Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » “The next CON leader will not be a white man” – Tory inside

24

Comments

  • Mr. Mark, I've always wanted to see them. I remember being pissed off at the news when it once reported that last night (as was) there had been great opportunities to see them. Very bloody useful.

    I've always found the bucket list a weird thing. A list of things to do before you die... well, when else are you going to do them?
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    Floater said:

    So probably two non white male leaders for the blues compared to errr none for the progressive reds.

    Hattie will not be amused.

    Ed's Jewish in case you hadn't noticed.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469

    King Cole, Turkey's behaviour regarding ISIS, most especially over Kobane, has not necessarily made it appear a bastion of reason where that sort of thing is concerned.

    Yep. IMHO there will be no Turkey in the EU whilst Erdogan is in power. Given the only way that Erdogan will be shifted is through a military coup (unlikely due to the rather interesting trials they had a few years ago). Even if one did occur, the EU would probably not want to admit a government that had gained power through a coup, I can't see it happening.

    (Although I would like to once again congratulate Turkey on the way it has handles the refugee problem on its souther border).
  • Mr. Flag, if we're counting Jewish as separate, then the Conservatives stay ahead, due to Disraeli. And Howard.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    FalseFlag said:

    Floater said:

    So probably two non white male leaders for the blues compared to errr none for the progressive reds.

    Hattie will not be amused.

    Ed's Jewish in case you hadn't noticed.
    As was the much maligned Michael Howard. What's your point?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    Ninoinoz said:

    Barnesian said:


    Net immigration is adding about 0.5% a year to our population.

    To a first approximation, they are adding 0.5% pa to GDP (and prevented Balls' douible dip recession). They are also adding 0.5% to the tax take.

    On the other hand they add 0.5% pa to the demand for NHS, schools, roads, care homes etc.

    It balances out.

    Actually, it probably doesn't because, on average, immigrants are younger and more likely to be producers of GDP than consumers of care homes and the NHS.

    I do think that GDP figures and NHS spending should be expressed in amount per head rather than the grand total to get a feel of what is really going on.

    What absolute codswallop.

    Immigrants are younger? Absolutely correct, but that's the sort that have children.

    So, pay a visit to a maternity unit, or to a Catholic School, and you'll find exactly the effect of immigration. My old primary school has expanded, an entirely new school had to be built, two new schools founded farther south and a sixth-form created at my niece's school.

    There are lies, damned lies and your 0.5%'s.
    It was one thing for Labour to expose the UK to a massive wave of immigration. Without asking the consent of the UK population.

    But it was an even worse crime for them to make no provision whatsoever for their housing, their health, the education of their children, their integration into the existing communities. For that alone, Labour should be debarred from power for a generation or two.

    And an apology would be nice. But that would be an admission of error. So no chance.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    antifrank said:

    Guess the latest opponent of Jean-Claude Juncker (no googling):

    “Since I have uncovered all this I have questions about if Mr Juncker is fit to be the president of the European commission. I think if this had been around during the period of his appointment it might well be a different decision.”

    Merkel ?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    antifrank said:

    Guess the latest opponent of Jean-Claude Juncker (no googling):

    “Since I have uncovered all this I have questions about if Mr Juncker is fit to be the president of the European commission. I think if this had been around during the period of his appointment it might well be a different decision.”

    Blair or Miliband ?
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    "On Monday night, Ed Miliband set out a timetable for the introduction of votes for 16 and 17 year olds. What we learned from this is not that he is in favour of the policy – he’s stated it many times – but that, with the intention of bringing them in within the first year of government, they are a priority for Labour.

    It’s not exactly clear why. It is not a popular policy. There is no real clamour for this policy to be implemented at all, let alone immediately. This extract from ‘Sex, Lies, and the Ballot Box’ show how little popularity it has, even among teenagers.

    In the Standard last night, Sadiq Khan said that lowering the voting age would “energise political debate”. But it won’t. That’s not how you energise political debate.

    Only 44% of 18-24 year olds voted in the last General Election. Given that there seems to be a growing consensus that the public are increasingly disenfranchised from politics, why should we expect it to be any different for young people? As someone who still falls into that age group, I cannot honestly say that there was a hidden desire to discuss politics among my sixth form classmates. By giving the vote to more young people, you will just increase the number of apathetic people eligible to vote."

    http://labourlist.org/2014/12/young-people-dont-need-the-vote-earlier-they-need-something-to-vote-for/
  • These figures are pretty high. Half of women and 43% of men are taking at least one form of medication:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30411246

    Naturally, being a lean, mean, morris dancing machine I have no need of pills to be in peak wiffle-stick waving condition.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    FalseFlag said:

    Floater said:

    So probably two non white male leaders for the blues compared to errr none for the progressive reds.

    Hattie will not be amused.

    Ed's Jewish in case you hadn't noticed.
    As was the much maligned Michael Howard. What's your point?
    That Labour have a non white leader.

    I would like to make absolutely clear, I see this as a bad thing.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    edited December 2014
    Tristram Hunt writes:

    "This summer marked the seventieth anniversary of Rab Butler’s 1944 Education Act receiving Royal Assent. And with the introduction of free schooling for all to 15 and the massive expansion of education to the working classes that ensued, there can be little argument it represents a pivotal moment in our country’s history. Yet in one crucial way the act can be seen as a victory from which English education has yet to recover. Because just as the British in Berlin were laying the foundations of German’s superb system of post-war technical education, back here in Blighty we were shooting ourselves in the foot. Even at their height technical schools – the third plank of Butler’s tripartite schools system – failed to cater for more than 2% of pupils. From this stems the historic failing of English education – a shocking inequality of opportunity between technical and academic routes."


    http://labourlist.org/2014/12/the-next-labour-government-will-finish-the-business-of-butler/
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937

    Mr. Mark, I've always wanted to see them. I remember being pissed off at the news when it once reported that last night (as was) there had been great opportunities to see them. Very bloody useful.

    I've always found the bucket list a weird thing. A list of things to do before you die... well, when else are you going to do them?

    Fair point on the bucket list, Mr. Dancer, but it keeps you reminded of an inevitable demise - and to do things whilst you still have the inclination and the ability to do them. As my granny used to say, "you're a long time dead". As she continues to prove....
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469
    edited December 2014
    Ninoinoz said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    Indigo said:

    Maybe you should try seeing if your premise is correct or false using figures?

    Or maybe we could look at that the current Tory Immigration Minister says:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11278440/Nigel-Farage-blames-immigration-after-missing-Ukip-reception.html
    However, James Brokenshire, the immigration minister, last month said immigration is putting pressure on Britain’s road network.
    He dismissed a report that concluded that European migrants make a net economic gain to Britain by saying its “narrow focus” had failed to take into account pressure on infrastructure.
    “It’s not properly addressed the issue of the pressures on public services. Those things that I think very rightly concern the public on access to schools, hospitals, roads, housing, why we do need a sustainable immigration system, bringing it down from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands,” Mr Brokenshire said.
    And I would ask Brokenshire for evidence for his claims.

