.

    ''Work-related grants to stay permanently fell by 20% (down to 48,492) in the year ending June 2014, continuing earlier falls from 92,176 in the year ending June 2010'' (ONS)

    The long term trend in non EU immigration are substantially down. The figures from India are easily the largest but its easy for the hysterics to forget the figures from the USA Canada Australia and New Zealand. Not to mention China Japan and Russia. Pakistan is quite small. On to of that you have all the student visas and the govt have stopped all the bogus students arriving.economic change most will return to theior homes.
    EU migrants might of course stay permanently like the hundreds of thousands of Brits abroad but the likelyhood is that with economic change most will return home.
    Given the obsession with muslims the Pakistani figures look risible.
  • MikeK said:

    JackW said:

    Socrates said:

    32,000 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria in the last twelve months...

    Not the 29 million pledged by Farage then.

    Little wonder politicians are so mistrusted when they fail to keep their promises.

    Farage never said that they would come; only that they COULD come. Get off the early wine JackW.
    So it was a meaningless load of garbage, a silly attempt to stoke up fear over nothing.

    Glad you agree.
    Nope that is just your bigoted mis-interpretation of the statement of fact that Farage made. Something you Europhiles are very good at. As SOcrates says, this is why no one trusts you or believes you.

    Disingenuous.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,536

    MikeK said:

    JackW said:

    Socrates said:

    32,000 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria in the last twelve months...

    Not the 29 million pledged by Farage then.

    Little wonder politicians are so mistrusted when they fail to keep their promises.

    Farage never said that they would come; only that they COULD come.
    So it was a meaningless load of garbage, a silly attempt to stoke up fear over nothing, a bit like saying 2 million unemployed Britons could come and live in Cheltenham.
    It's perfectly reasonable to highlight that we have no control whatsoever over immigration from EU member states. That's the main reason why this government has failed to control immigration.

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited November 2014
    murali_s said:

    Viz. The Government's disgraceful decision to privatise the East Coast rail line - is there any way that this can be 'filibustered'?

    It was franchised to National Express East Coast between 2007-9, remind me, who was in government then ?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    BenM said:

    Socrates said:

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    260,000 net migration in year to June 2014. Up from 182,000 prior.

    Great for the economy.

    So, you're saying the economy is in good shape, after all?
    Without the infusion of tax paying immigrants, the economy will be in dire trouble.

    By the way, is the net dispoable income higher than 2010 in real terms ?
    You mean the immigrants that were a £113 billion drain on the economy, according to the latest analysis?
    Except they weren't. They were £5bn contributors.
    I was out by a billion. Overall immigrants have cost the UK £114 billion between 1995-2011.

    Page 26:

    http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Sean_F said:

    MikeK said:

    Socrates said:

    MikeK said:

    Socrates said:

    A new Islamist political party has been founded in the Netherlands, splitting from the Labour Party:

    http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4910/the-netherlands-newest-accomplishment

    The muslims in Holland now feel strong enough to to come out of hiding from under their Labour Party blanket. The same will probably happen here in a year or two. The Respect party was something of an attempt to make a mass muslim centred party here in the UK, but has so far failed to tempt muslims embedded in other parties to participate.
    The Dutch have made the same mistakes we have. Their mentality of "tolerance" has been applied even to those that are intolerant and not integrating. The result is segregation socially, and now, apparently, politically. Will the left be happy with themselves when we have an Islamist parliamentary party in the UK, supporting bans on abortion, the revocation of gay marriage, and second class status for women? Left-wingers usually claim it's just a matter of time, and integration will happen. Well, please show me one example of a country that has had a large Muslim minority and has successfully integrated them fully, or even mostly.
    I'm afraid that the only things Politically/Religiously* organised Muslims want is total separation for themselves, first; then later, total control of the body politic that they inhabit.

    And I'm amazed and not a little bewildered that other normally good and sane people just don't get it.

    *Politically/Religiously = in Islam there is no difference.
    ... I could rip your argument to shreds on several counts, but you could start learning from your comment 'Muslims want,' as if the followers are a homogenous lump rather than a disparate faith comprising many cultures and countries. Even a political analysis will show you how 'Muslim' is fighting 'Muslim' in a kaleidoscope of contradiction. I wonder if you have ever really studied Islam. Do you even know that 80% of Muslims are non-Arabic?

    I have many Muslim friends, most of whom are British Muslims, who would not identify themselves with your remarks and who do not see themselves as political. They follow the prescribed prayers and try to lead good lives, whilst loving this country. That there are a significantly vocal minority, sometimes in positions of leadership, is equally beyond dispute.

    I could go on but there's not much point. My hopes of educating some of the right-wingers on pb.com about Islam are very slim.
    But, you do seem to have a very rose-tinted view of Islam.

    Have you never heard of the 30 years war? How many christians have killed christians in the name of christianity?
  • This seems a bit of a fudge:

    75. Income Tax will remain a shared tax and both the UK and Scottish Parliaments will share control of Income Tax. MPs representing constituencies across the whole of the UK will continue to decide the UK’s Budget, including Income Tax.

    76. Within this framework, the Scottish Parliament will have the power to set the rates of Income Tax and the thresholds at which these are paid for the non-savings and non-dividend income of Scottish taxpayers (as defined by the Scotland Acts).

