slogan "We can't control the borders unless we leave the EU"
easy win for out
Freedom of movement? That's the best thing the EU brings.
But you can have freedom on movement with the EU by just being in the EEA, without many of the EU obligations re migration and benefits.
Yes: and I've said that I'm in favour of a semi-detached state, such as EEA membership.
However, I suspect that the choices available to me will be (a) EU, or (b) non-EEA. The majority of UKIP members are so hostile to freedom of movement (not Richard Tyndall, obviously), but see MrJones for details, that I may be required to vote for staying in the EU to maintain that freedom.
Thats a complete nonsense, rcs1000. Free movement is one of the things that UKIP is fighting for and not above membership of the EEA, depending on terms of course.
A majority of Britons and half of women say it’s important the next Doctor Who is male – and among fans David Tennant is by far the most popular Doctor
"Mr Cruddas had made it clear from the very start that he did not accept the paper’s account of what happened at their meetings and that he denied acting improperly. Indeed, he later accused The Sunday Times of distorting the facts and being unfairly selective in the editing of his quotes."
The fairest thing would be to simply release the entire unedited footage. People could make up their own minds then.
Miss Vance, whilst that's also my view I think it's worth considering who'll be making the decision.
Er... would that be Moffat?
TV shows can and sometimes do take courses of action that piss off their fans. The end of Star Trek: Enterprise, the temporary departure of Michael Shanks from Stargate: SG-1 and every bloody episode of Doctor Who with River Song in it. [The last one might just be me, though].
Further troubles downunder for the ALP and Gillard with a terrible new Newspoll followed by reports that Foreign Minister, Carr (a key figure in the crucial NSW Right faction) has told her to go and a Rudd supporter comparing the ALP to the Titanic. If the poor polling continues the ALP barons may force her out, in which case, with Rudd not likely to return, Bill Shorten may be an outside bet to succeed and perhaps even to beat Abbott!
Has Hillary Clinton had a facelift? From Blind Gossip - Politicians have a reputation for being two-faced. Well, this famous politician has only one face… but it’s a new and improved one! She had the works: blepheroplasty (eye lift), lower face and throat, mid-facelift, and some botox and collagen. It looks good, too! She doesn’t have the surprised eyebrows or overly puffy look that some celebs get when they get work done. So this politician gets our vote for looking very natural and very fresh. Just the right look for that new job she’s planning on landing!
Especially when at the same time you have UAF shutting down UKIP meetings while plod stand back and do nothing.
The mood of the country is such that under the mosque fire story in the Mail, one of the most liked comments is the one suggesting the torching of this centre was a put up job to frame the EDL....
Closing comments on SeanT's latest blog post shows that freedom of speech in this country is a bogus sham.
No, it doesn't.
There is nothing in the principle of free speech that says the Telegraph has to provide a forum for discussion and bear the legal liability of providing that forum.
Closing comments on SeanT's latest blog post shows that freedom of speech in this country is a bogus sham.
No, it doesn't.
There is nothing in the principle of free speech that says the Telegraph has to provide a forum for discussion and bear the legal liability of providing that forum.
There's a politically correct double standard on free speech.
Closing comments on SeanT's latest blog post shows that freedom of speech in this country is a bogus sham.
No, it doesn't.
There is nothing in the principle of free speech that says the Telegraph has to provide a forum for discussion and bear the legal liability of providing that forum.
There's a politically correct double standard on free speech.
No. If you want to stand on a street corner and proclaim your views to the world, go ahead.
Similarly, set up your own website and write what you like.
The Telegraph has decided it doesn't want to take the legal risk of allowing its customers to write what they like on its boards. In the same way that OGH doesn't want to take that risk. As free agents in a free society they are entirely at liberty to take that decision.
Closing comments on SeanT's latest blog post shows that freedom of speech in this country is a bogus sham.
No, it doesn't.
There is nothing in the principle of free speech that says the Telegraph has to provide a forum for discussion and bear the legal liability of providing that forum.
It would be nice if they explain WHY they closed comments on Sean's blog, no?
Closing comments on SeanT's latest blog post shows that freedom of speech in this country is a bogus sham.
No, it doesn't.
There is nothing in the principle of free speech that says the Telegraph has to provide a forum for discussion and bear the legal liability of providing that forum.
It would be nice if they explain WHY they closed comments on Sean's blog, no?
Sure, but I guess that's a question of customer relations and they don't want to invest the time.
"It's idiotic of Better Together to exclude UKIP from their campaign."
Why? Do you seriously think they'd be an asset?