    Besides, there are several effects here: local and national. Since Farage's journey was along the M4, people picking their kids up from school would have had less of an effect.
    OK, nice to have it confirmed that you have paid absolutely no attention to my posts as long as I have been posting.

    Catholic schools? Ever thought where all those Polish kids went to school?

    And where exactly did their mothers give birth? How was the maternity unit your wife gave birth in? The ones in Suffolk barely have English spoken in them.
    My dear Ninoinoz, I luxuriate in every single word of every post of yours. How can anyone not be truly entertained and enlightened by your erudition, compassion, and humour?
    Thank you, very kind.

    Much as I like compliments, I would have preferred an answer to my points, especially about maternity wards as you are a new father.

    But, sarcastic comments beat reasoned arguments every time in Toryland.

    Firstly, I didn't choose to answer your questions because we were talking about roads: hospitals have little directly to do with Friday evening rush hour traffic on the M4. If your questions had been of relevance to the discussion, I would have answered them.

    Secondly, if you read my posts more closely you might realise I am not a Tory (tm), and therefore do not live in Toryland.

    (Edit: I've had a quick oo, but couldn't find it on the UKIP map of the world. Where is it in relation to Bingo Bongo land?)
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,679
    Ninoinoz said:

    Barnesian said:


    Net immigration is adding about 0.5% a year to our population.

    To a first approximation, they are adding 0.5% pa to GDP (and prevented Balls' douible dip recession). They are also adding 0.5% to the tax take.

    On the other hand they add 0.5% pa to the demand for NHS, schools, roads, care homes etc.

    It balances out.

    Actually, it probably doesn't because, on average, immigrants are younger and more likely to be producers of GDP than consumers of care homes and the NHS.

    I do think that GDP figures and NHS spending should be expressed in amount per head rather than the grand total to get a feel of what is really going on.

    What absolute codswallop.

    Immigrants are younger? Absolutely correct, but that's the sort that have children.

    So, pay a visit to a maternity unit, or to a Catholic School, and you'll find exactly the effect of immigration. My old primary school has expanded, an entirely new school had to be built, two new schools founded farther south and a sixth-form created at my niece's school.

    There are lies, damned lies and your 0.5%'s.
    Immigrants are paying for investment in schools through their taxes just like anyone else. But overall they are likely to take less out from the state (schools excepted) than they put in. They probably make a positive economic contribution to the public purse.

    The people who take more out of the public purse are the oldies like me who don't produce much but consume a lot of NHS resources. We are supported by the positive contribution from immigrants.

    Objective analysis versus prejudice.
  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    Image the scene, Ed Miliband holding his first PMQ's after Labour enter government with the Lib Dems in coalition, Nick Clegg sitting next to Ed. Cameron as leader of the opposition looking across the dispatch box, thinking how did this happen, you cannot trust the Lib Dems.

    For this reason, if Ed M does become PM, I think Cameron will resign pretty quickly and the Tories will have a temporary leader who will probably not be a contender in a leadership contest, as they will want to spend their time campaigning.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited December 2014
    Barnesian said:

    They probably make a positive economic contribution to the public purse...

    Objective analysis versus prejudice.

    But we have an objective analysis. Between 1995-2011, the net impact of immigrants on the public finances was a £114bn loss. EU immigrants were basically neutral (a small £4bn gain, but this will likely reverse as they age), while non-EU immigrants were a £118bn loss. And this was under a set of optimistic assumptions too. So, when presented with this objective analysis, will you change your prejudice from the pro-mass immigration position?

    Then of course there is the stuff that isn't exchequer-related: increased congestion, impact on rising house prices, classes being majority ESL and slowing language development etc.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    FalseFlag said:

    FalseFlag said:

    Floater said:

    So probably two non white male leaders for the blues compared to errr none for the progressive reds.

    Hattie will not be amused.

    Ed's Jewish in case you hadn't noticed.
    As was the much maligned Michael Howard. What's your point?
    That Labour have a non white leader.

    I would like to make absolutely clear, I see this as a bad thing.
    Jews can't be white ? Eh ?
  • Mr. Socrates, the reporting of that, er, report was ridiculously one-sided.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    I see David "I'm really tough on EU immigration, honest" Cameron is saying once again that he supports policies to let 70 million Middle Easterners have free access to the UK.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    antifrank said:

    Incidentally, I see Cameron has strongly reaffirmed the Government's support for Turkish membership of the EU. I'm no Eurosceptic, as regular PBers will know, but well, hmm, I'm not sure about that.

    One of the reasons that Europhobia is so strong is because in Britain those who are not irretrievably opposed to the EU have expressed no coherent vision of what it should look like, so the headbangers have been allowed to draw up a bizarre EUSSR caricature.

    If the EU is to mean anything, it should among other things act as a guiding light towards liberal democracy for its neighbours - not just for idealistic reasons but because they make for much better neighbours. We should not be closing the door on Turkey, Ukraine, Serbia, Albania, Moldova or Georgia, even if their paths to ultimate membership may be long. Turkey's route to membership of the EU may be difficult, but is it necessarily harder than Spain's was? Or would we rather let Turkey slide into Islamist authoritarianism because it is easier?

    David Cameron is often, and often rightly, accused of putting tactics ahead of national interest. On this he is doing the reverse.
    Good diplomacy combines sticks with carrots. Seeing that Turkey has recently launched into increased authoritarianism, that would be a good time to play down talk of EU membership and restrict talking it up when they're moving in the right direction.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited December 2014
    There's no doubt that Theresa May has made quite remarkable progress in terms of her standing in the party. She used to be quite unpopular because of the 'nasty party' phrase, which was indeed very damaging even if the point she was making was a very reasonable one. But her very successful tenure as Home Secretary has certainly boosted her position as well as her profile. It is certainly possible to see her as leader of the party and indeed as PM. She has quite a refreshingly bracing no-nonsense approach, and she certainly has the capability.

    I would say, though, that she's not a naturally inspiring speaker, and she doesn't sparkle in Question and Answer sessions. She's better in more relaxed settings (like her Desert Island Discs programme), or face to face.

    So what about the competition? It's a pretty strong field, with at least half a dozen figures whom one could reasonably entrust with the role.