    77. As part of this, there will be no restrictions on the thresholds or rates the Scottish Parliament can set. All other aspects of Income Tax will remain reserved to the UK Parliament, including the imposition of the annual charge to Income Tax,
    the personal allowance, the taxation of savings and dividend income, the ability to introduce and amend tax reliefs and the definition of income.


    Wonder why they didn't devolve the personal allowance too?
  • Sean_F said:

    It's perfectly reasonable to highlight that we have no control whatsoever over immigration from EU member states. That's the main reason why this government has failed to control immigration.

    Yes, that would be reasonable. Saying, as UKIP did, that 29 million unemployed EU citizens 'want your job' was not reasonable. If I were as unpleasant as Richard Tyndall, I might even say it was a lie.
  • Socrates said:

    The problem that LibLabCon are having is that they are the ones continuously embracing the most outdated 1950s thing of all: the dream of European integration. It was a very time-specific concept as a reaction to the previous decade, in a world where only North America and Europe were the economic engines of the world and where the failures of dirigiste protectionism hadn't fully come to light.
    The Conservative Party will eventually move to a position where it advocates EU withdrawal. I think that's inevitable now, unless it destroys itself in the process.
  • Miss Vance, maybe as an excuse to justify allowing Scottish MPs to vote on budgets?

    This is a ridiculous proposal.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited November 2014

    MikeK said:

    JackW said:

    Socrates said:

    32,000 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria in the last twelve months...

    Not the 29 million pledged by Farage then.

    Little wonder politicians are so mistrusted when they fail to keep their promises.

    Farage never said that they would come; only that they COULD come.
    So it was a meaningless load of garbage, a silly attempt to stoke up fear over nothing, a bit like saying 2 million unemployed Britons could come and live in Cheltenham.
    No, it was a very meaningful comment on how the UK had farmed out its immigration policy from these countries to the aggregate decisions of 29 million Bulgarians and Romanians. It showed how we were at a danger of having no control over how many came here, as has been proven to be the case.

    You have to be a particularly inept government to have a target of reducing immigration by 60% and actually end up increasing it. You can't even blame EU immigration any more, as non-EU immigration has increased too.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited November 2014
    These marginals are almost exclusively in England.

    Tory down 6, Labour up 2 = Tory 34, Labour 30 in England if applied to England 2010 baseline.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    TGOHF said:

    MikeK said:

    Another Cameron and Tory lie exposed:

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/27/immigration-eu-figures-uk-impossible-target-teresa-may

    But then Cammo's morning motto must be to tell at least ten lies before breakfast. :)

    Are you sure ? Kippers are easily confused..


    http://www.charlotteahenry.com/nigel-farages-local-party-mistake-westminster-cathedral-for-a-mosque/

    "Nigel Farage’s local party mistake Westminster Cathedral for a mosque"
    And what lie?
    The govt have not succeeded thats true. But to claim a lie would be to say there was no intention. And when you look at the facts (rather than kipper lies) you see that they have made significant inroads into non EU immigration.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Socrates said:

    JackW said:

    Socrates said:

    32,000 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria in the last twelve months...

    Not the 29 million pledged by Farage then.

    Little wonder politicians are so mistrusted when they fail to keep their promises.

    Farage said 29 million would have the right to come here. That's entirely true. He didn't come 29 million would come here. The reason you Europhiles are losing the argument is that you just lie and lie again about such things.
    Poppycock.

    Farage used the 29 million as a dog whistle to arouse fears of east European EU immigration. It's was a tawdry and distasteful statement entirely in keeping with the fear mongering wing of his party.

    Neither was it of course an "entirely true" statement as the combined population, let alone working age population, of Bulgaria and Rumania is so far short of 29 million as to make Ed Balls use of statistics a model of mathematical rectitude.

    I'm saddened you accuse me of being a Europhile and liar. I am neither.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322



    Have you never heard of the 30 years war? How many christians have killed christians in the name of christianity?

    If you have to go back to the 17th Century to find an equivalent, you know you're in bad shape.
  • Socrates said:

    MikeK said:

    JackW said:

    Socrates said:

    32,000 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria in the last twelve months...

    Not the 29 million pledged by Farage then.

    Little wonder politicians are so mistrusted when they fail to keep their promises.

    Farage never said that they would come; only that they COULD come.
    So it was a meaningless load of garbage, a silly attempt to stoke up fear over nothing, a bit like saying 2 million unemployed Britons could come and live in Cheltenham.
    No, it was a very meaningful comment on how the UK had farmed out its immigration policy from these countries to the aggregate decisions of 29 million Bulgarians and Romanians. It showed how we were at a danger of having no control over how many came here, as has been proven to be the case.

    You have to be a particularly inept government to have a target of reducing immigration by 60% and actually end up increasing it.
    Our economic cycles and performance are now so divergent, we effectively act as the EU's economic pressure valve.
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Socrates said:

    BenM said:

    Socrates said:

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    260,000 net migration in year to June 2014. Up from 182,000 prior.

    Great for the economy.

    So, you're saying the economy is in good shape, after all?
    Without the infusion of tax paying immigrants, the economy will be in dire trouble.

    By the way, is the net dispoable income higher than 2010 in real terms ?
    You mean the immigrants that were a £113 billion drain on the economy, according to the latest analysis?
    Except they weren't. They were £5bn contributors.
    I was out by a billion. Overall immigrants have cost the UK £114 billion between 1995-2011.

    Page 26:

    http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
    Yep p26. All EEA migrants since 2001 contributed £20bn.