The main problem the No campaign have got is the rationale for excluding UKIP. "They're not a Scottish party" isn't going to stand up to much scrutiny if we're expected to believe the Tories are a Scottish party. And for Labour it sends the rather awkward message that UKIP are beyond the pale, but the Tories are absolutely fine as an ally.
Closing comments on SeanT's latest blog post shows that freedom of speech in this country is a bogus sham.
No, it doesn't.
There is nothing in the principle of free speech that says the Telegraph has to provide a forum for discussion and bear the legal liability of providing that forum.
There's a politically correct double standard on free speech.
No. If you want to stand on a street corner and proclaim your views to the world, go ahead.
Similarly, set up your own website and write what you like.
The Telegraph has decided it doesn't want to take the legal risk of allowing its customers to write what they like on its boards. In the same way that OGH doesn't want to take that risk. As free agents in a free society they are entirely at liberty to take that decision.
The Telegraph's problem is there is a politically correct double standard on free speech and has been for years. The availability of commenting has exposed that double standard.
I suspect they are lieing down in a darkened room, their head spinning from all Labour's U-turns....
@oflynnexpress: Under EMil plan people who have never paid in but have lots of children will still get loads more than NI payers who don't. Epic fail etc.
@oflynnexpress: RT @tomchapman16: Labour are the #welfareparty, they were paying £100K+ to families & have voted against £83bn of welfare reform put in place by the Coalition
Miss Vance, whilst that's also my view I think it's worth considering who'll be making the decision.
Er... would that be Moffat?
TV shows can and sometimes do take courses of action that piss off their fans. The end of Star Trek: Enterprise, the temporary departure of Michael Shanks from Stargate: SG-1 and every bloody episode of Doctor Who with River Song in it. [The last one might just be me, though].
"It's idiotic of Better Together to exclude UKIP from their campaign."
Why? Do you seriously think they'd be an asset?
The main problem the No campaign have got is the rationale for excluding UKIP. "They're not a Scottish party" isn't going to stand up to much scrutiny if we're expected to believe the Tories are a Scottish party. And for Labour it sends the rather awkward message that UKIP are beyond the pale, but the Tories are absolutely fine as an ally.
Lest anyone forget, the Tories got 413,000 votes in Scotland in 2010, while the SNP got 491,000. And yet you want us to believe that the Tories are not a Scottish party, while the SNP is doubleplusgood.
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent.
That is my political philosophy in one paragraph. I would love to see the state rolled back to that. And I would love to leave the behemoth that is the EU. But your vision of Fortress Britain holds no attraction to me.
Someone else said "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
In August 1914, rates of immigration were very low. Thus there was no need for the government to stem the flow. However, now hundreds of thousands come every year. If we had your system, it is likely millions would come here. Do you really think this would not have negative effects?
It is akin to a town without flood defences being fine for years and years, but then the river changed course and they got flooded every year, so the town started building flood defences. It would be a pretty foolish person who said "but remember back in the day, we never needed to do this! Why do we need to do it now?!"
"Lest anyone forget, the Tories got 413,000 votes in Scotland in 2010, while the SNP got 491,000. And yet you want us to believe that the Tories are not a Scottish party, while the SNP is doubleplusgood."
That in spite of the fact that the Tories had 270 minutes of representation in the leaders' debates, and the SNP had zero minutes? I think that's pretty good going, personally.
I'll spare your embarrassment by passing over the disparity between the two parties' fortunes in the most recent Holyrood, European Parliament and local elections.
'A statement from Nick Clegg's office says: "After lengthy discussions both inside of government and outside with stakeholders, the deputy prime minister has today confirmed that the cha'nges to ratios for pre-school children that were consulted on earlier in the year will not go ahead."
"Lest anyone forget, the Tories got 413,000 votes in Scotland in 2010, while the SNP got 491,000. And yet you want us to believe that the Tories are not a Scottish party, while the SNP is doubleplusgood."
That in spite of the fact that the Tories had 270 minutes of representation in the leaders' debates, and the SNP had zero minutes? I think that's pretty good going, personally.
I'll spare your embarrassment by passing over the disparity between the two parties' fortunes in the most recent Holyrood, European Parliament and local elections.
I'm not going to indulge your rather tedious hobbyhorse.
The debates were between potential Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. The leader of the SNP was never going to be Prime Minister.
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent.
That is my political philosophy in one paragraph. I would love to see the state rolled back to that. And I would love to leave the behemoth that is the EU. But your vision of Fortress Britain holds no attraction to me.