    The biggest turnaround has been the rise in the popularity of George Osborne in the party. It is common for people to single him out for praise. Of course, as one of those who always maintained he is a very good Chancellor and who urged you all to keep your heads when all around were losing theirs, this is not too much of a surprise to me, but I have been surprised by the extent of the turnaround. On the other hand, it's not obvious that, for all his qualities, Osborne is the answer to the problem of the party being seen as too posh and 'out of touch'. So he's a possibility, but not I think a very likely choice. I see him more as continuing to be the power behind the throne, rather than the front-man.

    Sajid Javid, Phil Hammond, and Jeremy Hunt are all possibilities. Owen Paterson would represent a change of direction and might be the candidate to represent the BOOer wing of the party.

    You can forget Michael Gove (not popular with councillors, and anyway not really suited to the role). You can also rule out David Davis, and probably Liam Fox; disloyal and troublesome, and, in the case of Fox, not a very good Defence Secretary.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    So if oil hits $50 a barrel just how bust would iScotland have been ?

    http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/dec/10/petrol-1-pound-litre-oil-prices-fall-treasury-committee

    Conservative estimate (not only reducing tax take by 50% but also reducing activity to be taxed by 50% as well, so effectively a 75% cut in Oil revenue) would leave Scotland with £2 billion less last year.

    Scotland's historical tax take varies by more than that on a year by year basis.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    FalseFlag said:

    Floater said:

    So probably two non white male leaders for the blues compared to errr none for the progressive reds.

    Hattie will not be amused.

    Ed's Jewish in case you hadn't noticed.
    In the ethnic or religious sense of the word ?

  • Mr. Alistair, worth also pointing out the financial exodus to London that would've occurred, as well as the decline in 'bilateral' English-Scottish trade.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Financier said:

    Tristram Hunt writes:

    "....a shocking inequality of opportunity between technical and academic routes."

    .. and those that have parents that can afford £20,000 per year to send them to UCS.

  • Incidentally, I see Cameron has strongly reaffirmed the Government's support for Turkish membership of the EU. I'm no Eurosceptic, as regular PBers will know, but well, hmm, I'm not sure about that.

    Neither is David Cameron.

    No?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11283924/David-Cameron-I-still-want-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html?WT.mc_id=e_3746653&WT.tsrc=email&etype=politics&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_PAM_New_2014_12_10&utm_campaign=3746653

    It's not the migrants that concern me so much as the instability: there seems a non-trivial risk that they'll end up with a virtual dictatorship of one kind of another. I take antifrank's point that the EU promotes stability, and it's not done a bad job in e.g. Poland, but there are limits to what it can influence, as we see in Hungary.

    I dunno - I can see arguments both ways to be honest.

    I meant Cameron is not a eurosceptic. Migration would be a massive issue. If you fail to see that, along with a lot of prospective Labour candidates, then once again you are demonstrating your unsuitability to hold elected office in this country again.
  • Further to my previous post, I seem to have forgotten Boris!

    His position is rather paradoxical. He certainly has the stardust quality - at events where he appears he is mobbed like a rock star, with queues of people wanting their photo taken with him - but is he seen as a potential leader? He would be a high-risk choice; it might work out very well, but in the cold light of day I'm not sure it's a step the party will take. Quite apart from anything else, he's probably not someone who would appeal to the key voters in the midlands and north, where the Conservatives most need to boost their support.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    On topic

    Was the statement made because someone knows who it will be, or are they just committed to tokenism?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,709
    Indigo said:

    Financier said:

    Tristram Hunt writes:

    "....a shocking inequality of opportunity between technical and academic routes."

    .. and those that have parents that can afford £20,000 per year to send them to UCS.

    Can’t reasonably blame the man for his parent’s choices.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Alistair said:

    So if oil hits $50 a barrel just how bust would iScotland have been ?

    http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/dec/10/petrol-1-pound-litre-oil-prices-fall-treasury-committee

    Conservative estimate (not only reducing tax take by 50% but also reducing activity to be taxed by 50% as well, so effectively a 75% cut in Oil revenue) would leave Scotland with £2 billion less last year.

    Scotland's historical tax take varies by more than that on a year by year basis.
    Other impacts of a sub £1 a litre petrol price:

    a) "Cost of living crisis" strategies look "brave".

    b) The M4 will be busier on a Friday.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited December 2014

    Indigo said:

    Financier said:

    Tristram Hunt writes:

    "....a shocking inequality of opportunity between technical and academic routes."

    .. and those that have parents that can afford £20,000 per year to send them to UCS.

    Can’t reasonably blame the man for his parent’s choices.
    Labour do it the whole time... do you think Cameron and Osborne became "posh" or were they lucky enough to be born into well off families. I dont begrudge Hunt his good fortune at getting an excellent education, I begrudge him trying his level best to stop other children being so fortunate.
  • Regarding Turkey, I think Cameron is making noises safe in the knowledge that it will never happen. Austria for one has promised to veto Turkish membership and France wasn't keen either. They would be unlikely to meet the entry criteria anyway with Erdogan in charge.

    Apart from the issue with immigration, the other thing to point out is that Turkey has a population of 77 million (more than all the nations who joined in 2004 put together) so would be the 2nd most populous state after Germany, This could have the effect of causing a realignment of the power blocks.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Cameron's statement in Ankara that he supports EU entry for Turkey looks to me a bit of diplomacy rather than real intent. We need to keep the Turks onside particularly with the Jihadi madness in Syria. There is no realistic chance for EU entry in the near future for Turkey because of all the issues mentioned below (and not least the continuing discrimination against Christians in Turkey).

    Turkey could only join if it changed considerably as a country, and that does not seem likely, and even if it did then it would mean the end of freedom of movement of people. EU expansion is being prevented most of all by the free movement of people, which acts as a barrier to more of the Balkans, Caucases and Ukraine joining.

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,679
    Socrates said:

    Barnesian said:

    They probably make a positive economic contribution to the public purse...

    Objective analysis versus prejudice.

    But we have an objective analysis. Between 1995-2011, the net impact of immigrants on the public finances was a £114bn loss. EU immigrants were basically neutral (a small £4bn gain, but this will likely reverse as they age), while non-EU immigrants were a £118bn loss. And this was under a set of optimistic assumptions too. So, when presented with this objective analysis, will you change your prejudice from the pro-mass immigration position?

    Then of course there is the stuff that isn't exchequer-related: increased congestion, impact on rising house prices, classes being majority ESL and slowing language development etc.
    Socrates Can you give me the link please. I'm prepared to change my mind in the face of evidence and analysis.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    isam said:

    On topic

    Was the statement made because someone knows who it will be, or are they just committed to tokenism?

    I feel tokenism down plays the seriousness of the problem that the establishment has seen fit to institute a policy of official discrimination against the indigenous population. As with most policies in our liberal democracy it has its origin in the official policy of the early Soviet Union of discrimination against Russians for jobs, positions in the bureaucracy and access to universities.