    Got my number wrong too. Out by £15bn though!
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Socrates said:



    Have you never heard of the 30 years war? How many christians have killed christians in the name of christianity?

    If you have to go back to the 17th Century to find an equivalent, you know you're in bad shape.
    @Flightpath is always in bad shape. If ever there was a misnomer, flightpath is it: he always crashes in flames. ;D
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    @Patrick @MikeK

    I refer the Honourable PBers to my reply to @Socartes a few moments ago.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322



    I'm afraid that's ignorant nonsense. I could rip your argument to shreds on several counts, but you could start learning from your comment 'Muslims want,' as if the followers are a homogenous lump rather than a disparate faith comprising many cultures and countries. Even a political analysis will show you how 'Muslim' is fighting 'Muslim' in a kaleidoscope of contradiction. I wonder if you have ever really studied Islam. Do you even know that 80% of Muslims are non-Arabic?

    I have many Muslim friends, most of whom are British Muslims, who would not identify themselves with your remarks and who do not see themselves as political. They follow the prescribed prayers and try to lead good lives, whilst loving this country. That there are a significantly vocal minority, sometimes in positions of leadership, is equally beyond dispute.

    I could go on but there's not much point. My hopes of educating some of the right-wingers on pb.com about Islam are very slim.

    He didn't say "Muslims want". He said "religiously/politically Muslims want". And this is the problem. You're correct that there are a lot of decent, moderate Muslims. But there's a huge number of Muslims who aren't moderate. Whether they're technically a majority or not doesn't matter too much. The point is that it's closer to 45% than 5% who have very backwards and reactionary views and aren't integrating with the rest of British society. A similar thing has happened in every country with large scale Muslim migration. If we want to integrate these people, we need to accept we're going to have to achieve something that's never been achieved before, and that requires a more active strategy than waiting and hoping.
  • Sean_F said:

    MikeK said:

    JackW said:

    Socrates said:

    32,000 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria in the last twelve months...

    Not the 29 million pledged by Farage then.

    Little wonder politicians are so mistrusted when they fail to keep their promises.

    Farage never said that they would come; only that they COULD come.
    So it was a meaningless load of garbage, a silly attempt to stoke up fear over nothing, a bit like saying 2 million unemployed Britons could come and live in Cheltenham.
    It's perfectly reasonable to highlight that we have no control whatsoever over immigration from EU member states. That's the main reason why this government has failed to control immigration.

    Some of this government's early reforms on non-EU immigration were sensible and (whilst not going quite as far as 8'd have liked) did seem to have some effect.

    There's no doubt in my mind that they'd have made similar sensible reforms to EU migration, has they been able to do so. This is an issue that simply won't go away until it's addressed.
  • Personally I'm all in favour of a party for Muslims. They'd get one or two MPs in places like Bradford and split the lefty vote all round the patch.
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    TGOHF said:

    MikeK said:

    Another Cameron and Tory lie exposed:

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/27/immigration-eu-figures-uk-impossible-target-teresa-may

    But then Cammo's morning motto must be to tell at least ten lies before breakfast. :)

    Are you sure ? Kippers are easily confused..


    http://www.charlotteahenry.com/nigel-farages-local-party-mistake-westminster-cathedral-for-a-mosque/

    "Nigel Farage’s local party mistake Westminster Cathedral for a mosque"
    So? It's not in their diocese and the building certainly isn't in the Gothic style.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    BenM said:

    Socrates said:

    BenM said:

    Socrates said:

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    260,000 net migration in year to June 2014. Up from 182,000 prior.

    Great for the economy.

    So, you're saying the economy is in good shape, after all?
    Without the infusion of tax paying immigrants, the economy will be in dire trouble.

    By the way, is the net dispoable income higher than 2010 in real terms ?
    You mean the immigrants that were a £113 billion drain on the economy, according to the latest analysis?
    Except they weren't. They were £5bn contributors.
    I was out by a billion. Overall immigrants have cost the UK £114 billion between 1995-2011.

    Page 26:

    http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
    Yep p26. All EEA migrants since 2001 contributed £20bn.

    Got my number wrong too. Out by £15bn though!
    You referred to "immigrants", not "EEA immigrants". And you can time limit it all you want. The longer a timeframe you take, the less they contribute. Non-EEA immigrants are, overall, a huge drain, and EEA immigrants are basically neutral, and will likely be a drain once they've been here long enough to need elderly care and pensions.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Charles said:

    Morning all and on thread poor Mike has had over 12 hours of ribbing for his silly Tory collapse in England thread on Monday.

    We now have a UNS of around 4 to 4.5% (subject to Ashcroft blowing that away later today in one direction or the other) from Con to Lab whereas a couple of months ago it was 5.5% and in the summer 6.5%. Last night I was looking at old YouGov polls and the one which struck me was in October 2012 when it was a Lab lead of 14% Lab 45 Con 31.

    Today SLAB is realising that the SNP and Tories have outflanked them over Scotland. Once again Gordon Brown, saviour of the universe has basically fecked his own party with his scheming and the promise! What happens to SLAB if in Scotland people who support the Union support the Unionist party i.e. the Tories and those who don't support the SNP? Next May is looking like it could get very bloody for SLAB.