Good for you. However my point was "we can't control the borders unless we leave the EU" would be a winning slogan in a referendum.
"The debates were between potential Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. The leader of the SNP was never going to be Prime Minister."
Frankly nobody but a London establishment figure has a hope in hell of becoming Prime Minister for as long as the debates are such an undemocratic joke.
The 'tedious' jibe is as good as an ackowledgement that you know I'm right. You haven't got an argument - in a parliamentary election, a party that has had continuous parliamentary representation since 1967 should be represented in the debates. End of story.
People’s faith in the [welfare] system has been shaken by a system that appears to give a minority of people something for nothing
Politicians demonising welfare recipients. How shocking. No doubt all those who lambasted Osborne for making the same point will be up in arms.
I have said exactly the same time and again. Indeed, I said it on a thread this morning. Miliband is exactly right. Had the Tories made a similar point using similar language, if they had not sought to manipulate stats to create a false impression of welfate recipients, if they had not sought to imply welfare recipents were people who lay in bed while those with jobs got up to work hard, then I might have more time for what they say. But they have, so I don't.
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent.
That is my political philosophy in one paragraph. I would love to see the state rolled back to that. And I would love to leave the behemoth that is the EU. But your vision of Fortress Britain holds no attraction to me.
Most of what you write there I wholeheartedly agree with Robert. Rolling back the state to the vision you have articulated is pretty much what British Libertarianism would be about in an ideal world. Though I have to admit that we do not now live in an ideal world and I am not sure such a vision is now practical.
I would also agree utterly with your comment about not wanting a fortress Britain were it not for Socrates very good point that the scale of migration relative to our ability to absorb it has changed dramatically since WW1. Again in an ideal world we would allow people to enter and leave our country at will. But that again is simply no longer practical nor desirable.
@Southam - Yes, I fully understand. Tories bad, Labour good, even when they say exactly the same thing in very similar language.
No wonder we were so badly governed under Blair and Brown.
Whatever Richard. If you cannot tell the difference in the use of language then so be it. There is little point in us debating this. We are not going to agree.
I hope that at some point in the future, the whole world will have converted to liberal democracy with high standards of living for virtually everyone. In such an environment, it might be able to relax migration laws again.
I'd like to believe we could have open immigration between developed countries, but I'm not even convinced that is possible any more. I met an Algerian man in London the other day. He worked as a hair dresser and said that he actually only had French citizenship, the same as the rest of his family, but they all came across to the UK because they prefer life here. I'm not sure about the scale of this sort of movement, but it shows that while we're in the EU, we're at the mercy of the immigration systems of everyone else.
'A statement from Nick Clegg's office says: "After lengthy discussions both inside of government and outside with stakeholders, the deputy prime minister has today confirmed that the cha'nges to ratios for pre-school children that were consulted on earlier in the year will not go ahead."
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent.
That is my political philosophy in one paragraph. I would love to see the state rolled back to that. And I would love to leave the behemoth that is the EU. But your vision of Fortress Britain holds no attraction to me.
Most of what you write there I wholeheartedly agree with Robert. Rolling back the state to the vision you have articulated is pretty much what British Libertarianism would be about in an ideal world. Though I have to admit that we do not now live in an ideal world and I am not sure such a vision is now practical.
I would also agree utterly with your comment about not wanting a fortress Britain were it not for Socrates very good point that the scale of migration relative to our ability to absorb it has changed dramatically since WW1. Again in an ideal world we would allow people to enter and leave our country at will. But that again is simply no longer practical nor desirable.
Those words were written by AJP Taylor , who loathed the Common Market ( now EU ).
@Southam - Yes, I fully understand. Tories bad, Labour good, even when they say exactly the same thing in very similar language.
No wonder we were so badly governed under Blair and Brown.
Whatever Richard. If you cannot tell the difference in the use of language then so be it. There is little point in us debating this. We are not going to agree.
Have to agree with Southam. The contrast between the way Miliband and Osborne make their point on this issue is telling.
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent.
That passage has always struck me as rather rose-tinted. In the early nineteenth century a law-abiding Englishman, if he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and not well-dressed, was at risk of being kidnapped by state-sponsored gangs and pressed into virtual slavery in the Royal Navy. He couldn't travel from one town to another without paying tolls to state-licensed tollhouses. He might be responsible for road maintenance. If he was a man of any means at all he'd be liable to pay up under the Poor Acts and, very probably, various Tithe Acts. Until 1849 there were restrictions on which ships could bring his goods to England. Until 1871 he couldn't be a student at Oxford or Cambridge without passing a religious test. Customs and Excise officers had ferocious powers. And so on..
