I've been speaking to a Labour activist from the area this morning, the reason the Lib Dems are so confident about doing a lot better than just holding their deposit is that in May the Lib Dems had no activity in the seat, all the activists were deployed to Withington and Southport.
They are hoping for at least a double digit share of the vote.
Wow. That's ambitious.
I'd be very surprised to see them do that well. I think the fabled Liberal Democrat by-election machine of the past has now faded away.
The vast majority of people simply won't consider them as an option no matter how many activists they put in place.
I'm not sure that's the case. Some of the local election results show that there are still areas with a very keen Lib Dem activist base, and people willing to vote for them.
People with a right-wing view who think Cameron's Conservatives are too in the centre have UKIP to move to. There are plenty of people with a left-wing view for whom Corbyn's Labour are too far off to the left - we have some vocal ones on here. It's quite possible that the Lib Dems will be able to tailor their message to appeal to these people.
Yes, it'll be difficult given the trouncing they got (unfairly, I believe) for the coalition. But it's certainly possible, and they've done it before.
Most people aren't as politically aware, savvy and nuanced as we are, and this will be a December by-election. And even journalists are getting Tim Farron's name wrong - most people don't know who he is and care even less.
I might be wrong about this but I think the evidence - for now - is not bullish for the Lib Dems.
As Cameron sets out his stall, Policy Network’s co-chair Roger Liddle offers an in-depth examination of the key areas of renegotiation:
Britain no longer part of ‘ever-closer’ union? Although David Cameron insists that the UK should no longer be bound by 'ever-closer union', he is unlikely to obtain a unilateral opt-out. It is realistic to expect the UK's EU partners to include the June 2014 European council statement in a legally binding protocol that in due course would become part of the treaties. They might also consider an addendum that the UK does not see its commitment to membership of the EU (and all its treaty obligations) as extending to the goal of ‘ever-closer’ union.
Securing fair treatment between the ‘euro-ins’ and ‘euro-outs’ Strengthening safeguards to ensure fair treatment of countries outside the eurozone has become a key British renegotiation objective. The European council might adopt a declaration of principles addressing the reality of an increasingly two-tier EU and providing for an ‘emergency brake’. However, like the West Lothian question, this would immediately raise a number of difficult, if not intractable, issues. Settling them will not be possible in Cameron’s timetable for renegotiation.
A new deal for Britain on EU migration? EU-wide reform is necessary to bolster support for European integration, but Cameron must tread carefully in any attempt to win UK-only 'fixes'. His flagship demand – a four-year wait before migrants can claim in work benefits – appears to contradict existing European treaty obligations. Buying other member states’ consent for treaty amendments will have a price. If Cameron is to secure a new deal on migration then Britain may have to show greater sense of collective responsibility, especially in light of the refugee crisis.
Achieving a more competitive EU The Juncker commission's reforming zeal should aid Cameron in demonstrating progress over the EU's role as a source of 'jobs, growth and innovation'. The commission has already produced ambitious plans to take forward the projects of the digital single market and capital markets union. The challenge for Cameron is on how to take advantage of this new reforming mood without critical difficulties arising from a clash of misconceptions within his own party.
Frankly, if Cameron waters down his position on immigration to only want changes on benefits, he's already gone more than half way to meet the EU. He would have given a major concession to accept no control on actual numbers or types of EU migrants, so we really need to make sure benefits are blocked for the medium term for any migrants to actually be put off from coming. The idea that we actually have to get MORE migrants, particularly Middle Eastern ones with no respect for the rule of law, in return for this is ridiculous.
In terms of the argument downthread, the more aggressive Kippers make me determined to knock on doors to defeat them at elections. Meanwhile, the sanctimoniousness of left-wing pro-EU Conservatives makes me want to join UKIP.
Plus I like reminding Kippers they've never won a Westminster seat without a defector incumbent.
They might get a significant boost when the contents of Dave's four points to the EU is more widely known, renegotiation my arse, pleas to be nice is closer to the truth
1) Please be nice to the Pound. 2) Please be nice to the City of London 3) Please be nice and let us not give benefits to migrants for 4 years 4) Please don't use the words "ever closer union" again, anything else with the same meaning is fine of course.