    Tories to get 55% in Scotland is perhaps one of your bolder predictions!
    Correct and what is I think good is that Westminster, ie the Chancellor, still sets the allowances.
    I am voting tory in May 2015 and will be happy for a tory govt to set tax rates for the rest of the UK.
    The big worry of course is that a Scottish left wing govt ruins the scottish economy and we have to bail them out. Business is already bworried and so will Scottish taxpayers. But with devolution thats always likely. At least with this there is a clear mechanism for scottish taxes to play their part. And a reason for voting conservative.
    To what extent has falling oil prices knocked a hole in indy scotland tax revenues?
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693

    Socrates said:

    MikeK said:

    JackW said:

    Socrates said:

    32,000 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria in the last twelve months...

    Not the 29 million pledged by Farage then.

    Little wonder politicians are so mistrusted when they fail to keep their promises.

    Farage never said that they would come; only that they COULD come.
    So it was a meaningless load of garbage, a silly attempt to stoke up fear over nothing, a bit like saying 2 million unemployed Britons could come and live in Cheltenham.
    No, it was a very meaningful comment on how the UK had farmed out its immigration policy from these countries to the aggregate decisions of 29 million Bulgarians and Romanians. It showed how we were at a danger of having no control over how many came here, as has been proven to be the case.

    You have to be a particularly inept government to have a target of reducing immigration by 60% and actually end up increasing it.
    Our economic cycles and performance are now so divergent, we effectively act as the EU's economic pressure valve.
    To an extent, you're right - although you could make the same case for other parts of europe (Scandinavia, the baltics, Holland, Ireland).

    It also works both ways.
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Socrates said:

    BenM said:

    Socrates said:

    BenM said:

    Socrates said:

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    260,000 net migration in year to June 2014. Up from 182,000 prior.

    Great for the economy.

    So, you're saying the economy is in good shape, after all?
    Without the infusion of tax paying immigrants, the economy will be in dire trouble.

    By the way, is the net dispoable income higher than 2010 in real terms ?
    You mean the immigrants that were a £113 billion drain on the economy, according to the latest analysis?
    Except they weren't. They were £5bn contributors.
    I was out by a billion. Overall immigrants have cost the UK £114 billion between 1995-2011.

    Page 26:

    http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
    Yep p26. All EEA migrants since 2001 contributed £20bn.

    Got my number wrong too. Out by £15bn though!
    You referred to "immigrants", not "EEA immigrants". And you can time limit it all you want. The longer a timeframe you take, the less they contribute. Non-EEA immigrants are, overall, a huge drain, and EEA immigrants are basically neutral, and will likely be a drain once they've been here long enough to need elderly care and pensions.
    All immigrants including non EEA = £25bn. Even higher.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,067
    Indigo said:

    murali_s said:

    Viz. The Government's disgraceful decision to privatise the East Coast rail line - is there any way that this can be 'filibustered'?

    It was franchised to National Express East Coast between 2007-9, remind me, who was in government then ?
    It was a mistake back then as it is now - no point spinning...

    Your point sir?
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited November 2014
    Patrick said:

    Personally I'm all in favour of a party for Muslims. They'd get one or two MPs in places like Bradford and split the lefty vote all round the patch.

    They'd also have to come up with a "muslim" manifesto that would appeal to all who share the faith. Good luck with that!
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Time for all those Tories who have wibbled about Labour's alleged "open door policy" on immigration to apologise and shut up for a while.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    Charles said:

    Morning all and on thread poor Mike has had over 12 hours of ribbing for his silly Tory collapse in England thread on Monday.

    We now have a UNS of around 4 to 4.5% (subject to Ashcroft blowing that away later today in one direction or the other) from Con to Lab whereas a couple of months ago it was 5.5% and in the summer 6.5%. Last night I was looking at old YouGov polls and the one which struck me was in October 2012 when it was a Lab lead of 14% Lab 45 Con 31.

    Today SLAB is realising that the SNP and Tories have outflanked them over Scotland. Once again Gordon Brown, saviour of the universe has basically fecked his own party with his scheming and the promise! What happens to SLAB if in Scotland people who support the Union support the Unionist party i.e. the Tories and those who don't support the SNP? Next May is looking like it could get very bloody for SLAB.

    Tories to get 55% in Scotland is perhaps one of your bolder predictions!
    Correct and what is I think good is that Westminster, ie the Chancellor, still sets the allowances.
    I am voting tory in May 2015 and will be happy for a tory govt to set tax rates for the rest of the UK.
    The big worry of course is that a Scottish left wing govt ruins the scottish economy and we have to bail them out. Business is already bworried and so will Scottish taxpayers. But with devolution thats always likely. At least with this there is a clear mechanism for scottish taxes to play their part. And a reason for voting conservative.
    To what extent has falling oil prices knocked a hole in indy scotland tax revenues?
    so you're a Conservative who thinks voters shouldn't face up to the consequences of their own choices ?
  • Miss Vance, maybe as an excuse to justify allowing Scottish MPs to vote on budgets?

    This is a ridiculous proposal.

    Yes - its a bit of a bodge - though of course if the govt separated the legislation into 'UK' and 'non-Scotland' bits there might be ways to address this.....It may have been the price paid to get any Labour agreement to devolve any income tax powers......

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Farage and UKIP triumphant!!!!!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30224637
    Net migration to the UK rose to 260,000 in the year to June - an increase of 78,000 on the previous year.

    "Prime Minister David Cameron has promised to get net migration below 100,000 before the election in 2015.