    It seems as if we are to be excluded now even in the leadership of our own country.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,989
    Morning all :)

    As a non-Conservative, it probably doesn't matter what I think but it never stops non-LDs pontificating ad nauseam about the party so if you can't vote for 'em talk about 'em.

    IF Cameron loses, Osborne, as the architect of the failed (as it would appear) economic policy (whose paramount aim is to get the Conservatives re-elected as much as it is to improve the public finances) would be discredited and out of the running.

    It's too soon for Javid unless it's a 1997-style rout which seems improbable but not impossible. That leaves Theresa May and Boris Johnson and the hardy perennial question which all parties face - do you choose the leader YOU want or the Leader that appeals beyond the Party even if that leader iriitates the Party base ?

    It's clear to this non-Conservative that Boris has appeal far beyond the Conservative base though his intellectual positions on policy (well, as they were last week) wouldn't necessarily sit well with many Conservatives. Boris of course will change his opinion if required - he does that as easily as he changes his socks.

    Theresa May would be for me the female equivalent of Michael Howard - good for the core vote (and perhaps for recapturing the UKIP defectors) but less good at cutting into the Labour support.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    Incidentally, I see Cameron has strongly reaffirmed the Government's support for Turkish membership of the EU. I'm no Eurosceptic, as regular PBers will know, but well, hmm, I'm not sure about that.

    Neither is David Cameron.

    No?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11283924/David-Cameron-I-still-want-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html?WT.mc_id=e_3746653&WT.tsrc=email&etype=politics&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_PAM_New_2014_12_10&utm_campaign=3746653

    It's not the migrants that concern me so much as the instability: there seems a non-trivial risk that they'll end up with a virtual dictatorship of one kind of another. I take antifrank's point that the EU promotes stability, and it's not done a bad job in e.g. Poland, but there are limits to what it can influence, as we see in Hungary.

    I dunno - I can see arguments both ways to be honest.

    I don't see that the EU promotes stability. By removing voters ability to change government policy through elections, I think it destabilises countries.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Incidentally, I see Cameron has strongly reaffirmed the Government's support for Turkish membership of the EU. I'm no Eurosceptic, as regular PBers will know, but well, hmm, I'm not sure about that.

    Neither is David Cameron.

    No?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11283924/David-Cameron-I-still-want-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html?WT.mc_id=e_3746653&WT.tsrc=email&etype=politics&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_PAM_New_2014_12_10&utm_campaign=3746653

    It's not the migrants that concern me so much as the instability: there seems a non-trivial risk that they'll end up with a virtual dictatorship of one kind of another. I take antifrank's point that the EU promotes stability, and it's not done a bad job in e.g. Poland, but there are limits to what it can influence, as we see in Hungary.

    I dunno - I can see arguments both ways to be honest.

    I don't see that the EU promotes stability. By removing voters ability to change government policy through elections, I think it destabilises countries.
    Not to mention forcing countries' economies to be ruled by other countries with different political beliefs.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited December 2014
    stodge said:


    Theresa May would be for me the female equivalent of Michael Howard - good for the core vote (and perhaps for recapturing the UKIP defectors) but less good at cutting into the Labour support.

    You don't know UKIP defectors very well if you think Theresa May, who is noted for rising immigration on her watch and handing powers over to the EU without a parliamentary vote, will recapture them. Hammond or Paterson would be best for that.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,536

    Incidentally, I see Cameron has strongly reaffirmed the Government's support for Turkish membership of the EU. I'm no Eurosceptic, as regular PBers will know, but well, hmm, I'm not sure about that.

    Neither is David Cameron.

    No?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11283924/David-Cameron-I-still-want-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html?WT.mc_id=e_3746653&WT.tsrc=email&etype=politics&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_PAM_New_2014_12_10&utm_campaign=3746653

    It's not the migrants that concern me so much as the instability: there seems a non-trivial risk that they'll end up with a virtual dictatorship of one kind of another. I take antifrank's point that the EU promotes stability, and it's not done a bad job in e.g. Poland, but there are limits to what it can influence, as we see in Hungary.

    I dunno - I can see arguments both ways to be honest.

    I don't see that the EU promotes stability. By removing voters ability to change government policy through elections, I think it destabilises countries.
    By comparison with Soviet-backed dictatorships, the governance of the EU looks good. By comparison with long-established democracies, much less so.

  • Socrates said:
    You'd better vote Conservative, then. We could be on our way out by Xmas 2017.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    isam said:

    On topic

    Was the statement made because someone knows who it will be, or are they just committed to tokenism?

    Was tokenism responsible for the preferment of Natasha Bolter over more longer established white male members of UKIP?
  • FalseFlag said:

    isam said:

    On topic

    Was the statement made because someone knows who it will be, or are they just committed to tokenism?

    I feel tokenism down plays the seriousness of the problem that the establishment has seen fit to institute a policy of official discrimination against the indigenous population. As with most policies in our liberal democracy it has its origin in the official policy of the early Soviet Union of discrimination against Russians for jobs, positions in the bureaucracy and access to universities.

    It seems as if we are to be excluded now even in the leadership of our own country.
    Come on, the Tories will always vote for a leader that they think is going to keep them in jobs as MPs. With the one exception of IDS that has always been the case. They actually will go against their own prejudices in some cases e.g. Disraeli and Thatcher.
    I think the Kippers here are looking for 'tokenism' and 'political correctness gone mad' even when there isn't any.
    I also doubt that the 'insider' really knows.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited December 2014

    isam said:

    On topic

    Was the statement made because someone knows who it will be, or are they just committed to tokenism?

    Was tokenism responsible for the preferment of Natasha Bolter over more longer established white male members of UKIP?
    Probably.

    How about answering the question I asked instead of playing "My Dads bigger than your Dad"?" Or is that your impression of a politican's answer, and you think it is tokenism?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:
    You'd better vote Conservative, then. We could be on our way out by Xmas 2017.
    Assuming an honest referendum takes place.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited December 2014
    stodge said:

    Theresa May would be for me the female equivalent of Michael Howard - good for the core vote (and perhaps for recapturing the UKIP defectors) but less good at cutting into the Labour support.

    As a BOO Tory I would say May would be a disaster for pulling back UKIP defectors, most of which are from the Carswell/Hannan Libertarian wing of the party, many of whom regard her as disaster on immigration (not that Cameron gave her much of a chance here) and despise her illiberalism as Home Secretary, not least her tendency to support any power grab the security services feel like promoting and the EAW fiasco. Boris of course even more so. If the party wants to get the kippers back on side its going to need someone like Paterson or Patel.
  • Socrates said:

    Socrates said:
    You'd better vote Conservative, then. We could be on our way out by Xmas 2017.
    Assuming an honest referendum takes place.
    Which of course would be the case.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:
    You'd better vote Conservative, then. We could be on our way out by Xmas 2017.
    Assuming an honest referendum takes place.
    Which of course would be the case.
    I'm not convinced. I think, if a referendum happens, it will be in based on pending renegotiation, not a settled package.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Barnesian said:

    Socrates said:

    Barnesian said:

    They probably make a positive economic contribution to the public purse...

