On topic. I think the polls should do as OGH suggests, but also continue to poll Cameron as there has to be a reasonable chance that he will change his mind. After all, his original comment that he would not continue came out as rather a spur-of-the-moment, throw-away comment, rather than a carefully planned and timed political announcement.
Agreed that long-serving leaders tend to lose touch. I just noted this not from the perspective of my own wishes, but from the point of view that people tend to be taking what Cameron said as Gospel, when to me it sounded less like a pledge and more like a throw-away line.
I cant see how this isnt going to get very ugly. Usually a culture of entitlement takes a generation or two: "Meanwhile, politicians are demanding that German citizens do more to ensure that the migrants feel at home. But a first-hand account of the goings-on in a refugee shelter articulates the frustration felt by many Germans that this is a one-way street:
"For about a week now, 500 migrants and refugees are being housed in the gym in our neighborhood. So I went over there because I wanted to see the conditions there with my own eyes. There were about ten vehicles belonging to the Red Cross and volunteers.
"Older men over 60 were unloading tables and benches from the trucks, cleaning them with a bucket of water and cloth, and then carrying them into the hall....
"What made me really angry was to see the incredible lethargy of the young men. All of them in their 20s and 30s, all sitting there, smoking and looking at their cell phones, while the 60-year-old volunteers where laboring away....
"While I was watching how the Red Cross volunteers were working and no one was helping them, I saw an unbelievable situation: an elderly gentleman was trying to carry a table into the hall when a refugee returned from the city center with a shopping bag. The elderly volunteer lifted the table halfway, looked at the migrant and moved his head asking the migrant to lend a hand. The migrant paused for a moment and then just walked away. I could hardly believe what I saw."
A Merkel thought that by importing these entitled slackers, she'd solve Germany's labour shortfall?
As if an anecdote is equivalent to everyone?
These are people that have travelled thousands of miles in dangerous conditions to seek a better life. People complain about Tebbit saying "get on your bike" but these are people who have done far more than that.
"While I dread the prospect of five years of Tory rule, the election of so many Scottish National party representatives to Westminster could be a good thing for housing.
Since the creation of the Scottish parliament, housing policy north of the border has been a more progressive force than elsewhere in the union. Since the SNP secured an overall majority in 2011, its efforts have been even more radical."
The world's financial capital obliterated. Perhaps 10 million people dead (depending on the size and location of the strike). Swathes of southern England dangerously irradiated.
Back to psychopaths: there's an interesting line of thought that far from being a problem, the condition arose on an evolutionary basis. If your tribe of cavemen is led by a psychopath and the enemy by an incredibly nice chap, the odds are you'll win. Psychopaths are charming, intelligent, and decisive. They're also overwhelmingly male (although not 100%, so you do occasionally meet a lady psychopath).
I think that's right. In game theory, the psychopath usually wins by threatening convincingly to bring down the whole house on both parties.. That's the mistake the Greeks made. Schäuble was willing to risk the whole EU project to teach the Greeks a lesson.
In nuclear deterence, it would be more effective to have a computer in charge (rather than a psychopath) that was programmed to automatically retaliate a la Dr Strangelove. No bluffing there.
Anyone else remembering the hit 80s film Wargames?
Absolutely!
Perhaps (well no perhaps) 'the' best film on the subject was indeed 'Dr Strangelove'.
I must confess my ignorance at having never seen Dr Strangelove (shock, horror, gasp).
Wargames was a great 80s movie though.
Got to disagree on Wargames. Strangelove is a must see for any student of deterrence.
I thought it was a throw away line too - as he subsequently said he was staying on in some overseas press conf Q&A. If Sam gets her way, I can see him standing down.
On topic. I think the polls should do as OGH suggests, but also continue to poll Cameron as there has to be a reasonable chance that he will change his mind. After all, his original comment that he would not continue came out as rather a spur-of-the-moment, throw-away comment, rather than a carefully planned and timed political announcement.
Agreed that long-serving leaders tend to lose touch. I just noted this not from the perspective of my own wishes, but from the point of view that people tend to be taking what Cameron said as Gospel, when to me it sounded less like a pledge and more like a throw-away line.
On topic. I think the polls should do as OGH suggests, but also continue to poll Cameron as there has to be a reasonable chance that he will change his mind. After all, his original comment that he would not continue came out as rather a spur-of-the-moment, throw-away comment, rather than a carefully planned and timed political announcement.
Agreed that long-serving leaders tend to lose touch. I just noted this not from the perspective of my own wishes, but from the point of view that people tend to be taking what Cameron said as Gospel, when to me it sounded less like a pledge and more like a throw-away line.
It was also said at a time when it seemed most likely that there would be a hung-parliament and he was probably setting his stall out for post election negotiations.
"While I dread the prospect of five years of Tory rule, the election of so many Scottish National party representatives to Westminster could be a good thing for housing.
Since the creation of the Scottish parliament, housing policy north of the border has been a more progressive force than elsewhere in the union. Since the SNP secured an overall majority in 2011, its efforts have been even more radical."
Is this the best time to raise the matter of the SNP and home ownership
I'm sure its been discussed already (not read the thread) but really poor of Corbyn to pull out of today's interviews etc as he's "too tired" after yesterday, same as he pulled out of them after winning the election.
Yes I'm sure its a physically gruelling job for a 66 year old in today's 24/7 news media world. But this is a man seeking to be PM for five years starting from an election in 5 years time. I'm sure being Prime Minister for a 71-76 year old would be far more gruelling and demanding than anything Corbyn has faced in his couple of weeks as Leader of the Opposition.
He does not seem physically up to the demands of the job he has sought. Which is no disrespect to his age, I'm sure there are 66 year olds out there who could do the job but he personally doesn't seem capable of it.
I suspect he is physically capable. I doubt if he is mentally.
Consider this: for 30 years he has basically done what HE wanted. Attended protests,Westminster, voted as he liked, said what he liked, ignored any attempts to organise him. He was a free spirit.
Now he needs to be organised, have a schedule, persuade people to do what he wants, attend meetings he does not want.. etc..
It's such a huge change of lifestyle, that mentally it must be very draining.
Indeed, and it's one he's clearly rebelling against.
The problem is that he was elected because he was a rebel, so working out when to play the rebel and when to play the party leader is very difficult. He doesn't want to be just another politician doing what they all do, and to an extent he's right not to; it's part of his USP. But if he doesn't, those who have preconceptions of how a party leader should act, public and media alike, will take against each occasion on which he doesn't do it.
Mr. T, aye, it's not uncommon for answers to vary (and, as per the book and party example I used, the questions are imperfect). I do think it's a useful tool, provided one views it as a guideline rather than carved in an 8' block of limestone.
Pop quiz: a rogue group acquires a nuclear sub. It starts blackmailing European leaders. London is first: pay or BOOM!!! We don't pay. London is nuked.