    But according to the data, 583,000 people immigrated to the UK in the last year - an increase of 45,000 from the EU and 30,000 from outside.

    BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith said the figures were "deeply, deeply significant" and "deeply awkward for David Cameron".

    and now I have some chores to do (boo!). Back later.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    JackW said:

    Socrates said:

    JackW said:

    Socrates said:

    32,000 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria in the last twelve months...

    Not the 29 million pledged by Farage then.

    Little wonder politicians are so mistrusted when they fail to keep their promises.

    Farage said 29 million would have the right to come here. That's entirely true. He didn't come 29 million would come here. The reason you Europhiles are losing the argument is that you just lie and lie again about such things.
    Poppycock.

    Farage used the 29 million as a dog whistle to arouse fears of east European EU immigration. It's was a tawdry and distasteful statement entirely in keeping with the fear mongering wing of his party.

    Neither was it of course an "entirely true" statement as the combined population, let alone working age population, of Bulgaria and Rumania is so far short of 29 million as to make Ed Balls use of statistics a model of mathematical rectitude.

    I'm saddened you accuse me of being a Europhile and liar. I am neither.

    What's a dog whistle are the constant smears and distortions of Europhiles about UKIP. Farage raised an entirely legitimate point about just how many Romanians and Bulgarians have the right to come here, with the point that the upside uncertainty of immigration from those countries had effectively no limit.

    And 29 million was an entirely accurate number of the Romanians and Bulgarians that could come here. You realise that their right to come here depends on whether they had Romanian or Bulgarian passport, not whether they were presently resident in Romanian and Bulgaria, right?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    TGOHF said:

    Can we deduce from the lack of outrage from Nats that they are reasonably satisfied with the Smith Commission ?

    Remember it would never happen - just like the referendum....

    The results of the Smith Commission are as exactly as shit as I expected them to be.
  • Is there anywhere a good summary of what is being proposed for Scotland? Suggest this might make a good thread subject!
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    BenM said:

    Socrates said:

    BenM said:

    Socrates said:

    BenM said:

    Socrates said:

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    260,000 net migration in year to June 2014. Up from 182,000 prior.

    Great for the economy.

    So, you're saying the economy is in good shape, after all?
    Without the infusion of tax paying immigrants, the economy will be in dire trouble.

    By the way, is the net dispoable income higher than 2010 in real terms ?
    You mean the immigrants that were a £113 billion drain on the economy, according to the latest analysis?
    Except they weren't. They were £5bn contributors.
    I was out by a billion. Overall immigrants have cost the UK £114 billion between 1995-2011.

    Page 26:

    http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
    Yep p26. All EEA migrants since 2001 contributed £20bn.

    Got my number wrong too. Out by £15bn though!
    You referred to "immigrants", not "EEA immigrants". And you can time limit it all you want. The longer a timeframe you take, the less they contribute. Non-EEA immigrants are, overall, a huge drain, and EEA immigrants are basically neutral, and will likely be a drain once they've been here long enough to need elderly care and pensions.
    All immigrants including non EEA = £25bn. Even higher.
    Only if you ignore immigrants that came here between 1995-2001. You're deliberately cherry picking data because you know how bad the overall numbers are.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Alistair said:

    TGOHF said:

    Can we deduce from the lack of outrage from Nats that they are reasonably satisfied with the Smith Commission ?

    Remember it would never happen - just like the referendum....

    The results of the Smith Commission are as exactly as shit as I expected them to be.
    Not bad consolation prizes for the losing team though.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    MikeK said:

    Socrates said:



    Have you never heard of the 30 years war? How many christians have killed christians in the name of christianity?

    If you have to go back to the 17th Century to find an equivalent, you know you're in bad shape.
    @Flightpath is always in bad shape. If ever there was a misnomer, flightpath is it: he always crashes in flames. ;D
    LOL!
  • Pong said:

    Socrates said:

    MikeK said:

    JackW said:

    Socrates said:

    32,000 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria in the last twelve months...

    Not the 29 million pledged by Farage then.

    Little wonder politicians are so mistrusted when they fail to keep their promises.

    Farage never said that they would come; only that they COULD come.
    So it was a meaningless load of garbage, a silly attempt to stoke up fear over nothing, a bit like saying 2 million unemployed Britons could come and live in Cheltenham.
    No, it was a very meaningful comment on how the UK had farmed out its immigration policy from these countries to the aggregate decisions of 29 million Bulgarians and Romanians. It showed how we were at a danger of having no control over how many came here, as has been proven to be the case.

    You have to be a particularly inept government to have a target of reducing immigration by 60% and actually end up increasing it.
    Our economic cycles and performance are now so divergent, we effectively act as the EU's economic pressure valve.
    To an extent, you're right - although you could make the same case for other parts of europe (Scandinavia, the baltics, Holland, Ireland).

    It also works both ways.
    Almost all of those are in the eurozone. As the eurozone integrates further, their economic cycles will become ever more convergent. Ours, on the other hand, will not, but we will often be bound by the decisions made there.

    This is why the renegotiation is so important, but I'm not holding my breath.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Patrick said:

    Is there anywhere a good summary of what is being proposed for Scotland? Suggest this might make a good thread subject!

    Set income tax levels and bands
    Some benefits devolved
    Right to bash the Scottish Beeb
    Right to extend votes for Holyrood to 16yo

    More responsibility and less room for excuses - hence the Nats are FEWMIN.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    Dave's really dropped a clanger on the net migration hasn't he. Too far, too fast as some might say... And the ECML - at least it's not gone to First group.