    Objective analysis versus prejudice.

    But we have an objective analysis. Between 1995-2011, the net impact of immigrants on the public finances was a £114bn loss. EU immigrants were basically neutral (a small £4bn gain, but this will likely reverse as they age), while non-EU immigrants were a £118bn loss. And this was under a set of optimistic assumptions too. So, when presented with this objective analysis, will you change your prejudice from the pro-mass immigration position?

    Then of course there is the stuff that isn't exchequer-related: increased congestion, impact on rising house prices, classes being majority ESL and slowing language development etc.
    Socrates Can you give me the link please. I'm prepared to change my mind in the face of evidence and analysis.
    Table 6:

    http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
  • O/T has anyone else read the report on CIA torture? Unbef>ckinglievable. Literally right out of the Nazism / Japanese P-o-W-camp playbook. The detail about how the torturers found it disturbing reminded me of how at Nazi executions there was a bottle of brandy - for the executioner.

    Something very, very wrong with how that country is run.
  • Indigo said:

    As a BOO Tory I would say May would be a disaster for pulling back UKIP defectors, most of which are from the Carswell/Hannan Libertarian wing of the party, many of whom regard her as disaster on immigration (not that Cameron gave her much of a chance here) and despise her illiberalism as Home Secretary, not least her tendency to support any power grab the security services feel like promoting.

    Hmm, I think you are projecting your own views there. Firstly Carswell and Hannan are hardly immigration hawks - less so than Theresa May, I would say. Secondly it's far from the case that most of the Con->UKIP switchers are libertarians; most of those I know are rather the opposite.
  • Socrates said:

    I'm not convinced. I think, if a referendum happens, it will be in based on pending renegotiation, not a settled package.

    So what? Out is Out.
  • O/T has anyone else read the report on CIA torture? Unbef>ckinglievable. Literally right out of the Nazism / Japanese P-o-W-camp playbook. The detail about how the torturers found it disturbing reminded me of how at Nazi executions there was a bottle of brandy - for the executioner.

    Something very, very wrong with how that country is run.

    Yes, it is absolutely horrendous, even worse than I expected.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Mr. Alistair, worth also pointing out the financial exodus to London that would've occurred, as well as the decline in 'bilateral' English-Scottish trade.

    I was going to do that but figured it would be more than offset by everything being more awesome in an independent Scotland #SexySocialism
  • O/T has anyone else read the report on CIA torture? Unbef>ckinglievable. Literally right out of the Nazism / Japanese P-o-W-camp playbook. The detail about how the torturers found it disturbing reminded me of how at Nazi executions there was a bottle of brandy - for the executioner.

    Something very, very wrong with how that country is run.

    I got to 'rectal feeding' and stopped about there.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,566
    TGOHF said:

    Alistair said:

    So if oil hits $50 a barrel just how bust would iScotland have been ?

    http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/dec/10/petrol-1-pound-litre-oil-prices-fall-treasury-committee

    Conservative estimate (not only reducing tax take by 50% but also reducing activity to be taxed by 50% as well, so effectively a 75% cut in Oil revenue) would leave Scotland with £2 billion less last year.

    Scotland's historical tax take varies by more than that on a year by year basis.
    Other impacts of a sub £1 a litre petrol price:

    a) "Cost of living crisis" strategies look "brave".

    b) The M4 will be busier on a Friday.
    How's that Tory policy of adjusting tax in the opposite direction of petrol prices getting on?
    TGOHF said:

    FalseFlag said:

    FalseFlag said:

    Floater said:

    So probably two non white male leaders for the blues compared to errr none for the progressive reds.

    Hattie will not be amused.

    Ed's Jewish in case you hadn't noticed.
    As was the much maligned Michael Howard. What's your point?
    That Labour have a non white leader.

    I would like to make absolutely clear, I see this as a bad thing.
    Jews can't be white ? Eh ?
    Quite. I think FalseFlag is interesting for his distinctive view on Ukraine (where the facts are probably less one-sidedly pro-Kiev than it's comfortable to think) but Socrates has previously pointed out that FF seems to have a problem with Jewish people. That seems to me, as he might put it, a bad thing. (I try not to comment on other posters, but this case seems quite glaring.)
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    isam said:

    isam said:

    On topic

    Was the statement made because someone knows who it will be, or are they just committed to tokenism?

    Was tokenism responsible for the preferment of Natasha Bolter over more longer established white male members of UKIP?
    Probably.

    How about answering the question I asked instead of playing "My Dads bigger than your Dad"?" Or is that your impression of a politican's answer, and you think it is tokenism?
    I do not think any "insider" knows who is going to be next Tory leader; because no one knows at present when and in what circumstances the contest will take place. It sounds like pub talk to me!

    Nonetheless being from outside the white male, public school, PPE mould would be in a candidates favour. I suspect that the Tory (or Labour) party would favour someone who is superficially from a more diverse background, rather than truly from a different background. This would give the illusion of diversity while consolidating power.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Indigo said:

    As a BOO Tory I would say May would be a disaster for pulling back UKIP defectors, most of which are from the Carswell/Hannan Libertarian wing of the party, many of whom regard her as disaster on immigration (not that Cameron gave her much of a chance here) and despise her illiberalism as Home Secretary, not least her tendency to support any power grab the security services feel like promoting.

    Hmm, I think you are projecting your own views there. Firstly Carswell and Hannan are hardly immigration hawks - less so than Theresa May, I would say. Secondly it's far from the case that most of the Con->UKIP switchers are libertarians; most of those I know are rather the opposite.
    Hannan espouses an immigration view which is pretty similar to the official UKIP line.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100283242/im-in-favour-of-controlled-legal-immigration-something-we-cant-have-while-were-in-the-eu/
    ... It’s crazy that we’re obliged, in practice, to turn away skilled workers from India and Canada so as to free up space for unskilled workers from Eastern Europe. Instead of being able to apply a points-based system, we must admit anyone with an EU passport. Local concentrations of foreign workers can put a strain on infrastructure and cause social tensions.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited December 2014

    Socrates said:

    I'm not convinced. I think, if a referendum happens, it will be in based on pending renegotiation, not a settled package.

    So what? Out is Out.
    Because I feel confident of Out winning against what the EU actually is, even after a renegotiation. However, if the referendum question is stacked so that "In" is actually based on a hypothetical, it might wing it, and then our deceitful politicians would use that to not have another referendum for a while.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    After breastgate, boltergate and M4gate, perhaps it's time for class 4C to settle down now?