We know the location of the sub from which the missile was fired. Let's say it is in a bay onthe Faroe Islands. We can nuke that sub and prevent Paris, Berlin, Rome also being nuked. Sadly, the Faroes is toast.
Do you press the nuclear button?
Don't suppose a weapon designed to explode above a city would be that good or effective at hitting a small target underwater....
We had nuclear depth charges in the inventory for such that purpose until fairly recently.
Hunter killer submarine with conventional torpedo or helicopter dropped conventional torpedo would be best under these hypothetical circumstances. Can't really foresee realistic circumstances that anyone, Cameron or Corbyn would press the nuclear button.
I cant see circumstances in which they would take part in a first strike, but most certainly in a retaliatory strike.
If Russia nuked Kiev, or NK lobbed something dirty at Seoul, we would retaliate and it would kick off big time. The reason that doesn't happen is that Putin and Kim KNOW what the response would look like, the fact that we have the deterrent is itself preventing the nuclear war.
Russia will never nuke Kiev, which happens to be the cradle of Russia in history.
True in the specific but less so in the general case.
That said, the real threat comes from rogue states rather than superpowers.
I must confess my ignorance at having never seen Dr Strangelove (shock, horror, gasp)..
You need to rectify that omission!
Totally brilliant movie on so many levels. Peter Sellers never better. But then again very few actors gave a better performance than they did in a Kubrick film.
Mr. T, aye, it's not uncommon for answers to vary (and, as per the book and party example I used, the questions are imperfect). I do think it's a useful tool, provided one views it as a guideline rather than carved in an 8' block of limestone.
Indeed. As in most models of complex things, best used as either a guideline, or as a tool for learning, rather than for creating predictions or set in stone conclusions.
I cant see how this isnt going to get very ugly. Usually a culture of entitlement takes a generation or two: "Meanwhile, politicians are demanding that German citizens do more to ensure that the migrants feel at home. But a first-hand account of the goings-on in a refugee shelter articulates the frustration felt by many Germans that this is a one-way street:
"For about a week now, 500 migrants and refugees are being housed in the gym in our neighborhood. So I went over there because I wanted to see the conditions there with my own eyes. There were about ten vehicles belonging to the Red Cross and volunteers.
"Older men over 60 were unloading tables and benches from the trucks, cleaning them with a bucket of water and cloth, and then carrying them into the hall....
"What made me really angry was to see the incredible lethargy of the young men. All of them in their 20s and 30s, all sitting there, smoking and looking at their cell phones, while the 60-year-old volunteers where laboring away....
"While I was watching how the Red Cross volunteers were working and no one was helping them, I saw an unbelievable situation: an elderly gentleman was trying to carry a table into the hall when a refugee returned from the city center with a shopping bag. The elderly volunteer lifted the table halfway, looked at the migrant and moved his head asking the migrant to lend a hand. The migrant paused for a moment and then just walked away. I could hardly believe what I saw."
A Merkel thought that by importing these entitled slackers, she'd solve Germany's labour shortfall?
And wise ones on here were having a bidding war to see who could feel best about themselves by imposing the migrants en masse on the poor in this country
Corbyn has pulled out of interviews with ITV regions. Too tired and losing voice. Yesterday he said we must hold politicians to account.
Has anyone actually asked if he's got the energy for the next 5 years, let alone be PM?
He's 66, he'll be nearly dead or maybe actually dead if it's too much for him.
It has been raised on pb before. We are in a phony war. Corbyn will probably retire before 2020, and as OGH's OP notes, David Cameron has announced he will do so.
Corbyn goes for health reasons, and Tom Watson steps up to the plate...
Depending on timing, one of the new Shadow Cabinet members might by then have made a name for him or herself.
Mr. Eagles, worth noting areas with lots of immigrants will have lots of immigrants saying immigrants aren't bad
Also, it depends on the type of immigrants. I think Poles and Chinese are likely better at integrating and working than Somalians and other groups [on a group-wide basis, obviously there are exceptions].
I'm sure its been discussed already (not read the thread) but really poor of Corbyn to pull out of today's interviews etc as he's "too tired" after yesterday, same as he pulled out of them after winning the election.
Yes I'm sure its a physically gruelling job for a 66 year old in today's 24/7 news media world. But this is a man seeking to be PM for five years starting from an election in 5 years time. I'm sure being Prime Minister for a 71-76 year old would be far more gruelling and demanding than anything Corbyn has faced in his couple of weeks as Leader of the Opposition.
He does not seem physically up to the demands of the job he has sought. Which is no disrespect to his age, I'm sure there are 66 year olds out there who could do the job but he personally doesn't seem capable of it.
I suspect he is physically capable. I doubt if he is mentally.
Consider this: for 30 years he has basically done what HE wanted. Attended protests,Westminster, voted as he liked, said what he liked, ignored any attempts to organise him. He was a free spirit.
Now he needs to be organised, have a schedule, persuade people to do what he wants, attend meetings he does not want.. etc..
It's such a huge change of lifestyle, that mentally it must be very draining.
Quite. It is a bit of culture shock to him that he now has a staff, and others setting appointments in his diary whether he wants them or not. He clearly doesn't like the ceremonial aspects of the LotO role and feels more at home with colleagues and constituents than on the TV or attending a national event.
He wants to be seen as the outsider but the public and especially the media have expectations for the role that he's not fulfilling. They will argue that he but himself up for the role and should have known what to expect.
One hopes on a personal level that his health doesn't suffer from the pressure - he's led a relatively easy and stress-free life up until now as a London MP with a very safe seat - having all this attention suddenly land on someone aged 66 can't be easy.
Mr. Eagles, worth noting areas with lots of immigrants will have lots of immigrants saying immigrants aren't bad
Also, it depends on the type of immigrants. I think Poles and Chinese are likely better at integrating and working than Somalians and other groups [on a group-wide basis, obviously there are exceptions].
People always overestimate how many immigrants there are.
Pop quiz: a rogue group acquires a nuclear sub. It starts blackmailing European leaders. London is first: pay or BOOM!!! We don't pay. London is nuked.
We know the location of the sub from which the missile was fired. Let's say it is in a bay onthe Faroe Islands. We can nuke that sub and prevent Paris, Berlin, Rome also being nuked. Sadly, the Faroes is toast.
I'm certainly not a Putin fan but thank god someone is standing up to ISIS and the disgustingly evil House of Saud, because we aren't doing it (and I would suggest don't want to do it). Come on you russkies
On topic. I think the polls should do as OGH suggests, but also continue to poll Cameron as there has to be a reasonable chance that he will change his mind. After all, his original comment that he would not continue came out as rather a spur-of-the-moment, throw-away comment, rather than a carefully planned and timed political announcement.
Agreed that long-serving leaders tend to lose touch. I just noted this not from the perspective of my own wishes, but from the point of view that people tend to be taking what Cameron said as Gospel, when to me it sounded less like a pledge and more like a throw-away line.
Did he actually say he would stand down?
All I remember is something about terms being like Shredded Wheat: 2 is enough, 3 too many.