    Then again Labour would just let everyone in, and their dog. And their dog's dependants...

    Hmm I'm still undecided but if there was an election tomorrow it'd have to be the kippers for me.
  • Charles said:

    Morning all and on thread poor Mike has had over 12 hours of ribbing for his silly Tory collapse in England thread on Monday.

    We now have a UNS of around 4 to 4.5% (subject to Ashcroft blowing that away later today in one direction or the other) from Con to Lab whereas a couple of months ago it was 5.5% and in the summer 6.5%. Last night I was looking at old YouGov polls and the one which struck me was in October 2012 when it was a Lab lead of 14% Lab 45 Con 31.

    Today SLAB is realising that the SNP and Tories have outflanked them over Scotland. Once again Gordon Brown, saviour of the universe has basically fecked his own party with his scheming and the promise! What happens to SLAB if in Scotland people who support the Union support the Unionist party i.e. the Tories and those who don't support the SNP? Next May is looking like it could get very bloody for SLAB.

    Tories to get 55% in Scotland is perhaps one of your bolder predictions!
    Correct and what is I think good is that Westminster, ie the Chancellor, still sets the allowances.
    I am voting tory in May 2015 and will be happy for a tory govt to set tax rates for the rest of the UK.
    The big worry of course is that a Scottish left wing govt ruins the scottish economy and we have to bail them out. Business is already bworried and so will Scottish taxpayers. But with devolution thats always likely. At least with this there is a clear mechanism for scottish taxes to play their part. And a reason for voting conservative.
    To what extent has falling oil prices knocked a hole in indy scotland tax revenues?

    I would happily bail out the Scots subject to an annual payment to repay whatever support is given.. annualised over say 25 years.
    And the impact of falling oil prices?
    well From $110/barrel to $80 now times (say) 250million barrels /year - rounded to give easy sums $7.5Billion or £5 billion. Total Scots public spending is £65B.

    The Scots would go bust again or face making spending cuts which would made George Osbourne look like Father Christmas.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Mr. W, why should a Scottish MP be able to vote on English taxes? Why is devolution for Scotland right and necessary but the same measure for England unacceptable?

    You're entirely wrong on this. We can either address the West Lothian Question, or pretend it doesn't exist and guarantee the ultimate break-up of the UK through complacent negligence.

    Westminster MP's are not elected as Scottish, Welsh, English or Ulster MP's but as individual constituency members to determine matters reserved for the UK parliament.

    The history of the HoC is stuffed full of measures that might be completely unrelated to a members' constituency but which they may vote on.

    It's worth noting that during the period when Ulster had its' own parliament and Prime Minister and Ulster sent MP's to the HoC we had little of this EVEL rubbish but then of course the Ulster Unionists were essentially a wholly owned subsidiary of the Conservative party.

    The solution is a form of federal arrangement that we seem to be moving toward, which I would support, but until we do so then HoC MP's should vote on all issues regardless of where they are elected from.

  • MikeK said:

    Farage and UKIP triumphant!!!!!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30224637
    Net migration to the UK rose to 260,000 in the year to June - an increase of 78,000 on the previous year.

    "Prime Minister David Cameron has promised to get net migration below 100,000 before the election in 2015.

    But according to the data, 583,000 people immigrated to the UK in the last year - an increase of 45,000 from the EU and 30,000 from outside.

    BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith said the figures were "deeply, deeply significant" and "deeply awkward for David Cameron".

    and now I have some chores to do (boo!). Back later.

    Those are simply huge numbers. That's well over a million extra people every 4 years.

    Why do politicians and the commentariat think we all stop complaining and be entirely comfortable with that?

    It's this idiocy and the raw abuse and prejudice dished out by erstwhile fellow Conservatives to UKIP that drive me ever closer towards them.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited November 2014
    JackW said:


    Neither was it of course an "entirely true" statement as the combined population, let alone working age population, of Bulgaria and Rumania is so far short of 29 million as to make Ed Balls use of statistics a model of mathematical rectitude.

    I'm saddened you accuse me of being a Europhile and liar. I am neither.

    Far short ?

    Romania Pop: 21,729,871
    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ro.html

    Bulgaria Pop: 6,924,716
    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bu.html

    Total : 28,654,587

    So 29m rounding to the nearest million
  • Socrates said:



    Have you never heard of the 30 years war? How many christians have killed christians in the name of christianity?

    If you have to go back to the 17th Century to find an equivalent, you know you're in bad shape.
    Just look on WW2 . All sides claimed God was on their side..
  • The Scottish Tories are happy:

    http://www.scottishconservatives.com/2014/11/smith-commission-scottish-conservative-plan-scotland/

    The Scottish Conservatives have enthusiastically endorsed the Smith Commission’s radical new blueprint for a truly powerful and responsible Scottish Parliament.

    In a major victory for the party, every one of its recommendations on tax has been accepted by the SNP, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens – including the full devolution of income tax, full control over Air Passenger Duty, and the assignment of VAT revenues.

    The Scottish Conservatives have also gone further and agreed with the other parties to increase welfare powers at Holyrood, honouring a promise to voters to do so.


    I wonder if Scottish Labour will be equally thrilled?
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Socrates said:

    BenM said:

    Socrates said:

    BenM said:

    Socrates said:

    BenM said:

    Socrates said:

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    260,000 net migration in year to June 2014. Up from 182,000 prior.

