People need to get it out their heads that the Tories want to reduce immigration. They don't. They just want headline initiatives to pretend they're doing something about it.
Christ on a bike. Well, there's an open goal for UKIP to kick at there.
Indeed. Compare to the last two that joined
Population:
Romania: 20 million Bulgaria: 7 million Turkey: 75 million
Speaking of Romania and Bulgaria, I see more than 100k have signed up for new National Insurance numbers in the 12 months to September, 2014. It's bound to be further north of that in the 12 months to December (the first full year of them having free movement).
And MigrationWatch were accused of "scaremongering" when they predicted 50,000 a year...
The 2004 intake is even more instructive. Poland, and the Baltic States. It's in the millions.
In some respects it's quite nice to be served my morning coffee by an attractive nubile 20-something Polish blond, with a smile and a good work ethic, compared to a grumpy old 60-something British battleaxe who makes you wait - but that's a very middle-class view to take of it.
The total inflow has been huge and led to serious population and infrastructure pressures, and unwanted social change.
People need to get it out their heads that the Tories want to reduce immigration. They don't. They just want headline initiatives to pretend they're doing something about it.
Amen. Both Bojo and Hannan are solidly pro-immigration : the entire reason for the "controlled immigration" construct is to allow voters to believe the conservatives want less people entering than leaving, whereas what they want is more people entering than leaving, just from different countries
Perfectly plausible result. I'm of the opinion that the Great British Public want both of the mainstream political parties to lose - in a similar way to the way they wanted Labour to lose last time, but not for the Tories to win - and they're normally quite good at getting the result they want.
Perhaps SNP inclusion could be another redline for Dave. At the end of the day he has nothing to lose, but Ed has the whole of Scotland to lose, Sturgeon at the table with no Murphy would be a blow for SLAB.
People need to get it out their heads that the Tories want to reduce immigration. They don't. They just want headline initiatives to pretend they're doing something about it.
Amen. Both Bojo and Hannan are solidly pro-immigration : the entire reason for the "controlled immigration" construct is to allow voters to believe the conservatives want less people entering than leaving, whereas what they want is more people entering than leaving, just from different countries
I know Daniel Hannan. Where's your evidence that he's 'solidly pro immigration'?
Mr. Ashley, offence is not merely given, it must also be taken.
We cannot have a world whereby 'offence' alone is sufficient for condemnation to be heaped upon an utterance because we then hand the keys to freedom of speech to the most ridiculously over-sensitive drama queens. People take offence at all kinds of things. Why should they have the whip hand? Why should they be able to curtail what others can say?
I'm a free man, should I not be able to express my own thoughts without submitting them for approval to a committee of the over-sensitive and potentially violent?
I'm not arguing that people insult others for the sake of it, merely that freedom of speech necessarily means they have that right. Freedom means the right to say things others disagree with.
Spot on.
There's a worrying trend of what I call the " professionally offended ", who traipse themselves across our airwaves at the drop of hat. I mentioned "shroud wavers" the other night and the two are closely related. Going around gratuitously being offensive for the sake of it on a regular basis is also not on of course, but curtailing debate in the fashion the " offended classes " I'm sure intend to is not doing us all any good in the long run.
Limiting language and expression is very 1984 and we need to be aware of it and defend free speech. Insulting someone on the odd occasion is by far the lesser of two evils.
Dave says Turkey should be in the EU. But Dave knows that the French would veto that. So Dave maintains "influence" with the Turks. And Ed says Dave is losing influence in the EU.
Dave says Turkey should be in the EU. But Dave knows that the French would veto that. So Dave maintains "influence" with the Turks. And Ed says Dave is losing influence in the EU.
From memory the Austrians are less than keen on Turkish entry too.
I'm of the opinion that the Great British Public want both of the mainstream political parties to lose - in a similar way to the way they wanted Labour to lose last time, but not for the Tories to win - and they're normally quite good at getting the result they want.
I'm sorry, but while it's a very plausible outcome, the 67% or so of people who vote for Labour and the Tories will presumably have not wanted them both to lose. It's not as though we all get together and work out who we need to vote for to produce a particular outcome.
Personally I couldn't care which of Cameron and Miliband is PM (okay, I'd prefer the latter as it would be funny given how inept he is). But most people do still care which of the big parties 'wins'.