Pop quiz: a rogue group acquires a nuclear sub. It starts blackmailing European leaders. London is first: pay or BOOM!!! We don't pay. London is nuked.
We know the location of the sub from which the missile was fired. Let's say it is in a bay onthe Faroe Islands. We can nuke that sub and prevent Paris, Berlin, Rome also being nuked. Sadly, the Faroes is toast.
I'm sure its been discussed already (not read the thread) but really poor of Corbyn to pull out of today's interviews etc as he's "too tired" after yesterday, same as he pulled out of them after winning the election.
Yes I'm sure its a physically gruelling job for a 66 year old in today's 24/7 news media world. But this is a man seeking to be PM for five years starting from an election in 5 years time. I'm sure being Prime Minister for a 71-76 year old would be far more gruelling and demanding than anything Corbyn has faced in his couple of weeks as Leader of the Opposition.
He does not seem physically up to the demands of the job he has sought. Which is no disrespect to his age, I'm sure there are 66 year olds out there who could do the job but he personally doesn't seem capable of it.
I suspect he is physically capable. I doubt if he is mentally.
Consider this: for 30 years he has basically done what HE wanted. Attended protests,Westminster, voted as he liked, said what he liked, ignored any attempts to organise him. He was a free spirit.
Now he needs to be organised, have a schedule, persuade people to do what he wants, attend meetings he does not want.. etc..
It's such a huge change of lifestyle, that mentally it must be very draining.
Quite. It is a bit of culture shock to him that he now has a staff, and others setting appointments in his diary whether he wants them or not. He clearly doesn't like the ceremonial aspects of the LotO role and feels more at home with colleagues and constituents than on the TV or attending a national event.
He wants to be seen as the outsider but the public and especially the media have expectations for the role that he's not fulfilling. They will argue that he but himself up for the role and should have known what to expect.
One hopes on a personal level that his health doesn't suffer from the pressure - he's led a relatively easy and stress-free life up until now as a London MP with a very safe seat - having all this attention suddenly land on someone aged 66 can't be easy.
30 years of Hobby Politics on the Back Benches does not a leader make.
@EdConwaySky: Income gap between richest and poorest fifth of UK population has been narrowing for past 15yrs or so. ONS figs: http://t.co/VLcojYEEac
Except of course narrow income isn't the real issue - it's wealth inequality, which is by any definition continuing to rocket.
For most people - and companies - income (or more importantly cash flow) is far more important than wealth. You can't eat wealth - or make payroll - if it is illiquid.
The world's financial capital obliterated. Perhaps 10 million people dead (depending on the size and location of the strike). Swathes of southern England dangerously irradiated.
Back to psychopaths: there's an interesting line of thought that far from being a problem, the condition arose on an evolutionary basis. If your tribe of cavemen is led by a psychopath and the enemy by an incredibly nice chap, the odds are you'll win. Psychopaths are charming, intelligent, and decisive. They're also overwhelmingly male (although not 100%, so you do occasionally meet a lady psychopath).
I think that's right. In game theory, the psychopath usually wins by threatening convincingly to bring down the whole house on both parties.. That's the mistake the Greeks made. Schäuble was willing to risk the whole EU project to teach the Greeks a lesson.
In nuclear deterence, it would be more effective to have a computer in charge (rather than a psychopath) that was programmed to automatically retaliate a la Dr Strangelove. No bluffing there.
Mr. Eagles, worth noting areas with lots of immigrants will have lots of immigrants saying immigrants aren't bad
Also, it depends on the type of immigrants. I think Poles and Chinese are likely better at integrating and working than Somalians and other groups [on a group-wide basis, obviously there are exceptions].
Not just immigrants, but children of immigrants too. It's pretty obvious that the people of Tower Hamlets are going to see less problems with immigration that then people of Essex. But that's not because the people of Essex do not have experience with immigration, it's because have greater connection to British cultural heritage they are worried about losing, and closer relationships to the native population that lost out from mass immigration.
Pop quiz: a rogue group acquires a nuclear sub. It starts blackmailing European leaders. London is first: pay or BOOM!!! We don't pay. London is nuked.
We know the location of the sub from which the missile was fired. Let's say it is in a bay onthe Faroe Islands. We can nuke that sub and prevent Paris, Berlin, Rome also being nuked. Sadly, the Faroes is toast.
Do you press the nuclear button?
Only after Paris has gone.
Why would we be bothered about France anyway. They've got their own deterrent, La Force de Frappe.
@EdConwaySky: Income gap between richest and poorest fifth of UK population has been narrowing for past 15yrs or so. ONS figs: http://t.co/VLcojYEEac
Except of course narrow income isn't the real issue - it's wealth inequality, which is by any definition continuing to rocket.
Source for that?
Though frankly its irrelevant. Its growing the pie and ensuring everyone has more overall that matters - not shrinking the pie and making sure everyone has the same amount of crumbs.
" ... Kennedy prevailed because Khrushchev couldn't read him and the game became one of poker rather than chess."
I think they read each other very well. Khruschev wanted the Jupiter missiles out of Turkey and Kennedy wanted to defuse the loons in Cuba while preserving his reputation. They both got what they wanted.
Mr. Eagles, worth noting areas with lots of immigrants will have lots of immigrants saying immigrants aren't bad
Also, it depends on the type of immigrants. I think Poles and Chinese are likely better at integrating and working than Somalians and other groups [on a group-wide basis, obviously there are exceptions].
People always overestimate how many immigrants there are.
Roughly, what level of immigrants as a share of population do you think it would be unwise to go over? What about first and second generation immigrants combined as a share of population?
On topic. I think the polls should do as OGH suggests, but also continue to poll Cameron as there has to be a reasonable chance that he will change his mind. After all, his original comment that he would not continue came out as rather a spur-of-the-moment, throw-away comment, rather than a carefully planned and timed political announcement.
Agreed that long-serving leaders tend to lose touch. I just noted this not from the perspective of my own wishes, but from the point of view that people tend to be taking what Cameron said as Gospel, when to me it sounded less like a pledge and more like a throw-away line.
Did he actually say he would stand down?
All I remember is something about terms being like Shredded Wheat: 2 is enough, 3 too many.
I also seem to recall from memory it was "3 might be too many".
There's plenty of wriggle room there to say that Corbyn is too dangerous for him to resign and 3 would be right under these circumstances.
Mr. Eagles, worth noting areas with lots of immigrants will have lots of immigrants saying immigrants aren't bad
Also, it depends on the type of immigrants. I think Poles and Chinese are likely better at integrating and working than Somalians and other groups [on a group-wide basis, obviously there are exceptions].
People always overestimate how many immigrants there are.
Roughly, what level of immigrants as a share of population do you think it would be unwise to go over? What about first and second generation immigrants combined as a share of population?
@EdConwaySky: Income gap between richest and poorest fifth of UK population has been narrowing for past 15yrs or so. ONS figs: http://t.co/VLcojYEEac
Except of course narrow income isn't the real issue - it's wealth inequality, which is by any definition continuing to rocket.