    Great for the economy.

    So, you're saying the economy is in good shape, after all?
    Without the infusion of tax paying immigrants, the economy will be in dire trouble.

    By the way, is the net dispoable income higher than 2010 in real terms ?
    You mean the immigrants that were a £113 billion drain on the economy, according to the latest analysis?
    Except they weren't. They were £5bn contributors.
    I was out by a billion. Overall immigrants have cost the UK £114 billion between 1995-2011.

    Page 26:

    http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
    Yep p26. All EEA migrants since 2001 contributed £20bn.

    Got my number wrong too. Out by £15bn though!
    You referred to "immigrants", not "EEA immigrants". And you can time limit it all you want. The longer a timeframe you take, the less they contribute. Non-EEA immigrants are, overall, a huge drain, and EEA immigrants are basically neutral, and will likely be a drain once they've been here long enough to need elderly care and pensions.
    All immigrants including non EEA = £25bn. Even higher.
    Only if you ignore immigrants that came here between 1995-2001. You're deliberately cherry picking data because you know how bad the overall numbers are.
    Punch and Judy time but...

    ...I'm afraid you're the one cherry picking.

    Your data excludes the huge contribution by those immigrants BEFORE 1995.
  • TGOHF said:

    Alistair said:

    TGOHF said:

    Can we deduce from the lack of outrage from Nats that they are reasonably satisfied with the Smith Commission ?

    Remember it would never happen - just like the referendum....

    The results of the Smith Commission are as exactly as shit as I expected them to be.
    Not bad consolation prizes for the losing team though.
    What consolation prize will Dave offer the Kippers if he spanks their bottom in the in/out referendum, as Dave has always been on the winning side on plebiscites in this country.

    Personally the best thing he could post the referendum, is to make sure Turkey becomes a member of the EU.

    The Kippers would be so happy, they could bang on about Muslim immigration to this country forever.
  • Almost all of those are in the eurozone. As the eurozone integrates further, their economic cycles will become ever more convergent. Ours, on the other hand, will not, but we will often be bound by the decisions made there.

    That's true, but it would remain largely true even if we left the EU, just as Canada (even without NAFTA) has always been very dependent on decisions made in the US. If you have a much bigger neighbour on your doorstep, you're going to be greatly affected by it. All the more so if, as everyone agrees we should, we retain access to the Single Market.
  • Sean_F said:

    It's perfectly reasonable to highlight that we have no control whatsoever over immigration from EU member states. That's the main reason why this government has failed to control immigration.

    Yes, that would be reasonable. Saying, as UKIP did, that 29 million unemployed EU citizens 'want your job' was not reasonable. If I were as unpleasant as Richard Tyndall, I might even say it was a lie.
    And as usual you would be talking out of your backside because the only lie would be the one you are perpetuating about what Farage actually said.

    Your sad and at times quite desperate hatred of UKIP has so warped your perception as to make you incapable of differentiating between fact and fiction. A common result from such blind adherence to one party no matter what their idiocy.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    Socrates said:



    Have you never heard of the 30 years war? How many christians have killed christians in the name of christianity?

    If you have to go back to the 17th Century to find an equivalent, you know you're in bad shape.
    Just look on WW2 . All sides claimed God was on their side..
    The Nazis and Communists certainly didn't.
  • Huzzah for Virgin, they run the West Coast franchise, and it is bloody lovely.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,536

    MikeK said:

    Farage and UKIP triumphant!!!!!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30224637
    Net migration to the UK rose to 260,000 in the year to June - an increase of 78,000 on the previous year.

    "Prime Minister David Cameron has promised to get net migration below 100,000 before the election in 2015.

    But according to the data, 583,000 people immigrated to the UK in the last year - an increase of 45,000 from the EU and 30,000 from outside.

    BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith said the figures were "deeply, deeply significant" and "deeply awkward for David Cameron".

    and now I have some chores to do (boo!). Back later.

    Those are simply huge numbers. That's well over a million extra people every 4 years.

    Why do politicians and the commentariat think we all stop complaining and be entirely comfortable with that?

    It's this idiocy and the raw abuse and prejudice dished out by erstwhile fellow Conservatives to UKIP that drive me ever closer towards them.
    Even weirder is the belief that UKIP will just fade away. Pretty soon, a party that will end immigration on this scale -which may or may not b UKIP - will win a general election.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    edited November 2014
    Ninoinoz said:

    Socrates said:

    MikeK said:

    Socrates said:

    A new Islamist political party has been founded in the Netherlands, splitting from the Labour Party:

    http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4910/the-netherlands-newest-accomplishment

    The muslims in Holland now feel strong enough to to come out of hiding from under their Labour Party blanket. The same will probably happen here in a year or two. The Respect party was something of an attempt to make a mass muslim centred party here in the UK, but has so far failed to tempt muslims embedded in other parties to participate.
    The Dutch have made the same mistakes we have. Their mentality of "tolerance" has been applied even to those that are intolerant and not integrating. The result is segregation socially, and now, apparently, politically. Will the left be happy with themselves when we have an Islamist parliamentary party in the UK, supporting bans on abortion, the revocation of gay marriage, and second class status for women? Left-wingers usually claim it's just a matter of time, and integration will happen. Well, please show me one example of a country that has had a large Muslim minority and has successfully integrated them fully, or even mostly.
    Ban on abortion? Revocation of gay "marriage"?