In any case, most of those freedoms listed by A.J.P. Taylor still exist today, or (in the case of exchanging money) were reintroduced by Thatcher. Admittedly taxes are much higher, but then we have state education, the NHS, state pensions, and so on.
The contrast between the way Miliband and Osborne make their point on this issue is telling.
Oh come off it. Would Miliband have been talking about welfare at all if Osborne had not comprehensively won the argument already. Of course he wouldn't. And the electorate knows it.
The contrast between the way Miliband and Osborne make their point on this issue is telling.
Oh come off it. Would Miliband have been talking about welfare at all if Osborne had not comprehensively won the argument already. Of course he wouldn't. And the electorate knows it.
Maybe, but it is still better to put things in a less divisive way than contrasting "Strivers" and "scroungers"
That's not to mention the various state monopolies that existed on imports from India during that time.
Yes, and in many other places and industries. In fact it's simply not true that "He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home".
Admittedly it is true that many of the restrictions had gone by 1914, but that pre-WWI period was not typical in the overall history.
I'm not sure I agree with you that immigration would go through the roof under my scenario. My view is that migrants are economically rational - they will go (as I would go) where they have the best chance of a good life. This is something I personally applaud.
If you get rid of state subsidised housing and benefits, then the attraction of the UK would be enormously diminished. Only those people who wanted to come to the UK to work and make a positive contribution would want to come. Ah yes, but what about shanty towns? Well, if property right were properly enforced, then there could be no shantytowns.
It's also worth remembering that - according to Wikipedia - 40-50,000 Hugenouts arrived in the UK in the 17th Century, with the majority if them going to the East End of London. Also according to Wikipedia, the population of London at the beginning of the 17th Century was just 200,000. In other words, should you have stood in Spitalfields market in the middle of the 1600s, there would probably have been a higher proportion of immigrants than there are today.
As an aside, I've never understood why certain categories of work - hairdressing, for example - should be exempt from foreign competition; while others, such as electronics are not.
I also find it odd, that it would be considered appallingly totalitarian for you to restrict my ability to buy the work of an Algerian author; but if his output was chip design, this would be a truly terrible thing.
Ultimately, it comes down to this: either you have a culture of welcoming immigrants, or you do not. Socrates and I come down on opposite sides of the equation on this, and I respect although I disagree, with his views on this. To me, you need to be open in your attitudes to get the best immigrants from around the world. Just as Google is competing to get the best employees from around the world, we should be trying to attract the brightest and the best to come and become British citizens and embrace what our country has to offer. You only have to look at the extraordinary proportion of major US corporates, particularly in the tech sector, that have been founded by immigrants to see the benefits they bring. It is no coincidence that those US states with the highest proportion of immigrants also have the highest rates of new business formation (the same is true, regionally, in both the UK and in Europe generally).
But I appreciate my views may not be popular with voters. Nevertheless, I genuinely believe our country and our people would be richer with more immigration, rather than less. And I also believe that (and I appreciate both you, Socrates and Richard Tyndall are not of this camp) many people who support Britain leaving the EU do so because they believe the Richard Starkey nonsense about solving unemployment by slapping tariffs on foreign goods.
That's not to mention the various state monopolies that existed on imports from India during that time.
Yes, and in many other places and industries. In fact it's simply not true that "He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home".
Admittedly it is true that many of the restrictions had gone by 1914, but that pre-WWI period was not typical in the overall history.
IIRC, weren't most of the India monopolies gone by the last 1870s?
The contrast between the way Miliband and Osborne make their point on this issue is telling.
Oh come off it. Would Miliband have been talking about welfare at all if Osborne had not comprehensively won the argument already. Of course he wouldn't. And the electorate knows it.
Maybe, but it is still better to put things in a less divisive way than contrasting "Strivers" and "scroungers"
I don't disagree with your and SO's basic point. But two points:-
1. Ordinary people do talk about scroungers and those taking the p*ss out of those who work. And they do feel that governments - all governments - have a tendency to ignore those who try and do the right thing. It's not bad for a government to say explicitly that it is on the side of those who are or are trying to do the right thing.
2. Labour also made a point of using divisive language about people it didn't like or those who disagreed with it - see, for instance, Blair's speech about the forces of conservatism. Or indeed those commentators who go on and on and on about toffs and fops and public schools etc etc. Labour have quite a lot of form on this - "lower than vermin" was what one revered Labour bod said once. When you're in glasshouses etc.....