    Would I vote Tory if May took over? Probably not. They still eat babies, you know.
    Would I vote Labour if Ed was replaced? Unlikely, as the Badger is going.
    Will I vote LD again? Only if they stopped treating Europe as a Deity, and that won't happen?
    Will I vote Ukip? Only for fun and to see the "big parties" squirm.
    Would I vote Green? No, I'm too old to live in a cave and heat the cave with recycled twigs when the Siberian winds blow.

    Overall, they all have some good things in their policies but they also have some unpalatable ones.

    Is it possible to sell my vote to the highest bidder on e-bay?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,709
    Indigo said:

    Indigo said:

    Financier said:

    Tristram Hunt writes:

    "....a shocking inequality of opportunity between technical and academic routes."

    .. and those that have parents that can afford £20,000 per year to send them to UCS.

    Can’t reasonably blame the man for his parent’s choices.
    Labour do it the whole time... do you think Cameron and Osborne became "posh" or were they lucky enough to be born into well off families. I dont begrudge Hunt his good fortune at getting an excellent education, I begrudge him trying his level best to stop other children being so fortunate.
    Totally different. Hunt’s clerarly thought about his vs others education. Cameron and Osborne etc have just accepted their privileged status.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    As a non-Conservative, it probably doesn't matter what I think but it never stops non-LDs pontificating ad nauseam about the party so if you can't vote for 'em talk about 'em.

    IF Cameron loses, Osborne, as the architect of the failed (as it would appear) economic policy (whose paramount aim is to get the Conservatives re-elected as much as it is to improve the public finances) would be discredited and out of the running.

    It's too soon for Javid unless it's a 1997-style rout which seems improbable but not impossible. That leaves Theresa May and Boris Johnson and the hardy perennial question which all parties face - do you choose the leader YOU want or the Leader that appeals beyond the Party even if that leader iriitates the Party base ?

    It's clear to this non-Conservative that Boris has appeal far beyond the Conservative base though his intellectual positions on policy (well, as they were last week) wouldn't necessarily sit well with many Conservatives. Boris of course will change his opinion if required - he does that as easily as he changes his socks.

    Theresa May would be for me the female equivalent of Michael Howard - good for the core vote (and perhaps for recapturing the UKIP defectors) but less good at cutting into the Labour support.

    Mr Javid gets presented in the political columns as Mr Osborne's pawn, so I think him being a candidate at all is unlikely.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    OK here is the scenario:

    Milliband is PM, Cameron is deposed and a modern Tory Party has to elect Sajid Javid.
    Milliband is an unmitigated disaster and is deposed mid term and replaced by Chukka.

    Two identikit leaders of the two parties, similar ethnicity, both well heeled. Who is the winner there in the 2020 election?
  • Totally different. Hunt’s clerarly thought about his vs others education. Cameron and Osborne etc have just accepted their privileged status.

    How do you figure that out? Or is this a textbook example of prejudice laid bare?
  • King Cole, accepted their privileged status? What d'you expect them to do? Cast aside their waistcoats, fling their top hats into the Thames and start dressing like chimney sweeps?

    Hunt's proposal to damage private education is nothing but mean-spirited, and probably illegal, hypocritical nonsense.
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,550

    TGOHF said:

    Alistair said:

    So if oil hits $50 a barrel just how bust would iScotland have been ?

    http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/dec/10/petrol-1-pound-litre-oil-prices-fall-treasury-committee

    Conservative estimate (not only reducing tax take by 50% but also reducing activity to be taxed by 50% as well, so effectively a 75% cut in Oil revenue) would leave Scotland with £2 billion less last year.

    Scotland's historical tax take varies by more than that on a year by year basis.
    Other impacts of a sub £1 a litre petrol price:

    a) "Cost of living crisis" strategies look "brave".

    b) The M4 will be busier on a Friday.
    How's that Tory policy of adjusting tax in the opposite direction of petrol prices getting on?


    Dumped in the Autumn Statement. The supplemental charge for oil and gas companies was reduced from 32% to 30% but there was no corresponding increase in fuel duty.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,536

    O/T has anyone else read the report on CIA torture? Unbef>ckinglievable. Literally right out of the Nazism / Japanese P-o-W-camp playbook. The detail about how the torturers found it disturbing reminded me of how at Nazi executions there was a bottle of brandy - for the executioner.

    Something very, very wrong with how that country is run.

    Yes, it is absolutely horrendous, even worse than I expected.
    I haven't had the chance to read it yet, but I did note that some of the torturers were people who were already guilty of sexual assault.
  • Mr Javid gets presented in the political columns as Mr Osborne's pawn, so I think him being a candidate at all is unlikely.

    If he is Osborne's preferred candidate (I don't know if he would be, but if he were), then surely that greatly helps his chances?
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Indigo said:

    Indigo said:

    Financier said:

    Tristram Hunt writes:

    "....a shocking inequality of opportunity between technical and academic routes."

    .. and those that have parents that can afford £20,000 per year to send them to UCS.

    Can’t reasonably blame the man for his parent’s choices.
    Labour do it the whole time... do you think Cameron and Osborne became "posh" or were they lucky enough to be born into well off families. I dont begrudge Hunt his good fortune at getting an excellent education, I begrudge him trying his level best to stop other children being so fortunate.
    Totally different. Hunt’s clerarly thought about his vs others education. Cameron and Osborne etc have just accepted their privileged status.
    Well I suppose they could always shorten their name, renounce any titles and sit around earnestly in transport cafes trying to look like one of the masses. I understand it works for some politicians...
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited December 2014
    Very good BES/UKIP article from UK Polling Report: Does the rise of UKIP hurt the Conservatives or Labour more?

    "In an attempt to tie things up, it is clear that UKIP are currently taking more 2010 support from the Conservatives than Labour, and in that sense they are hurting the Tories more.

    But that doesn’t necessarily mean they are hurting just the Conservatives. While it is a good thing for Labour when the Tories lose a vote… it is an opportunity lost if that vote goes to a party other than Labour, especially when it is a voter who might have considered Labour earlier this Parliament or might have voted Labour prior to the 2010 election.

    There’s also a longer term view – who UKIP are able to appeal to now, with a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition in power, is not necessarily a good guide to who they might be able to draw support from in a different political landscape."

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9093

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Mr Javid gets presented in the political columns as Mr Osborne's pawn, so I think him being a candidate at all is unlikely.