    Where do I put my cross on the ballot paper?
    You're a kuffar. Look at the position of unbelievers in Muslim countries in the Middle East. What makes you think that you won't be viewed as a "useful idiot", to use Lenin's phrase?

  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    Socrates said:

    BenM said:

    Socrates said:

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    260,000 net migration in year to June 2014. Up from 182,000 prior.

    Great for the economy.

    So, you're saying the economy is in good shape, after all?
    Without the infusion of tax paying immigrants, the economy will be in dire trouble.

    By the way, is the net dispoable income higher than 2010 in real terms ?
    You mean the immigrants that were a £113 billion drain on the economy, according to the latest analysis?
    Except they weren't. They were £5bn contributors.
    I was out by a billion. Overall immigrants have cost the UK £114 billion between 1995-2011.

    Page 26:

    http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
    That was even a report rigged to provide a favourable outcome ignoring infrastructure costs, social costs, crime, terrorism etc.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410

    MikeK said:

    Farage and UKIP triumphant!!!!!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30224637
    Net migration to the UK rose to 260,000 in the year to June - an increase of 78,000 on the previous year.

    "Prime Minister David Cameron has promised to get net migration below 100,000 before the election in 2015.

    But according to the data, 583,000 people immigrated to the UK in the last year - an increase of 45,000 from the EU and 30,000 from outside.

    BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith said the figures were "deeply, deeply significant" and "deeply awkward for David Cameron".

    and now I have some chores to do (boo!). Back later.

    Those are simply huge numbers. That's well over a million extra people every 4 years.

    Why do politicians and the commentariat think we all stop complaining and be entirely comfortable with that?

    It's this idiocy and the raw abuse and prejudice dished out by erstwhile fellow Conservatives to UKIP that drive me ever closer towards them.
    So... GDP goes up - but to who - who really benefits - it's not your common or working man - and the inevitable pressure on infrastructure follows (Hospitals, schools, roads, housing) - I understand and sympathise completly.

    And the Conservatives had better come up with a better message than "Ed might be PM" - it ain't going to convince UKIPers and the Doncaster North polling will show Vote Dave, get Ed.
  • BenM said:

    Time for all those Tories who have wibbled about Labour's alleged "open door policy" on immigration to apologise and shut up for a while.

    Sorry, no. Labour deliberately opened the door (wider and wider) on mass immigration for nefarious sociocultural and political reasons. The Tories have at least made some attempt to try and close it, a little bit, and I have no doubt the leadership was sincere in its objective to bring it down to the tens of thousands (by which they meant around 95,000 a year) whilst maintaining enough flexibility so as not to damage the economy.

    Where they deserve criticism is in not going far enough with the reforms to achieve this, and not being more robust with the EU to get what Britain needs.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Jim Murphy tweeting that he approves of the Smith Commission report.

    Wonder if the Unite puppet candidate is so happy.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    BenM said:

    Socrates said:

    BenM said:

    Socrates said:

    BenM said:

    Socrates said:

    BenM said:

    Socrates said:

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    260,000 net migration in year to June 2014. Up from 182,000 prior.

    Great for the economy.

    So, you're saying the economy is in good shape, after all?
    Without the infusion of tax paying immigrants, the economy will be in dire trouble.

    By the way, is the net dispoable income higher than 2010 in real terms ?
    You mean the immigrants that were a £113 billion drain on the economy, according to the latest analysis?
    Except they weren't. They were £5bn contributors.
    I was out by a billion. Overall immigrants have cost the UK £114 billion between 1995-2011.

    Page 26:

    http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
    Yep p26. All EEA migrants since 2001 contributed £20bn.

    Got my number wrong too. Out by £15bn though!
    You referred to "immigrants", not "EEA immigrants". And you can time limit it all you want. The longer a timeframe you take, the less they contribute. Non-EEA immigrants are, overall, a huge drain, and EEA immigrants are basically neutral, and will likely be a drain once they've been here long enough to need elderly care and pensions.
    All immigrants including non EEA = £25bn. Even higher.
    Only if you ignore immigrants that came here between 1995-2001. You're deliberately cherry picking data because you know how bad the overall numbers are.
    Punch and Judy time but...

    ...I'm afraid you're the one cherry picking.

    Your data excludes the huge contribution by those immigrants BEFORE 1995.
    Pre-1995 immigrants weren't included in the analysis. I'd love to include that data. Do you have numbers for them?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    Indigo said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/11256657/Private-schools-only-look-after-their-own.html

    More "private schools are naughty and wicked" rantings from Dr The Hon Tristam Hunt

    Labour can't bear anyone acting independently of the state. It's like saying that families only look after their own.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    edited November 2014
    To put this ComRes marginals poll into context, it shows Labour short of a majority and barely ahead on the popular vote.

    The Marginals poll of September 2009 but the Tories on course for a majority of 70.
  • Alistair said:

    TGOHF said:

    Can we deduce from the lack of outrage from Nats that they are reasonably satisfied with the Smith Commission ?

    Remember it would never happen - just like the referendum....

    The results of the Smith Commission are as exactly as shit as I expected them to be.
    'It is never difficult to tell the difference between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine'

    Look on the bright side - you could have been in the middle of Indy negotiations based on the SNP assumption of $110 oil......
This discussion has been closed.