As the number who vote someone else increases the chances of either of the big two winning outright decreases. What is interesting is that it's not inconceivable that we are going to get a very hung parliament.
I'm of the opinion that the Great British Public want both of the mainstream political parties to lose - in a similar way to the way they wanted Labour to lose last time, but not for the Tories to win - and they're normally quite good at getting the result they want.
I'm sorry, but while it's a very plausible outcome, the 67% or so of people who vote for Labour and the Tories will presumably have not wanted them both to lose. It's not as though we all get together and work out who we need to vote for to produce a particular outcome.
Personally I couldn't care which of Cameron and Miliband is PM (okay, I'd prefer the latter as it would be funny given how inept he is). But most people do still care which of the big parties 'wins'.
As the number who vote someone else increases the chances of either of the big two winning outright decreases. What is interesting is that it's not inconceivable that we are going to get a very hung parliament.
First past the post ensures the big two get an artificially high vote share between them. Many people with little liking for the Conservatives vote for them to keep out Labour, and the reverse is equally true.
People need to get it out their heads that the Tories want to reduce immigration. They don't. They just want headline initiatives to pretend they're doing something about it.
Amen. Both Bojo and Hannan are solidly pro-immigration : the entire reason for the "controlled immigration" construct is to allow voters to believe the conservatives want less people entering than leaving, whereas what they want is more people entering than leaving, just from different countries
I know Daniel Hannan. Where's your evidence that he's 'solidly pro immigration'?
I agree about Boris.
I wouldn't say he's solidly pro-immigration, he's someone who doesn't appear to use the nasty tone that some use when discussing immigration (You could never imagine him blaming immigrants for making him late)
This article by Daniel Hannan made me think he's someone
1) Who should be an MP (but as I understand it doesn't want to be an MP)
2) Could be the face of Out in an in/out referendum
People need to get it out their heads that the Tories want to reduce immigration. They don't. They just want headline initiatives to pretend they're doing something about it.
Amen. Both Bojo and Hannan are solidly pro-immigration : the entire reason for the "controlled immigration" construct is to allow voters to believe the conservatives want less people entering than leaving, whereas what they want is more people entering than leaving, just from different countries
I know Daniel Hannan. Where's your evidence that he's 'solidly pro immigration'?
I agree about Boris.
I wouldn't say he's solidly pro-immigration, he's someone who doesn't appear to use the nasty tone that some use when discussing immigration (You could never imagine him blaming immigrants for making him late)
This article by Daniel Hannan made me think he's someone
1) Who should be an MP (but as I understand it doesn't want to be an MP)
2) Could be the face of Out in an in/out referendum
I'm of the opinion that the Great British Public want both of the mainstream political parties to lose - in a similar way to the way they wanted Labour to lose last time, but not for the Tories to win - and they're normally quite good at getting the result they want.
I'm sorry, but while it's a very plausible outcome, the 67% or so of people who vote for Labour and the Tories will presumably have not wanted them both to lose. It's not as though we all get together and work out who we need to vote for to produce a particular outcome.
Personally I couldn't care which of Cameron and Miliband is PM (okay, I'd prefer the latter as it would be funny given how inept he is). But most people do still care which of the big parties 'wins'.
As the number who vote someone else increases the chances of either of the big two winning outright decreases. What is interesting is that it's not inconceivable that we are going to get a very hung parliament.
65-67% of those who vote. So about 18-20 million.
Or about 39-43% of the electorate (c. 46 million). Or 35-38% of the adult population of the UK (c. 52 million). Or 29-32% of the Great British Public (c. 62.5 million). (Or 28-31% of the UK public (c 64.1 million)
I'm of the opinion that the Great British Public want both of the mainstream political parties to lose - in a similar way to the way they wanted Labour to lose last time, but not for the Tories to win - and they're normally quite good at getting the result they want.
I'm sorry, but while it's a very plausible outcome, the 67% or so of people who vote for Labour and the Tories will presumably have not wanted them both to lose. It's not as though we all get together and work out who we need to vote for to produce a particular outcome.
Personally I couldn't care which of Cameron and Miliband is PM (okay, I'd prefer the latter as it would be funny given how inept he is). But most people do still care which of the big parties 'wins'.
As the number who vote someone else increases the chances of either of the big two winning outright decreases. What is interesting is that it's not inconceivable that we are going to get a very hung parliament.