For most people - and companies - income (or more importantly cash flow) is far more important than wealth. You can't eat wealth - or make payroll - if it is illiquid.
Wealth is power. An accelerating increase in wealth, and therefore power, concentration is the biggest issue of our age, and unchecked will lead inevitably to despotism.
On topic. I think the polls should do as OGH suggests, but also continue to poll Cameron as there has to be a reasonable chance that he will change his mind. After all, his original comment that he would not continue came out as rather a spur-of-the-moment, throw-away comment, rather than a carefully planned and timed political announcement.
Agreed that long-serving leaders tend to lose touch. I just noted this not from the perspective of my own wishes, but from the point of view that people tend to be taking what Cameron said as Gospel, when to me it sounded less like a pledge and more like a throw-away line.
Did he actually say he would stand down?
All I remember is something about terms being like Shredded Wheat: 2 is enough, 3 too many.
"I've said I'll stand for a full second term, but I think after that it will be time for new leadership. ... Terms are like Shredded Wheat - two are wonderful but three might just be too many."
Does not sound like an iron cast pledge to me. How does Mr Cameron feel about 2.5 Shredded Wheat? He was not asked and did not tell. Personally, I don't see how he could do 2 full terms only.
I wanted to smack the TV. The best bit is we're building a prison there for 300 prisoners - they cost us £10m pa here and we're finally getting rid of them.
They can sod off. Be interesting to hear the Chairman's view on it, though.
What's ridiculous is the argument "More than 600 Jamaican nationals are in UK jails but cannot be deported because of Jamaica's poor prison conditions."
Why on Earth are we responsible for the poor quality of their prisons? If a citizen of that country has committed a crime, he should know he could be imprisoned in his own country and consider that when considering to harm others. A Jamaican shouldn't get the right to a better standard of prison because he commits a crime in Britain rather than his own country.
I don't really get the argument there. If another country houses its prisoners in the Ritz, would we be so keen to extradite?
If you do the crime in this country then you should do the time in this country. Then you should be extradited.
Makes sense to me - don't people also object when prisoners are sent to their home countries to serve their sentencess? Sometimes we want them held in the country where the offence is committeed.
Of course, if the native country is happy to take them, and that is cheaper, and if it is not certain high level offences, I'm not personally opposed to them serving sentences abroad, but in general I'd have thought the public's view is contradictory, in that in the abstract sense they want foreign criminals to serve time abroad, but if it was a specific case involving them, they'd want them here.
Mr. Eagles, worth noting areas with lots of immigrants will have lots of immigrants saying immigrants aren't bad
Also, it depends on the type of immigrants. I think Poles and Chinese are likely better at integrating and working than Somalians and other groups [on a group-wide basis, obviously there are exceptions].
Not just immigrants, but children of immigrants too. It's pretty obvious that the people of Tower Hamlets are going to see less problems with immigration that then people of Essex. But that's not because the people of Essex do not have experience with immigration, it's because have greater connection to British cultural heritage they are worried about losing, and closer relationships to the native population that lost out from mass immigration.
Not true, just as many Labour people who went to grammar schools wanted them abolished many immigrants and children of immigrants are quite happy to close the drawbridge now that they're in the country.
Of course relating to incomes, it isn't the top fifth vs bottom fifth that really counts, given stagnating incomes across all but the very privileged - it's the top 0.1% vs everyone else. I'd be interested to see those figures.
Of course relating to incomes, it isn't the top fifth vs bottom fifth that really counts, given stagnating incomes across all but the very privileged - it's the top 0.1% vs everyone else. I'd be interested to see those figures.
Whereas I'd be interested in the bottom fifth vs the bottom fifth in the past. Or the bottom 99.9% vs the bottom 99.9% in the past.
Typical extremist lefty that you care more about inequality than actual progress.
The world's financial capital obliterated. Perhaps 10 million people dead (depending on the size and location of the strike). Swathes of southern England dangerously irradiated.
Back to psychopaths: there's an interesting line of thought that far from being a problem, the condition arose on an evolutionary basis. If your tribe of cavemen is led by a psychopath and the enemy by an incredibly nice chap, the odds are you'll win. Psychopaths are charming, intelligent, and decisive. They're also overwhelmingly male (although not 100%, so you do occasionally meet a lady psychopath).
I think that's right. In game theory, the psychopath usually wins by threatening convincingly to bring down the whole house on both parties.. That's the mistake the Greeks made. Schäuble was willing to risk the whole EU project to teach the Greeks a lesson.
In nuclear deterence, it would be more effective to have a computer in charge (rather than a psychopath) that was programmed to automatically retaliate a la Dr Strangelove. No bluffing there.
I think the Cuban missile crisis is interesting in this context. There is a line of thought which has Kennedy as a poker player and Khrushchev as a chess player, and that Kennedy prevailed because Khrushchev couldn't read him and the game became one of poker rather than chess. Dr Strangelove is a great film.
Like most economics, game theory fails to describe what actually happens because it assumes people are all-knowing, rational, and looking only to maximise wealth. Real people are (mostly) not like that, hence the rise of behavioural economics, which started when some psychologists got in on the act. Or as you said, poker beats chess (sometimes).
Mr. Eagles, worth noting areas with lots of immigrants will have lots of immigrants saying immigrants aren't bad
Also, it depends on the type of immigrants. I think Poles and Chinese are likely better at integrating and working than Somalians and other groups [on a group-wide basis, obviously there are exceptions].
Not just immigrants, but children of immigrants too. It's pretty obvious that the people of Tower Hamlets are going to see less problems with immigration that then people of Essex. But that's not because the people of Essex do not have experience with immigration, it's because have greater connection to British cultural heritage they are worried about losing, and closer relationships to the native population that lost out from mass immigration.
Not true, just as many Labour people who went to grammar schools wanted them abolished many immigrants and children of immigrants are quite happy to close the drawbridge now that they're in the country.
I'm sure there are examples of both of those, but I bet the share of people who oppose grammar schools is larger among those from a comprehensive background than those from a grammar school background. And I bet the share of people who want to reduce immigration is larger among those of a non-immigrant background than an immigrant background.
Also, it would not be "closing the drawbridge after them" if they simply want immigration levels to return to the levels they were at when they came to the country.
@EdConwaySky: Income gap between richest and poorest fifth of UK population has been narrowing for past 15yrs or so. ONS figs: http://t.co/VLcojYEEac
Except of course narrow income isn't the real issue - it's wealth inequality, which is by any definition continuing to rocket.
Source for that?
Though frankly its irrelevant. Its growing the pie and ensuring everyone has more overall that matters - not shrinking the pie and making sure everyone has the same amount of crumbs.
Not in a society where there is a very close correlation between wealth and power. Ever concentrating wealth means ever concentrating power. This inevitably leads to despotism.