    If he is Osborne's preferred candidate (I don't know if he would be, but if he were), then surely that greatly helps his chances?
    That depends if Osborne becomes the fall guy for losing the election.
  • Kevin Maguire living up to David Cameron's maxim about twitter

    @Kevin_Maguire

    Cameron timed his Turkey trip to avoid #pmqs? Notorious dodger in the past. Clegg-Harman B Team today

    Then an hour later

    @Kevin_Maguire

    Cameron visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau so withdraw any criticism of missing #pmqs. I went years ago. Urge everybody to so we never forget
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    philiph said:

    OK here is the scenario:

    Milliband is PM, Cameron is deposed and a modern Tory Party has to elect Sajid Javid.
    Milliband is an unmitigated disaster and is deposed mid term and replaced by Chukka.

    Two identikit leaders of the two parties, similar ethnicity, both well heeled. Who is the winner there in the 2020 election?

    Farage. After 5 years of Labour europhilia and making hash of the economy, and blaming the Tories for it, he could black up and single Mame on the back of a white van driving down the M4 and get elected.

  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    O/T

    For those history buffs out there my I commend this site:

    http://www.british-history.ac.uk/

    It is a superb, huge collection of digitised and translated historical documents mostly of the period between 1300 and 1800. It includes state papers, court rolls, tax records (including the names and amounts of people paying taxes by area), maps and much much more. A fantastic research resource.
  • Anyone near parliament today?

    Porn protest planned outside Parliament

    Hundreds of campaigners to simulate sex acts outside Parliament to protest against new porn laws

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11284660/Porn-protest-planned-outside-Parliament.html
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    Socrates said:

    Barnesian said:

    Socrates said:

    Barnesian said:

    They probably make a positive economic contribution to the public purse...

    Objective analysis versus prejudice.

    But we have an objective analysis. Between 1995-2011, the net impact of immigrants on the public finances was a £114bn loss. EU immigrants were basically neutral (a small £4bn gain, but this will likely reverse as they age), while non-EU immigrants were a £118bn loss. And this was under a set of optimistic assumptions too. So, when presented with this objective analysis, will you change your prejudice from the pro-mass immigration position?

    Then of course there is the stuff that isn't exchequer-related: increased congestion, impact on rising house prices, classes being majority ESL and slowing language development etc.
    Socrates Can you give me the link please. I'm prepared to change my mind in the face of evidence and analysis.
    Table 6:

    http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
    The piece also says:

    "Regarding the net fiscal impact of immigrants, we find for our baseline scenario,7
    and considering the immigrant population that resided in the UK over the 1995–2011
    period, that over a period during which the fiscal cost of natives cumulated to
    £591 billion, EEA immigrants contributed 10% more than natives (in relative terms),
    and non-EEA immigrant contributions were almost 9% lower. On the other hand,
    recent immigrants, i.e. those who came after 1999, have made positive fiscal
    contributions irrespective of origin. Between 2001 and 2011, the net fiscal contributions
    of recent A10 immigrants amounted to almost £5 billion, those of the other
    recently arrived European immigrants to £15 billion, and those of recent nonEuropean
    immigrants to a total of over £5 billion. Remarkably, over the same period,
    the natives’ fiscal cost amounted to almost £617 billion."

    That doesn't seem to match your rhetoric.
  • Mr. Llama, whilst not really my thing, that's an excellent example of what the internet can do best. Reminds me a bit of Sacred Texts. Not sure if that's still going, but it certainly used to provide free versions of ancient religious, historical and mythical texts.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    Anyone near parliament today?

    Porn protest planned outside Parliament

    Hundreds of campaigners to simulate sex acts outside Parliament to protest against new porn laws

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11284660/Porn-protest-planned-outside-Parliament.html

    Do Victoria's Secret have a range of thermal underwear to promote?

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    Mr Javid gets presented in the political columns as Mr Osborne's pawn, so I think him being a candidate at all is unlikely.

    If he is Osborne's preferred candidate (I don't know if he would be, but if he were), then surely that greatly helps his chances?
    Mr Osborne is presumably Mr Osborne's preferred candidate. If Mr Javid is a follower rather than a leader of a faction, then he's unlikely to be anyone's first choice.

    Mr Miliband did not stand against Mr Brown.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,972
    MD

    Hunt's proposal to damage private education is nothing but mean-spirited, and probably illegal, hypocritical nonsense.


    Do you really think that something close to a level playing field for our 8 and nine year olds is such a bad thing. I think Hunt is the ideal advocate for 'damaging' public schools. If it is such a privileged education why should it only be available to the offspring of the rich? As for this idea that Hunt is pulling up the drawbridge after he himself has benefitted. It's only someone on the inside who can see the pernicious effects on all of us that buying privilege at such a young age brings.
  • I want the next Tory leader to be Sajid Javid.

    Not because he impresses, but for the fact it would cause a breakdown on the left as the Tories not only had the first woman leader, they'd have the first ethnic minority leader.

    They'd come up with all sorts of convoluted reasons to say the son of an immigrant bus driver doesn't count.

    He doesn't count because he's a millionaire banker.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited December 2014
    Roger said:

    If it is such a privileged education why should it only be available to the offspring of the rich?

    So the state should tax at 100%, and allocate all goods/services equally?

  • Remember that the glory days for the party, the late seventies an eighties, the leader was a woman from a modest background.

    I don't think Mrs T's background was important as a thing in itself, though one could argue that it shaped her as a person, thus making her a different person than if she had been an aristocrat, educated at Eton.

    I believe the argument has been made that Cameron's problem is less that he is a toff/metropolitan liberal, but that he governs in the interests of toffs/metropolitan liberals.

    Would May or Javid be any different?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,679
    Socrates said:

    Barnesian said:

    Socrates said:

    Barnesian said:

    They probably make a positive economic contribution to the public purse...

    Objective analysis versus prejudice.

    But we have an objective analysis. Between 1995-2011, the net impact of immigrants on the public finances was a £114bn loss. EU immigrants were basically neutral (a small £4bn gain, but this will likely reverse as they age), while non-EU immigrants were a £118bn loss. And this was under a set of optimistic assumptions too. So, when presented with this objective analysis, will you change your prejudice from the pro-mass immigration position?

    Then of course there is the stuff that isn't exchequer-related: increased congestion, impact on rising house prices, classes being majority ESL and slowing language development etc.
    Socrates Can you give me the link please. I'm prepared to change my mind in the face of evidence and analysis.
    Table 6:

    http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
    Thanks Socrates. That looks like a really good source. I will study it in full - it is many pages.

    It is strange that the contribution from non-EU immigrants from1995 to 2001 is negative and then turns positive from 2001 to 2011. This includes the ratio of revenue to expenditure which is the point I was making. Odd. I will investigate the paper and try to find out why.

    I don't have strong views on immigration. On the one hand I do think many immigrants make a positive contribution. On the other hand I take your point about the dislocation (which is rarely costed) if it goes too far or too fast. I'm quite agnostic on where the balance lies whcih is why I'm interested in the source you gave.