I hope that at some point in the future, the whole world will have converted to liberal democracy with high standards of living for virtually everyone. In such an environment, it might be able to relax migration laws again.
I'd like to believe we could have open immigration between developed countries, but I'm not even convinced that is possible any more. I met an Algerian man in London the other day. He worked as a hair dresser and said that he actually only had French citizenship, the same as the rest of his family, but they all came across to the UK because they prefer life here. I'm not sure about the scale of this sort of movement, but it shows that while we're in the EU, we're at the mercy of the immigration systems of everyone else.
It is not unusual. I have a French friend, who says that she hears a lot of Marsellais accents from under Niqabs in leicester. Similarly a good number of our Somalis speak better Dutch than English, having gained Dutch permenant residence visas as asylum seekers then moved to the established Somali community in East Leicester. We also have an interesting population of East African Asian Portuguese speakers who originate in Mozambique, and have Portugueses passports.
Not all our EU migrants are ethnically from the EU, though of course many are.
I'd always assumed the French, Dutch and Portuguese showing up in the data were mainly London professionals. I'd love to see the numbers by income level by nationality.
I hope that at some point in the future, the whole world will have converted to liberal democracy with high standards of living for virtually everyone. In such an environment, it might be able to relax migration laws again.
I'd like to believe we could have open immigration between developed countries, but I'm not even convinced that is possible any more. I met an Algerian man in London the other day. He worked as a hair dresser and said that he actually only had French citizenship, the same as the rest of his family, but they all came across to the UK because they prefer life here. I'm not sure about the scale of this sort of movement, but it shows that while we're in the EU, we're at the mercy of the immigration systems of everyone else.
It is not unusual. I have a French friend, who says that she hears a lot of Marsellais accents from under Niqabs in leicester. Similarly a good number of our Somalis speak better Dutch than English, having gained Dutch permenant residence visas as asylum seekers then moved to the established Somali community in East Leicester. We also have an interesting population of East African Asian Portuguese speakers who originate in Mozambique, and have Portugueses passports.
Not all our EU migrants are ethnically from the EU, though of course many are.
Interestingly, Mozambique recently became a member of the Commonwealth! (though I will point out British forces did enter the country briefly during WW1 in pursuit of German forces led by Lettow-Vorbeck.)
The Telegraph also reports John Bercow as having described immigrants as better workers than British people.
If a politician instead described immigrants as worse workers than British people what would be the chance of that politician getting a visit from the thoughtpolice ?
Ultimately, it comes down to this: either you have a culture of welcoming immigrants, or you do not. Socrates and I come down on opposite sides of the equation on this, and I respect although I disagree, with his views on this. To me, you need to be open in your attitudes to get the best immigrants from around the world. Just as Google is competing to get the best employees from around the world, we should be trying to attract the brightest and the best to come and become British citizens and embrace what our country has to offer. You only have to look at the extraordinary proportion of major US corporates, particularly in the tech sector, that have been founded by immigrants to see the benefits they bring. It is no coincidence that those US states with the highest proportion of immigrants also have the highest rates of new business formation (the same is true, regionally, in both the UK and in Europe generally).
I'm all up for bringing the best and brightest to the UK. I just don't think we should bring in large numbers of unskilled workers, or people with undemocratic views that, in large enough numbers, could weaken our liberal democracy. Your "either or" choice at the beginning of your paragraph is reminiscent of Bush's "with us or against us" in the War on Terror. In reality, good governance is often a matter of balance.
I also think you are incredibly naive on how many would come here. You don't think Somalis, Zimbabweans and Congolese would be pretty happy to live ten to a bedroom if it meant they could escape the horror of their homelands, even if it meant gambling on the chance of work? And then, if many of them don't find work and get turfed out of their property, yet you don't give them welfare, what happens to them? We struggle enough stopping Irish travellers setting up illegal sites, how much money would we have to spend on legal and practical challenges to demolish them? And what happens when they then end up homeless on our streets? I suppose they'd get moved on from the nice parts of the city where rich people live, but certain areas are bound to become places where they aggregate, ruining neighbourhoods.
I'd always assumed the French, Dutch and Portuguese showing up in the data were mainly London professionals. I'd love to see the numbers by income level by nationality.
In London I think that they are probably mostly football players!
I had an interesting chat with a Dutch doctor at a conference last year, his Dutch town do have an assimillation policy that has instructions on how to be Dutch, including cycling lessons for Somalis.
I do not know what the British equivalent would be. Perhaps queueing in an orderly fashion? followed by a dose of MRSA?