Mr. Eagles, worth noting areas with lots of immigrants will have lots of immigrants saying immigrants aren't bad
Also, it depends on the type of immigrants. I think Poles and Chinese are likely better at integrating and working than Somalians and other groups [on a group-wide basis, obviously there are exceptions].
People always overestimate how many immigrants there are.
Roughly, what level of immigrants as a share of population do you think it would be unwise to go over? What about first and second generation immigrants combined as a share of population?
100% as it would be mathematically impossible.
So you would be comfortable if the British population was 90% immigrant?
Mr. Eagles, worth noting areas with lots of immigrants will have lots of immigrants saying immigrants aren't bad
Also, it depends on the type of immigrants. I think Poles and Chinese are likely better at integrating and working than Somalians and other groups [on a group-wide basis, obviously there are exceptions].
46% of urban residents (where most immigration takes place) rate immigration as the most important issue, which is a very high figure, by historical standards. Amongst urban residents who aren't immigrants, the figure must be over 50%. Even in London, the figure stands at 35%. Quite possibly, it reaches 50% among those Londoners who are not immigrants.
@EdConwaySky: Income gap between richest and poorest fifth of UK population has been narrowing for past 15yrs or so. ONS figs: http://t.co/VLcojYEEac
Except of course narrow income isn't the real issue - it's wealth inequality, which is by any definition continuing to rocket.
Source for that?
Though frankly its irrelevant. Its growing the pie and ensuring everyone has more overall that matters - not shrinking the pie and making sure everyone has the same amount of crumbs.
Of course I'd also add that a lot of that wealth is in a 'pie' that isnt growing. Land ownership.
@EdConwaySky: Income gap between richest and poorest fifth of UK population has been narrowing for past 15yrs or so. ONS figs: http://t.co/VLcojYEEac
Except of course narrow income isn't the real issue - it's wealth inequality, which is by any definition continuing to rocket.
It would be more interesting to see the gaps broken down more. What about the top 5% or even 1%? But as you imply, it's the concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny minority that will cause the problems - for them as much as anyone else - further down the line.
Jeremy Corbyn can be dismissed, but the next leader of a major political party to question the inequalities endemic in this and other western societies may be more of a handful.
Mr. Eagles, worth noting areas with lots of immigrants will have lots of immigrants saying immigrants aren't bad
Also, it depends on the type of immigrants. I think Poles and Chinese are likely better at integrating and working than Somalians and other groups [on a group-wide basis, obviously there are exceptions].
People always overestimate how many immigrants there are.
Roughly, what level of immigrants as a share of population do you think it would be unwise to go over? What about first and second generation immigrants combined as a share of population?
Not sure. The country just elected a party that regularly oversees 300k net immigrants per year and in second place voted for a party that also brings over a similar amount when in government.
So at least 300k per year seems fine.
I'm not best placed to talk about first and second generation immigrants.
Amazingly, I actually have found a second thing to agree with you on (can't remember what the first was). But I don't think wealth concentration is increasing to the extent you claim, or that if it is, it will continue to do so unchecked.
That's because the cheap labour in the West (driving the increased return on investment and hence wealth concentration in the West but also a decrease of the same in China and India, for example) over the last 30 years has come from the accessibility of Asian labour to Western corporations. Once that labour force has been fully accessed, the relative pricing of labour and capital will rebalance, reducing further income inequalities and, eventually, wealth concentration.
Mr. Eagles, worth noting areas with lots of immigrants will have lots of immigrants saying immigrants aren't bad
Also, it depends on the type of immigrants. I think Poles and Chinese are likely better at integrating and working than Somalians and other groups [on a group-wide basis, obviously there are exceptions].
People always overestimate how many immigrants there are.
Roughly, what level of immigrants as a share of population do you think it would be unwise to go over? What about first and second generation immigrants combined as a share of population?
100% as it would be mathematically impossible.
So you would be comfortable if the British population was 90% immigrant?
Or second generation, isn't that what you said? Yes.
Country of origin is irrelevant about what I concern myself about, I share more in common with the hard working Poles who have recently moved in next door to me than a Jeremy Kyle chavvy dole-bludger born in the town I was born in.
@EdConwaySky: Income gap between richest and poorest fifth of UK population has been narrowing for past 15yrs or so. ONS figs: http://t.co/VLcojYEEac
Except of course narrow income isn't the real issue - it's wealth inequality, which is by any definition continuing to rocket.
For most people - and companies - income (or more importantly cash flow) is far more important than wealth. You can't eat wealth - or make payroll - if it is illiquid.
Of course concentration of wealth matters. Look at the current housing crisis.
Of course relating to incomes, it isn't the top fifth vs bottom fifth that really counts, given stagnating incomes across all but the very privileged - it's the top 0.1% vs everyone else. I'd be interested to see those figures.
Will that be the same 0.1% that pay something like 25% of all income tax and a substantial proportion of VAT takings?
Are you in favour of the richest being made poorer and therefore paying less in tax than they do now - if they don't go to Monaco or Dubai or Singapore instead..?
@EdConwaySky: Income gap between richest and poorest fifth of UK population has been narrowing for past 15yrs or so. ONS figs: http://t.co/VLcojYEEac
Except of course narrow income isn't the real issue - it's wealth inequality, which is by any definition continuing to rocket.
Source for that?
Though frankly its irrelevant. Its growing the pie and ensuring everyone has more overall that matters - not shrinking the pie and making sure everyone has the same amount of crumbs.
Of course I'd also add that a lot of that wealth is in a 'pie' that isnt growing. Land ownership.
The value of land does grow.
I have a cousin who believes that the natural rate of growth of the economy is 2.5% because that's how fast trees grow.
Mr. Eagles, worth noting areas with lots of immigrants will have lots of immigrants saying immigrants aren't bad
Also, it depends on the type of immigrants. I think Poles and Chinese are likely better at integrating and working than Somalians and other groups [on a group-wide basis, obviously there are exceptions].
People always overestimate how many immigrants there are.
Roughly, what level of immigrants as a share of population do you think it would be unwise to go over? What about first and second generation immigrants combined as a share of population?
100% as it would be mathematically impossible.
So you would be comfortable if the British population was 90% immigrant?
Or second generation, isn't that what you said? Yes.
Country of origin is irrelevant about what I concern myself about, I share more in common with the hard working Poles who have recently moved in next door to me than a Jeremy Kyle chavvy dole-bludger born in the town I was born in.
Overall, though, I think most people tend to feel they have more in common with their countrymen than with people who are not their countrymen.
@bbclaurak: Maria Eagle, shadow defence sec on never using nukes - 'I don't think a potential PM answering a Q like that in the way he did is helpful'
A Yes Prime Minister quote springs to mind, although with JC they certainly know now.
Sir Humphrey: With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe!