First past the post ensures the big two get an artificially high vote share between them. Many people with little liking for the Conservatives vote for them to keep out Labour, and the reverse is equally true.
And presumably those who vote for one to keep the other out are happy for the one they vote for not to lose.
The only stat that matters from below is the first one.
Andy_Cooke said:
65-67% of those who vote. So about 18-20 million.
Or about 39-43% of the electorate (c. 46 million). Or 35-38% of the adult population of the UK (c. 52 million). Or 29-32% of the Great British Public (c. 62.5 million). (Or 28-31% of the UK public (c 64.1 million)
I wonder which constituencies Lord Ashcroft is going for in Scotland. If I were him, I'd like to see polling in the following:
Aberdeen North Ayrshire North & Arran Dunbartonshire East Edinburgh North & Leith Edinburgh West Glasgow North Glasgow East Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey Kilmarnock & Loudoun Stirling
That would I hope give us some idea of how big the SNP surge was and where it was taking place.
A good cross-section, I wonder if Gordon would be worth including. Even though its a dead cert for the SNP, it would be good to tease out tactical voting appetite among the Unionist supporters.
For some bizarre reason SLAB have put up a chap called Braden Davy as their candidate. He is a 22 year old Englishman, whose only experience outside off politics was working as a cleaner in McDonalds. It appears that SLAB lack good candidates as well as supporters. His facebook page is worth a look:
And it's not his first party either, as he is the founder of the Northumbria Party, dedicated to fighting the pampered Scots (or the pampering of Scots), it seems:
The mind boggles as to how this chap got through the candidate selection process, I wonder what the other candidates were like, or was he unopposed?
At the end of the day if politics returns to normal by May (i.e. SLAB resurgence), this should be one of SLAB's target seats. Murphy and McTernan must be shaking their heads about this.
People need to get it out their heads that the Tories want to reduce immigration. They don't. They just want headline initiatives to pretend they're doing something about it.
Amen. Both Bojo and Hannan are solidly pro-immigration : the entire reason for the "controlled immigration" construct is to allow voters to believe the conservatives want less people entering than leaving, whereas what they want is more people entering than leaving, just from different countries
I know Daniel Hannan. Where's your evidence that he's 'solidly pro immigration'?
I agree about Boris.
I wouldn't say he's solidly pro-immigration, he's someone who doesn't appear to use the nasty tone that some use when discussing immigration (You could never imagine him blaming immigrants for making him late)
This article by Daniel Hannan made me think he's someone
1) Who should be an MP (but as I understand it doesn't want to be an MP)
2) Could be the face of Out in an in/out referendum
It's an excellent article. IMHO Daniel is the most impressive Conservative politician we have in Britain today. If he were Tory party leader I'd vote for them so hard it would make a hole in the ballot paper.
I'm of the opinion that the Great British Public want both of the mainstream political parties to lose - in a similar way to the way they wanted Labour to lose last time, but not for the Tories to win - and they're normally quite good at getting the result they want.
I'm sorry, but while it's a very plausible outcome, the 67% or so of people who vote for Labour and the Tories will presumably have not wanted them both to lose. It's not as though we all get together and work out who we need to vote for to produce a particular outcome.
Personally I couldn't care which of Cameron and Miliband is PM (okay, I'd prefer the latter as it would be funny given how inept he is). But most people do still care which of the big parties 'wins'.
As the number who vote someone else increases the chances of either of the big two winning outright decreases. What is interesting is that it's not inconceivable that we are going to get a very hung parliament.
No need to apologise. The election outcome often appears to be very similar to the general popular sentiment to me. I couldn't tell you how the individual votes get us there each time, but in aggregate - by a magic process of osmosis - they do.
I have to admit that my biggest cheer of the night was that Western Isle No result when it was announced, I knew then that No was going to win the Indy Referendum.
I wonder which constituencies Lord Ashcroft is going for in Scotland. If I were him, I'd like to see polling in the following:
Aberdeen North Ayrshire North & Arran Dunbartonshire East Edinburgh North & Leith Edinburgh West Glasgow North Glasgow East Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey Kilmarnock & Loudoun Stirling
That would I hope give us some idea of how big the SNP surge was and where it was taking place.
An excellent list to test out the SNP surge in practice. However, if I was doing such polling I'd keep Dunbartonshire East polling secret and bet on the info. I'd also throw in Dundee West on the basis that it should be going bright yellow if you believe in thew power of Yes so if it isn't going strongly SNP then that would indicate something. Like when the Western Isle came back No at the referendum I knew there was no point waiting for any more results it was all done and dusted.