"After carrying out a simple search of the word “scrounger” on each newspaper website for the period 2010 to date, the figures show that the Guardian used the word in 736 articles over the last three years.
In second place is Owen Jones’ Indy, who – as he might say - “demonised the poor” 185 times over the period. Much further down come the right-wing tabloids: 76 for the Mail and 20 for the Express."
I've been waiting for someone to quote the usual bogus research on gay couples bringing up kids, but I didn't expect it to be on Political Betting.
"Of the 315 gay, lesbian and bisexual parents who completed the globally recognised Child Health Questionnaire, 80 per cent were women."
Two problems here:
The subject is highly politicised and as we are talking small numbers anyway, there would great difficulty getting a random sample for gay couples, especially as participation requires consent. In other words, those who screwed up didn't volunteer or respond.
The second problem is you aren't comparing like with like. 80% of the gay couples had no male member, with all their associated problems. Furthermore, male gay couples would almost certainly have to adopt, and adopted children perform better than natural families because of the restrictions on those who can adopt. (Think Michael Gove as an example).
I think my comments have indicated that I'm getting fed up with this bogus research, some of which is laugh out loud funny.
Here is a more sober assessment of same-sex parenting.
Comments
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/06/04/doctor-who-must-be-man/
A majority of Britons and half of women say it’s important the next Doctor Who is male – and among fans David Tennant is by far the most popular Doctor
So there goes Helen Mirren & Tilda Swinton.....
"Mr Cruddas had made it clear from the very start that he did not accept the paper’s account of what happened at their meetings and that he denied acting improperly. Indeed, he later accused The Sunday Times of distorting the facts and being unfairly selective in the editing of his quotes."
The fairest thing would be to simply release the entire unedited footage. People could make up their own minds then.
UKIP is adding 2k new members a month net. At this rate will overtake Lib Dem membership by end of the year.
Mark Littlewood @MarkJLittlewood 1h
@oflynnexpress possibly a little faster actually, as I think LD memebrship is falling, not flatlining."
https://twitter.com/oflynnexpress/status/342291018420473856
UKIP officially excluded from the ironically named 'Better Together' campaign. Lessons not learned from YEStoAV... http://fb.me/1ylqRr5px
https://twitter.com/UKIP/status/342290692472725505
Er... would that be Moffat?
TV shows can and sometimes do take courses of action that piss off their fans. The end of Star Trek: Enterprise, the temporary departure of Michael Shanks from Stargate: SG-1 and every bloody episode of Doctor Who with River Song in it. [The last one might just be me, though].
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-04/ferguson-says-labor-dead-without-voter-support-on-asylum-seekers/4731694
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-05/labor-mp-draws-titanic-analogy/4734624
Chris Christie 41% / 12% {+29%}
•Hillary Clinton 49% / 31% {+18%}
•Jeb Bush 26% / 23% {+3%}
•Scott Walker 12% / 12% {0%}
•Ted Cruz 10% / 12% {-2%}
Among Democrats
•Hillary Clinton 83% / 6% {+77%}
•Chris Christie 43% / 10% {+33%}
Among Republicans
•Chris Christie 40% / 16% {+24%}
•Hillary Clinton 15% / 61% {-46%}
The mood of the country is such that under the mosque fire story in the Mail, one of the most liked comments is the one suggesting the torching of this centre was a put up job to frame the EDL....
"It was January 1963
And Johnny came home with a gift for me"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_(song)
There is nothing in the principle of free speech that says the Telegraph has to provide a forum for discussion and bear the legal liability of providing that forum.
People’s faith in the [welfare] system has been shaken by a system that appears to give a minority of people something for nothing
Politicians demonising welfare recipients. How shocking. No doubt all those who lambasted Osborne for making the same point will be up in arms.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d12b671e-cde9-11e2-8313-00144feab7de.html#axzz2VMXaOMy9
Do you read your messages on this site?
Similarly, set up your own website and write what you like.
The Telegraph has decided it doesn't want to take the legal risk of allowing its customers to write what they like on its boards. In the same way that OGH doesn't want to take that risk. As free agents in a free society they are entirely at liberty to take that decision.
Why? Do you seriously think they'd be an asset?
The main problem the No campaign have got is the rationale for excluding UKIP. "They're not a Scottish party" isn't going to stand up to much scrutiny if we're expected to believe the Tories are a Scottish party. And for Labour it sends the rather awkward message that UKIP are beyond the pale, but the Tories are absolutely fine as an ally.