Hacker: I don’t want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe! Sir Humphrey: It’s a deterrent. Hacker: It’s a bluff. I probably wouldn’t use it. Sir Humphrey: Yes, but they don’t know that you probably wouldn’t. Hacker: They probably do. Sir Humphrey: Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn’t. But they can’t certainly know. Hacker: They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn’t. Sir Humphrey: Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn’t, they don’t certainly know that, although you probably wouldn’t, there is no probability that you certainly would!
Mr. Eagles, worth noting areas with lots of immigrants will have lots of immigrants saying immigrants aren't bad
Also, it depends on the type of immigrants. I think Poles and Chinese are likely better at integrating and working than Somalians and other groups [on a group-wide basis, obviously there are exceptions].
People always overestimate how many immigrants there are.
Roughly, what level of immigrants as a share of population do you think it would be unwise to go over? What about first and second generation immigrants combined as a share of population?
100% as it would be mathematically impossible.
So you would be comfortable if the British population was 90% immigrant?
Or second generation, isn't that what you said? Yes.
Country of origin is irrelevant about what I concern myself about, I share more in common with the hard working Poles who have recently moved in next door to me than a Jeremy Kyle chavvy dole-bludger born in the town I was born in.
Overall, though, I think most people tend to feel they have more in common with their countrymen than with people who are not their countrymen.
And I consider people who have chosen to be part of my country my countrymen just as much (if nor even more) than people who were born here and who actively dislike my country.
Amazingly, I actually have found a second thing to agree with you on (can't remember what the first was). But I don't think wealth concentration is increasing to the extent you claim, or that if it is, it will continue to do so unchecked.
That's because the cheap labour in the West (driving the increased return on investment and hence wealth concentration in the West but also a decrease of the same in China and India, for example) over the last 30 years has come from the accessibility of Asian labour to Western corporations. Once that labour force has been fully accessed, the relative pricing of labour and capital will rebalance, reducing further income inequalities and, eventually, wealth concentration.
@bbclaurak: Maria Eagle, shadow defence sec on never using nukes - 'I don't think a potential PM answering a Q like that in the way he did is helpful'
A Yes Prime Minister quote springs to mind, although with JC they certainly know now.
Sir Humphrey: With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe!
Hacker: I don’t want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe! Sir Humphrey: It’s a deterrent. Hacker: It’s a bluff. I probably wouldn’t use it. Sir Humphrey: Yes, but they don’t know that you probably wouldn’t. Hacker: They probably do. Sir Humphrey: Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn’t. But they can’t certainly know. Hacker: They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn’t. Sir Humphrey: Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn’t, they don’t certainly know that, although you probably wouldn’t, there is no probability that you certainly would!
So Corbyn wouldn't use a deterrent... but is target #1 the (shadow) Ministry of Defence?
Amazingly, I actually have found a second thing to agree with you on (can't remember what the first was). But I don't think wealth concentration is increasing to the extent you claim, or that if it is, it will continue to do so unchecked.
That's because the cheap labour in the West (driving the increased return on investment and hence wealth concentration in the West but also a decrease of the same in China and India, for example) over the last 30 years has come from the accessibility of Asian labour to Western corporations. Once that labour force has been fully accessed, the relative pricing of labour and capital will rebalance, reducing further income inequalities and, eventually, wealth concentration.
Wealth concentration is increasing in China, too.
Walk around any Chinese city, and you'll see just how many tens of millions are benefiting from increased wealth and income.
Of course relating to incomes, it isn't the top fifth vs bottom fifth that really counts, given stagnating incomes across all but the very privileged - it's the top 0.1% vs everyone else. I'd be interested to see those figures.
Will that be the same 0.1% that pay something like 25% of all income tax and a substantial proportion of VAT takings?
Are you in favour of the richest being made poorer and therefore paying less in tax than they do now - if they don't go to Monaco or Dubai or Singapore instead..?
If they are paying more tax it is because they are earning more, often (not always) by sucking money out of the productive economy by paying people less and engaging in rentier activities. If I'm making them poorer by making more of their earnings go to their employees and in taxes, then yes, more than happy. If they go to Monaco, Dubai or Singapore, I'm sure there'll be plenty of people here happy to take their jobs or business.
Amazingly, I actually have found a second thing to agree with you on (can't remember what the first was). But I don't think wealth concentration is increasing to the extent you claim, or that if it is, it will continue to do so unchecked.
That's because the cheap labour in the West (driving the increased return on investment and hence wealth concentration in the West but also a decrease of the same in China and India, for example) over the last 30 years has come from the accessibility of Asian labour to Western corporations. Once that labour force has been fully accessed, the relative pricing of labour and capital will rebalance, reducing further income inequalities and, eventually, wealth concentration.
Wealth concentration is increasing in China, too.
Real poverty (not relative bs) has fallen faster than any time in history thank to China and India's sort-of adoption of capitalism and globalisation in recent years.
Of course relating to incomes, it isn't the top fifth vs bottom fifth that really counts, given stagnating incomes across all but the very privileged - it's the top 0.1% vs everyone else. I'd be interested to see those figures.
Will that be the same 0.1% that pay something like 25% of all income tax and a substantial proportion of VAT takings?
Are you in favour of the richest being made poorer and therefore paying less in tax than they do now - if they don't go to Monaco or Dubai or Singapore instead..?
If they are paying more tax it is because they are earning more, often (not always) by sucking money out of the productive economy by paying people less and engaging in rentier activities. If I'm making them poorer by making more of their earnings go to their employees and in taxes, then yes, more than happy. If they go to Monaco, Dubai or Singapore, I'm sure there'll be plenty of people here happy to take their jobs or business.
Except their wealth, jobs and business won't be here to be taken.
@EdConwaySky: Income gap between richest and poorest fifth of UK population has been narrowing for past 15yrs or so. ONS figs: http://t.co/VLcojYEEac
Except of course narrow income isn't the real issue - it's wealth inequality, which is by any definition continuing to rocket.
Source for that?
Though frankly its irrelevant. Its growing the pie and ensuring everyone has more overall that matters - not shrinking the pie and making sure everyone has the same amount of crumbs.
Of course I'd also add that a lot of that wealth is in a 'pie' that isnt growing. Land ownership.
The value of land does grow.
I have a cousin who believes that the natural rate of growth of the economy is 2.5% because that's how fast trees grow.
The amount of land isn't growing. And the value of land is, without any real added value. That's the problem.
@EdConwaySky: Income gap between richest and poorest fifth of UK population has been narrowing for past 15yrs or so. ONS figs: http://t.co/VLcojYEEac
Except of course narrow income isn't the real issue - it's wealth inequality, which is by any definition continuing to rocket.
For most people - and companies - income (or more importantly cash flow) is far more important than wealth. You can't eat wealth - or make payroll - if it is illiquid.
Of course concentration of wealth matters. Look at the current housing crisis.
I didn't say it didn't matter. I was contesting the idea that wealth is more important than income. For the vast majority of us, it is not.
@bbclaurak: Maria Eagle, shadow defence sec on never using nukes - 'I don't think a potential PM answering a Q like that in the way he did is helpful'
A Yes Prime Minister quote springs to mind, although with JC they certainly know now.