    I only posted this morning because of the claim that the congestion on the M4 out of London on a Friday night was caused by immigration. It might have a very tiny grain of truth on the margin but the remark was driven by prejudice and doesn't help.
  • O/T has anyone else read the report on CIA torture? Unbef>ckinglievable. Literally right out of the Nazism / Japanese P-o-W-camp playbook. The detail about how the torturers found it disturbing reminded me of how at Nazi executions there was a bottle of brandy - for the executioner.

    Something very, very wrong with how that country is run.

    Yes, it is absolutely horrendous, even worse than I expected.
    It's truly shocking. The torture itself smacks of revenge and frustration over the Bush administration's own inability to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. But that's what happens when the Executive gives the nod, however subtle, to unorthodox interrogation methods. It's a green light for abuse and Dick Cheney, in particular, should be throughly ashamed of himself.

    Interesting to note, as well, that not only was it totally ineffective but it also makes victims of the torturerers themselves and has probably weakened the West through totally undermining our reputation and values. Only good thing is that this came out rather than being covered up.

    Apologists for civil liberty infringements by government, take note.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,989
    Socrates said:

    stodge said:


    Theresa May would be for me the female equivalent of Michael Howard - good for the core vote (and perhaps for recapturing the UKIP defectors) but less good at cutting into the Labour support.

    You don't know UKIP defectors very well if you think Theresa May, who is noted for rising immigration on her watch and handing powers over to the EU without a parliamentary vote, will recapture them. Hammond or Paterson would be best for that.
    True. I'm not one myself. I do think it's very likely the Conservative Party will "target" UKIP in the aftermath of defeat next year. This will come in the form of parking the blue tanks directly on the purple lawn.

    Although I still doubt any Conservative leader will publicly commit to leaving the EU, the anti-EU and anti-immigration rhetoric will be ramped up by the Opposition Conservatives as a form of "love bombing" of UKIP supporters.

    There will of course be no mercy for Nigel Farage who will be vilified for letting Labour back into Government (or for the LDs if we join a Coalition with Labour which I consider improbable but not impossible).

    Interesting to note Danny Alexander's comments yesterda.
  • Mr. Roger, so because the private sector's pretty good and the state isn't as good, the answer is to harm the good schools?

    Attacking success is just plain stupid.
  • Mr Osborne is presumably Mr Osborne's preferred candidate.

    Not necessarily.
  • Whomever came up with the term "weatherbomb" deserves to be slapped around the face with a wet Kipper (fish or UKIPer, I'm not fussy)

    Honestly, it the worst invention to the English language since pre-prepared.
  • Mr. Eagles, I must concur. 'Weatherbomb' is ridiculous.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Barnesian said:

    Socrates said:

    Barnesian said:

    Socrates said:

    Barnesian said:

    They probably make a positive economic contribution to the public purse...

    Objective analysis versus prejudice.

    But we have an objective analysis. Between 1995-2011, the net impact of immigrants on the public finances was a £114bn loss. EU immigrants were basically neutral (a small £4bn gain, but this will likely reverse as they age), while non-EU immigrants were a £118bn loss. And this was under a set of optimistic assumptions too. So, when presented with this objective analysis, will you change your prejudice from the pro-mass immigration position?

    Then of course there is the stuff that isn't exchequer-related: increased congestion, impact on rising house prices, classes being majority ESL and slowing language development etc.
    Socrates Can you give me the link please. I'm prepared to change my mind in the face of evidence and analysis.
    Table 6:

    http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
    Thanks Socrates. That looks like a really good source. I will study it in full - it is many pages.

    It is strange that the contribution from non-EU immigrants from1995 to 2001 is negative and then turns positive from 2001 to 2011. This includes the ratio of revenue to expenditure which is the point I was making. Odd. I will investigate the paper and try to find out why.

    I don't have strong views on immigration. On the one hand I do think many immigrants make a positive contribution. On the other hand I take your point about the dislocation (which is rarely costed) if it goes too far or too fast. I'm quite agnostic on where the balance lies whcih is why I'm interested in the source you gave.

    I only posted this morning because of the claim that the congestion on the M4 out of London on a Friday night was caused by immigration. It might have a very tiny grain of truth on the margin but the remark was driven by prejudice and doesn't help.
    Just to add to this subject. I found this report on the government website which goes into quite some detail

    "The growth of EU and non-EU labour in low-skilled jobs and its impact on the UK" https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/333083/MAC-Migrants_in_low-skilled_work__Full_report_2014.pdf
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    edited December 2014

    Mr. Eagles, I must concur. 'Weatherbomb' is ridiculous.


    Weatherbomb sounds like a film the Syfy channel would make, and they've made films like Sharknado.

    I believe weatherbomb came from the Met Office.

    They also believe in Global Warming, so you can tell they are silly sausages.

    *Innocent Face*
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012

    Mr Javid gets presented in the political columns as Mr Osborne's pawn, so I think him being a candidate at all is unlikely.

    If he is Osborne's preferred candidate (I don't know if he would be, but if he were), then surely that greatly helps his chances?
    Yes I would have thought so. If the Tories win the election I would have thought Osborne would stand a good chance of being next PM, should he be interested. The IMF might beckon as an alternative - or indeed after. If the tories do win the election then I would have thought according to circumstances Cameron would retire about 2018. Then if Osborne were indeed PM then Javid might well have a good chance in either 2020 or 2023.

    It seems to me that being Chancellor and Foreign Secretary is not a bad background for being a future PM. Writing the Labour manifesto, just about the worst.

    If there is a minority goverment then playing around with PMs might not be easy or clever.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    Can I just concur with Morris_Dancer and TSE.

    And I would like to give a warning: anyone found using the word "weatherbomb" in a non-ironic sense on PB.com will be banned.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    stodge said:

    Socrates said:

    stodge said:


    Theresa May would be for me the female equivalent of Michael Howard - good for the core vote (and perhaps for recapturing the UKIP defectors) but less good at cutting into the Labour support.

    You don't know UKIP defectors very well if you think Theresa May, who is noted for rising immigration on her watch and handing powers over to the EU without a parliamentary vote, will recapture them. Hammond or Paterson would be best for that.
    Although I still doubt any Conservative leader will publicly commit to leaving the EU, the anti-EU and anti-immigration rhetoric will be ramped up by the Opposition Conservatives as a form of "love bombing" of UKIP supporters.

    There will of course be no mercy for Nigel Farage who will be vilified for letting Labour back into Government (or for the LDs if we join a Coalition with Labour which I consider improbable but not impossible).

    .
    Will be interesting to see the reaction to the BOO/Brugge faction in the Cons if Ed is made PM on the back of purple voting.

    I'm sure the wrong lessons will be learned.
This discussion has been closed.