@oflynnexpress: RT @tomchapman16: Labour are the #welfareparty, they were paying £100K+ to families & have voted against £83bn of welfare reform put in place by the Coalition
UKIP, for reference, got 17,000 votes in 2010.
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent.
@MrJones
That is my political philosophy in one paragraph. I would love to see the state rolled back to that. And I would love to leave the behemoth that is the EU. But your vision of Fortress Britain holds no attraction to me.
Someone else said "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
In August 1914, rates of immigration were very low. Thus there was no need for the government to stem the flow. However, now hundreds of thousands come every year. If we had your system, it is likely millions would come here. Do you really think this would not have negative effects?
It is akin to a town without flood defences being fine for years and years, but then the river changed course and they got flooded every year, so the town started building flood defences. It would be a pretty foolish person who said "but remember back in the day, we never needed to do this! Why do we need to do it now?!"
"Lest anyone forget, the Tories got 413,000 votes in Scotland in 2010, while the SNP got 491,000. And yet you want us to believe that the Tories are not a Scottish party, while the SNP is doubleplusgood."
That in spite of the fact that the Tories had 270 minutes of representation in the leaders' debates, and the SNP had zero minutes? I think that's pretty good going, personally.
I'll spare your embarrassment by passing over the disparity between the two parties' fortunes in the most recent Holyrood, European Parliament and local elections.
So simple - why didnt anyone think of it earlier ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22782690
The debates were between potential Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. The leader of the SNP was never going to be Prime Minister.
Frankly nobody but a London establishment figure has a hope in hell of becoming Prime Minister for as long as the debates are such an undemocratic joke.
The 'tedious' jibe is as good as an ackowledgement that you know I'm right. You haven't got an argument - in a parliamentary election, a party that has had continuous parliamentary representation since 1967 should be represented in the debates. End of story.
I would also agree utterly with your comment about not wanting a fortress Britain were it not for Socrates very good point that the scale of migration relative to our ability to absorb it has changed dramatically since WW1. Again in an ideal world we would allow people to enter and leave our country at will. But that again is simply no longer practical nor desirable.
No wonder we were so badly governed under Blair and Brown.
" if we're expected to believe the Tories are a Scottish party"
410,000 Scottish Tory voters don't count?
I hope that at some point in the future, the whole world will have converted to liberal democracy with high standards of living for virtually everyone. In such an environment, it might be able to relax migration laws again.
I'd like to believe we could have open immigration between developed countries, but I'm not even convinced that is possible any more. I met an Algerian man in London the other day. He worked as a hair dresser and said that he actually only had French citizenship, the same as the rest of his family, but they all came across to the UK because they prefer life here. I'm not sure about the scale of this sort of movement, but it shows that while we're in the EU, we're at the mercy of the immigration systems of everyone else.
http://www.brugesgroup.com/eu/professor-ajp-taylor-on-europe-the-historian-who-predicted-the-future.htm?xp=paper
In any case, most of those freedoms listed by A.J.P. Taylor still exist today, or (in the case of exchanging money) were reintroduced by Thatcher. Admittedly taxes are much higher, but then we have state education, the NHS, state pensions, and so on.
That's not to mention the various state monopolies that existed on imports from India during that time.
Oh come off it. Would Miliband have been talking about welfare at all if Osborne had not comprehensively won the argument already. Of course he wouldn't. And the electorate knows it.
Maybe, but it is still better to put things in a less divisive way than contrasting "Strivers" and "scroungers"
Admittedly it is true that many of the restrictions had gone by 1914, but that pre-WWI period was not typical in the overall history.
I'm not sure I agree with you that immigration would go through the roof under my scenario. My view is that migrants are economically rational - they will go (as I would go) where they have the best chance of a good life. This is something I personally applaud.
If you get rid of state subsidised housing and benefits, then the attraction of the UK would be enormously diminished. Only those people who wanted to come to the UK to work and make a positive contribution would want to come. Ah yes, but what about shanty towns? Well, if property right were properly enforced, then there could be no shantytowns.
It's also worth remembering that - according to Wikipedia - 40-50,000 Hugenouts arrived in the UK in the 17th Century, with the majority if them going to the East End of London. Also according to Wikipedia, the population of London at the beginning of the 17th Century was just 200,000. In other words, should you have stood in Spitalfields market in the middle of the 1600s, there would probably have been a higher proportion of immigrants than there are today.
As an aside, I've never understood why certain categories of work - hairdressing, for example - should be exempt from foreign competition; while others, such as electronics are not.
I also find it odd, that it would be considered appallingly totalitarian for you to restrict my ability to buy the work of an Algerian author; but if his output was chip design, this would be a truly terrible thing.