Sir Humphrey: With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe!
Hacker: I don’t want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe! Sir Humphrey: It’s a deterrent. Hacker: It’s a bluff. I probably wouldn’t use it. Sir Humphrey: Yes, but they don’t know that you probably wouldn’t. Hacker: They probably do. Sir Humphrey: Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn’t. But they can’t certainly know. Hacker: They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn’t. Sir Humphrey: Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn’t, they don’t certainly know that, although you probably wouldn’t, there is no probability that you certainly would!
@EdConwaySky: Income gap between richest and poorest fifth of UK population has been narrowing for past 15yrs or so. ONS figs: http://t.co/VLcojYEEac
Except of course narrow income isn't the real issue - it's wealth inequality, which is by any definition continuing to rocket.
For most people - and companies - income (or more importantly cash flow) is far more important than wealth. You can't eat wealth - or make payroll - if it is illiquid.
Of course concentration of wealth matters. Look at the current housing crisis.
I didn't say it didn't matter. I was contesting the idea that wealth is more important than income. For the vast majority of us, it is not.
Inequality of wealth is more important than inequality of income, whatever the immediate importance of income at any one point in time.
The declining fortunes of West Indies cricket hit a new low on Wednesday when the Caribbean team failed to qualify for the 2017 Champions Trophy in England.
Restricted to the world's top eight-ranked sides, the West Indies missed out on the lucrative event after slumping to ninth place on Wednesday's cut-off date.
Their failure to qualify marks the first time the West Indies will be missing from any of cricket's three big limited-overs events -- the 50-overs World Cup, the Champions Trophy and the Twenty20 World Cup.
@EdConwaySky: Income gap between richest and poorest fifth of UK population has been narrowing for past 15yrs or so. ONS figs: http://t.co/VLcojYEEac
Except of course narrow income isn't the real issue - it's wealth inequality, which is by any definition continuing to rocket.
For most people - and companies - income (or more importantly cash flow) is far more important than wealth. You can't eat wealth - or make payroll - if it is illiquid.
Of course concentration of wealth matters. Look at the current housing crisis.
The current housing crisis has sod all to do with concentration of wealth and is entirely and solely to do with supply and demand.
We need to either reduce demand of housing (less population, higher density of accommodation) or increase supply of it (more house building). The former would require a change in immigration and other factors, the latter primarily requires a change on planning laws. In neither case is a change in wealth concentration a factor.
Of course relating to incomes, it isn't the top fifth vs bottom fifth that really counts, given stagnating incomes across all but the very privileged - it's the top 0.1% vs everyone else. I'd be interested to see those figures.
Will that be the same 0.1% that pay something like 25% of all income tax and a substantial proportion of VAT takings?
Are you in favour of the richest being made poorer and therefore paying less in tax than they do now - if they don't go to Monaco or Dubai or Singapore instead..?
If they are paying more tax it is because they are earning more, often (not always) by sucking money out of the productive economy by paying people less and engaging in rentier activities. If I'm making them poorer by making more of their earnings go to their employees and in taxes, then yes, more than happy. If they go to Monaco, Dubai or Singapore, I'm sure there'll be plenty of people here happy to take their jobs or business.
Except their wealth, jobs and business won't be here to be taken.
If a company goes abroad, you think the market here will disappear?
Mr. Eagles, worth noting areas with lots of immigrants will have lots of immigrants saying immigrants aren't bad
Also, it depends on the type of immigrants. I think Poles and Chinese are likely better at integrating and working than Somalians and other groups [on a group-wide basis, obviously there are exceptions].
People always overestimate how many immigrants there are.
Roughly, what level of immigrants as a share of population do you think it would be unwise to go over? What about first and second generation immigrants combined as a share of population?
100% as it would be mathematically impossible.
So you would be comfortable if the British population was 90% immigrant?
Or second generation, isn't that what you said? Yes.
Country of origin is irrelevant about what I concern myself about, I share more in common with the hard working Poles who have recently moved in next door to me than a Jeremy Kyle chavvy dole-bludger born in the town I was born in.
I asked two separate questions: one for just first generation immigrants, and one for second generation immigrants. Perhaps you could also answer whether you would be comfortable for 90% to be first generation immigrants?
The declining fortunes of West Indies cricket hit a new low on Wednesday when the Caribbean team failed to qualify for the 2017 Champions Trophy in England.
Restricted to the world's top eight-ranked sides, the West Indies missed out on the lucrative event after slumping to ninth place on Wednesday's cut-off date.
Their failure to qualify marks the first time the West Indies will be missing from any of cricket's three big limited-overs events -- the 50-overs World Cup, the Champions Trophy and the Twenty20 World Cup.
It is but from memory there are nowadays nine top ranked cricket teams so its inevitable one would miss out. Who has gained the spot at the Windies expense?
The declining fortunes of West Indies cricket hit a new low on Wednesday when the Caribbean team failed to qualify for the 2017 Champions Trophy in England.
Restricted to the world's top eight-ranked sides, the West Indies missed out on the lucrative event after slumping to ninth place on Wednesday's cut-off date.
Their failure to qualify marks the first time the West Indies will be missing from any of cricket's three big limited-overs events -- the 50-overs World Cup, the Champions Trophy and the Twenty20 World Cup.
The declining fortunes of West Indies cricket hit a new low on Wednesday when the Caribbean team failed to qualify for the 2017 Champions Trophy in England.
Restricted to the world's top eight-ranked sides, the West Indies missed out on the lucrative event after slumping to ninth place on Wednesday's cut-off date.
Their failure to qualify marks the first time the West Indies will be missing from any of cricket's three big limited-overs events -- the 50-overs World Cup, the Champions Trophy and the Twenty20 World Cup.
It is but from memory there are nowadays nine top ranked cricket teams so its inevitable one would miss out. Who has gained the spot at the Windies expense?
Mr. Eagles, worth noting areas with lots of immigrants will have lots of immigrants saying immigrants aren't bad
Also, it depends on the type of immigrants. I think Poles and Chinese are likely better at integrating and working than Somalians and other groups [on a group-wide basis, obviously there are exceptions].
People always overestimate how many immigrants there are.
Roughly, what level of immigrants as a share of population do you think it would be unwise to go over? What about first and second generation immigrants combined as a share of population?
100% as it would be mathematically impossible.
So you would be comfortable if the British population was 90% immigrant?
Or second generation, isn't that what you said? Yes.
Country of origin is irrelevant about what I concern myself about, I share more in common with the hard working Poles who have recently moved in next door to me than a Jeremy Kyle chavvy dole-bludger born in the town I was born in.
I asked two separate questions: one for just first generation immigrants, and one for second generation immigrants. Perhaps you could also answer whether you would be comfortable for 90% to be first generation immigrants?
I think its a complete and utter straw man and a very silly question. But so long as laws, rights and culture were still respected then yes.