THIS POST CONTAINS ARCHIVE LINKS: THIS SENTENCE ENABLES ME TO FIND IT
Sorry about the delay in getting back to you.
* In 2014, the AECR adopted the Reykjavik Declaration[3]. * The Reykjavik Declaration declared that "AECR understands that open societies rest upon the dignity and autonomy of the individual, who should be as free as possible from state coercion. The liberty of the individual includes...freedom of movement and association".[3] * This commitment to freedom of movement is echoed in the AECR principles[1] * Daniel Hannan was one of the founders of AECR and is its Secretary-General[2]
Comments
Conservatives: 35 per cent (291 MPs).
Labour: 32 per cent (283 MPs).
Lib Dems: 12 per cent (32 MPs).
UKIP: 11 per cent (3 MPs).
Others: 9 per cent (41 MPs, including 22 SNP MPs).
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/01/stephen-tall-here-we-go-my-predictions-for-the-coming-election.html
In some respects it's quite nice to be served my morning coffee by an attractive nubile 20-something Polish blond, with a smile and a good work ethic, compared to a grumpy old 60-something British battleaxe who makes you wait - but that's a very middle-class view to take of it.
The total inflow has been huge and led to serious population and infrastructure pressures, and unwanted social change.
http://isisstudygroup.com/?p=3875
I agree about Boris.
There's a worrying trend of what I call the " professionally offended ", who traipse themselves across our airwaves at the drop of hat. I mentioned "shroud wavers" the other night and the two are closely related. Going around gratuitously being offensive for the sake of it on a regular basis is also not on of course, but curtailing debate in the fashion the " offended classes " I'm sure intend to is not doing us all any good in the long run.
Limiting language and expression is very 1984 and we need to be aware of it and defend free speech. Insulting someone on the odd occasion is by far the lesser of two evils.
Seems a small number.
Waiting of course for Private Eye's incisive, scything front cover after their edgy one with "Andrew" this week.
Personally I couldn't care which of Cameron and Miliband is PM (okay, I'd prefer the latter as it would be funny given how inept he is). But most people do still care which of the big parties 'wins'.
As the number who vote someone else increases the chances of either of the big two winning outright decreases. What is interesting is that it's not inconceivable that we are going to get a very hung parliament.
CasinoRoyale Agreed
This article by Daniel Hannan made me think he's someone
1) Who should be an MP (but as I understand it doesn't want to be an MP)
2) Could be the face of Out in an in/out referendum
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100249841/the-case-for-controlled-immigration/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Or about 39-43% of the electorate (c. 46 million).
Or 35-38% of the adult population of the UK (c. 52 million).
Or 29-32% of the Great British Public (c. 62.5 million).
(Or 28-31% of the UK public (c 64.1 million)
The only stat that matters from below is the first one.
Andy_Cooke said:
65-67% of those who vote. So about 18-20 million.
Or about 39-43% of the electorate (c. 46 million).
Or 35-38% of the adult population of the UK (c. 52 million).
Or 29-32% of the Great British Public (c. 62.5 million).
(Or 28-31% of the UK public (c 64.1 million)
At the end of the day if politics returns to normal by May (i.e. SLAB resurgence), this should be one of SLAB's target seats. Murphy and McTernan must be shaking their heads about this.
It's an excellent article. IMHO Daniel is the most impressive Conservative politician we have in Britain today. If he were Tory party leader I'd vote for them so hard it would make a hole in the ballot paper.
new thread
Sorry about the delay in getting back to you.
* In 2014, the AECR adopted the Reykjavik Declaration[3].
* The Reykjavik Declaration declared that "AECR understands that open societies rest upon the dignity and autonomy of the individual, who should be as free as possible from state coercion. The liberty of the individual includes...freedom of movement and association".[3]
* This commitment to freedom of movement is echoed in the AECR principles[1]
* Daniel Hannan was one of the founders of AECR and is its Secretary-General[2]
[1] http://www.aecr.eu/principles/ , archived via https://archive.today/5E69s
[2] http://www.aecr.eu/people/ , archived via https://archive.today/cmh5B
[3] http://www.aecr.eu/aecr-adopts-reykjavik-declaration/ , archved via https://archive.today/ygbka