Ultimately, it comes down to this: either you have a culture of welcoming immigrants, or you do not. Socrates and I come down on opposite sides of the equation on this, and I respect although I disagree, with his views on this. To me, you need to be open in your attitudes to get the best immigrants from around the world. Just as Google is competing to get the best employees from around the world, we should be trying to attract the brightest and the best to come and become British citizens and embrace what our country has to offer. You only have to look at the extraordinary proportion of major US corporates, particularly in the tech sector, that have been founded by immigrants to see the benefits they bring. It is no coincidence that those US states with the highest proportion of immigrants also have the highest rates of new business formation (the same is true, regionally, in both the UK and in Europe generally).
But I appreciate my views may not be popular with voters. Nevertheless, I genuinely believe our country and our people would be richer with more immigration, rather than less. And I also believe that (and I appreciate both you, Socrates and Richard Tyndall are not of this camp) many people who support Britain leaving the EU do so because they believe the Richard Starkey nonsense about solving unemployment by slapping tariffs on foreign goods.
1. Ordinary people do talk about scroungers and those taking the p*ss out of those who work. And they do feel that governments - all governments - have a tendency to ignore those who try and do the right thing. It's not bad for a government to say explicitly that it is on the side of those who are or are trying to do the right thing.
2. Labour also made a point of using divisive language about people it didn't like or those who disagreed with it - see, for instance, Blair's speech about the forces of conservatism. Or indeed those commentators who go on and on and on about toffs and fops and public schools etc etc. Labour have quite a lot of form on this - "lower than vermin" was what one revered Labour bod said once. When you're in glasshouses etc.....
Not all our EU migrants are ethnically from the EU, though of course many are.
I'd always assumed the French, Dutch and Portuguese showing up in the data were mainly London professionals. I'd love to see the numbers by income level by nationality.
The Telegraph also reports John Bercow as having described immigrants as better workers than British people.
If a politician instead described immigrants as worse workers than British people what would be the chance of that politician getting a visit from the thoughtpolice ?
I also think you are incredibly naive on how many would come here. You don't think Somalis, Zimbabweans and Congolese would be pretty happy to live ten to a bedroom if it meant they could escape the horror of their homelands, even if it meant gambling on the chance of work? And then, if many of them don't find work and get turfed out of their property, yet you don't give them welfare, what happens to them? We struggle enough stopping Irish travellers setting up illegal sites, how much money would we have to spend on legal and practical challenges to demolish them? And what happens when they then end up homeless on our streets? I suppose they'd get moved on from the nice parts of the city where rich people live, but certain areas are bound to become places where they aggregate, ruining neighbourhoods.
I had an interesting chat with a Dutch doctor at a conference last year, his Dutch town do have an assimillation policy that has instructions on how to be Dutch, including cycling lessons for Somalis.
I do not know what the British equivalent would be. Perhaps queueing in an orderly fashion? followed by a dose of MRSA?
It has been a bad day at work ;-)
(I say interesting, I've only watched the 1st 15 mins)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=366F5xcci1E
3 Northern science museums - jeez - one would be enough.
http://order-order.com/2013/05/02/guardian-uses-scrounger-more-than-any-other-paper/
"After carrying out a simple search of the word “scrounger” on each newspaper website for the period 2010 to date, the figures show that the Guardian used the word in 736 articles over the last three years.
In second place is Owen Jones’ Indy, who – as he might say - “demonised the poor” 185 times over the period. Much further down come the right-wing tabloids: 76 for the Mail and 20 for the Express."
A study of 500 children in Australia finds that gay couples actually bring up kids, on average, slightly better than straight couples.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/tick-for-samesex-families-20130605-2npxf.html
"Of the 315 gay, lesbian and bisexual parents who completed the globally recognised Child Health Questionnaire, 80 per cent were women."
Two problems here:
The subject is highly politicised and as we are talking small numbers anyway, there would great difficulty getting a random sample for gay couples, especially as participation requires consent. In other words, those who screwed up didn't volunteer or respond.
The second problem is you aren't comparing like with like. 80% of the gay couples had no male member, with all their associated problems. Furthermore, male gay couples would almost certainly have to adopt, and adopted children perform better than natural families because of the restrictions on those who can adopt. (Think Michael Gove as an example).
I think my comments have indicated that I'm getting fed up with this bogus research, some of which is laugh out loud funny.
Here is a more sober assessment of same-sex parenting.
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/science_myths_and_same_sex_parenting