I grew up as an ex-pat overseas and felt completely comfortable living in another nation that was ~95% born in a nation other than my own, yet shared the same characteristics as the UK.
The declining fortunes of West Indies cricket hit a new low on Wednesday when the Caribbean team failed to qualify for the 2017 Champions Trophy in England.
Restricted to the world's top eight-ranked sides, the West Indies missed out on the lucrative event after slumping to ninth place on Wednesday's cut-off date.
Their failure to qualify marks the first time the West Indies will be missing from any of cricket's three big limited-overs events -- the 50-overs World Cup, the Champions Trophy and the Twenty20 World Cup.
This has been forecast ever since Test cricket was taken away from terrestrial television in the Caribbean. It meant the poor kids (which is most of them) grew up watching basketball instead of cricket.
If true, Britain will be reduced to ballroom dancing at the Olympics at the rate the BBC is losing sports rights. I see the golf is going next.
Comments
These are people that have travelled thousands of miles in dangerous conditions to seek a better life. People complain about Tebbit saying "get on your bike" but these are people who have done far more than that.
But yes they're all slackers *rolleyes*
http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2015/may/08/snp-rise-power-good-news-housing-renters
"While I dread the prospect of five years of Tory rule, the election of so many Scottish National party representatives to Westminster could be a good thing for housing.
Since the creation of the Scottish parliament, housing policy north of the border has been a more progressive force than elsewhere in the union. Since the SNP secured an overall majority in 2011, its efforts have been even more radical."
The problem is that he was elected because he was a rebel, so working out when to play the rebel and when to play the party leader is very difficult. He doesn't want to be just another politician doing what they all do, and to an extent he's right not to; it's part of his USP. But if he doesn't, those who have preconceptions of how a party leader should act, public and media alike, will take against each occasion on which he doesn't do it.
That said, the real threat comes from rogue states rather than superpowers.
Bless
@HarryAEvans: Where is concern about immigration coming from? Not really from the places with the most immigrants... @ipsosmori http://t.co/uvdDx35zOO
Also, it depends on the type of immigrants. I think Poles and Chinese are likely better at integrating and working than Somalians and other groups [on a group-wide basis, obviously there are exceptions].
He wants to be seen as the outsider but the public and especially the media have expectations for the role that he's not fulfilling. They will argue that he but himself up for the role and should have known what to expect.
One hopes on a personal level that his health doesn't suffer from the pressure - he's led a relatively easy and stress-free life up until now as a London MP with a very safe seat - having all this attention suddenly land on someone aged 66 can't be easy.
All I remember is something about terms being like Shredded Wheat: 2 is enough, 3 too many.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_(nuclear_war)
Though frankly its irrelevant. Its growing the pie and ensuring everyone has more overall that matters - not shrinking the pie and making sure everyone has the same amount of crumbs.
" ... Kennedy prevailed because Khrushchev couldn't read him and the game became one of poker rather than chess."
I think they read each other very well. Khruschev wanted the Jupiter missiles out of Turkey and Kennedy wanted to defuse the loons in Cuba while preserving his reputation. They both got what they wanted.
There's plenty of wriggle room there to say that Corbyn is too dangerous for him to resign and 3 would be right under these circumstances.
Does not sound like an iron cast pledge to me. How does Mr Cameron feel about 2.5 Shredded Wheat? He was not asked and did not tell. Personally, I don't see how he could do 2 full terms only.
Of course, if the native country is happy to take them, and that is cheaper, and if it is not certain high level offences, I'm not personally opposed to them serving sentences abroad, but in general I'd have thought the public's view is contradictory, in that in the abstract sense they want foreign criminals to serve time abroad, but if it was a specific case involving them, they'd want them here.
Burnham: "There is no dog whistle these Bullingdon Boys won't blow." HE'S SAID IT AGAIN. WHEN IS SOMEONE GOING TO EXPLAIN THIS TO HIM
Typical extremist lefty that you care more about inequality than actual progress.
Also, it would not be "closing the drawbridge after them" if they simply want immigration levels to return to the levels they were at when they came to the country.
A yesterdays man, who never even had a today.
Jeremy Corbyn can be dismissed, but the next leader of a major political party to question the inequalities endemic in this and other western societies may be more of a handful.
So at least 300k per year seems fine.
I'm not best placed to talk about first and second generation immigrants.
That's because the cheap labour in the West (driving the increased return on investment and hence wealth concentration in the West but also a decrease of the same in China and India, for example) over the last 30 years has come from the accessibility of Asian labour to Western corporations. Once that labour force has been fully accessed, the relative pricing of labour and capital will rebalance, reducing further income inequalities and, eventually, wealth concentration.
Country of origin is irrelevant about what I concern myself about, I share more in common with the hard working Poles who have recently moved in next door to me than a Jeremy Kyle chavvy dole-bludger born in the town I was born in.
Are you in favour of the richest being made poorer and therefore paying less in tax than they do now - if they don't go to Monaco or Dubai or Singapore instead..?
I have a cousin who believes that the natural rate of growth of the economy is 2.5% because that's how fast trees grow.
Sir Humphrey: With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe!
Hacker: I don’t want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe!
Sir Humphrey: It’s a deterrent.
Hacker: It’s a bluff. I probably wouldn’t use it.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, but they don’t know that you probably wouldn’t.
Hacker: They probably do.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn’t. But they can’t certainly know.
Hacker: They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn’t.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn’t, they don’t certainly know that, although you probably wouldn’t, there is no probability that you certainly would!
If I'm making them poorer by making more of their earnings go to their employees and in taxes, then yes, more than happy. If they go to Monaco, Dubai or Singapore, I'm sure there'll be plenty of people here happy to take their jobs or business.
Are we sure she's not a Tory plant?
The declining fortunes of West Indies cricket hit a new low on Wednesday when the Caribbean team failed to qualify for the 2017 Champions Trophy in England.
Restricted to the world's top eight-ranked sides, the West Indies missed out on the lucrative event after slumping to ninth place on Wednesday's cut-off date.
Their failure to qualify marks the first time the West Indies will be missing from any of cricket's three big limited-overs events -- the 50-overs World Cup, the Champions Trophy and the Twenty20 World Cup.
http://reut.rs/1LOJgVJ
We need to either reduce demand of housing (less population, higher density of accommodation) or increase supply of it (more house building). The former would require a change in immigration and other factors, the latter primarily requires a change on planning laws. In neither case is a change in wealth concentration a factor.
I'd totally recommend this documentary film on the ICC..
http://deathofagentlemanfilm.com/
I grew up as an ex-pat overseas and felt completely comfortable living in another nation that was ~95% born in a nation other than my own, yet shared the same characteristics as the UK.
If true, Britain will be reduced to ballroom dancing at the Olympics at the rate the BBC is losing sports rights. I see the golf is going next.
https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/2547/british-nationalist-found-guilty-of-independence-referendum-violence-threats
Corbyn will at least be a reasonably quick exsanguination....