To be honest the last parliament was littered with Kippers telling us that every dog that ever farted was a boost to UKIP and going to see squillions of UKIP MPs.
Guess what happened at the election ?
They got 4 million votes.
As we both know that didn't translate into votes but to suggest kippers a tiny bunch of fruitcakes (as you frequently do) is absurd.
So, Tories got 11 million votes.
So long as the voters see UKIP as the most extreme, least fit to govern and with candidates that hold extreme/racist views, UKIP will struggle under FPTP.
Is why the Tories made 24 net gains and UKIP just one.
I'm reasonably certain your Dad was bigger than mine and that in willy waving contests you're unbeatable.
All I've said is factually accurate and backed up by the polling.
But you stay in the playground.
Of course its factually correct, I'm not disputing it. It's the infantile, "we won the election you're all silly" message that you continually trumpet. Some tories on here display humility and reasoned arguments.
Pride comes before a fall, your's, sooner or later, will be spectacular.
Plus I like reminding Kippers they've never won a Westminster seat without a defector incumbent.
They might get a significant boost when the contents of Dave's four points to the EU is more widely known, renegotiation my arse, pleas to be nice is closer to the truth
1) Please be nice to the Pound. 2) Please be nice to the City of London 3) Please be nice and let us not give benefits to migrants for 4 years 4) Please don't use the words "ever closer union" again, anything else with the same meaning is fine of course.
To be honest the last parliament was littered with Kippers telling us that every dog that ever farted was a boost to UKIP and going to see squillions of UKIP MPs.
Guess what happened at the election ?
They got 4 million votes.
As we both know that didn't translate into votes but to suggest kippers a tiny bunch of fruitcakes (as you frequently do) is absurd.
So, Tories got 11 million votes.
So long as the voters see UKIP as the most extreme, least fit to govern and with candidates that hold extreme/racist views, UKIP will struggle under FPTP.
Is why the Tories made 24 net gains and UKIP just one.
I'm reasonably certain your Dad was bigger than mine and that in willy waving contests you're unbeatable.
All I've said is factually accurate and backed up by the polling.
But you stay in the playground.
Of course its factually correct, I'm not disputing it. It's the infantile, "we won the election you're all silly" message that you continually trumpet. Some tories on here display humility and reasoned arguments.
Pride comes before a fall, your's, sooner or later, will be spectacular.
No it doesn't. Kippers always wrong, never learn
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
can any of you travellers tell me about BA world traveller plus. I have an O night flight 11 hrs prob and I am debating paying the extra
Absolutely worth it. It's not quite as good as the Virgin equivalent, but at least you have a reasonable amount of room. An 11 hour flight, especially overnight, is intolerable in economy IMO.
Most people aren't as politically aware, savvy and nuanced as we are, and this will be a December by-election. And even journalists are getting Tim Farron's name wrong - most people don't know who he is and care even less.
I might be wrong about this but I think the evidence - for now - is not bullish for the Lib Dems.
Fair enough. I'm not saying the Lib Dems will win: far from. It's just that the political landscape is not the Mad Max-style wasteland it seemed in mid-May. There are ways forward for them (although I say that wanting there to be a way forward for them).
There is another factor: you're right that most people are not as politically aware as the posters on here are. So what have the people who are only peripherally aware of politics seen recently? Loads of attacks on Corbyn (many justified, some not), and a firm shift of Labour to the left. These messages will have started to sink through to even the politically unaware.
Corbyn's problem is that he is as detached from the 'real' person in the street as Ed was, or Cameron is. For him, the person on the street is a political theory, not a person.
can any of you travellers tell me about BA world traveller plus. I have an O night flight 11 hrs prob and I am debating paying the extra
I like it. I don't know if you ever flew old business class (before flat beds) but it's similar.
Wider chairs, with 2x vs 3x on the aisles and 4x vs 6x in the middle. Slightly better food (not that it really matters), more leg room and less imposition from people in front lowering their chairs.
On long haul I'd usually fly premium economy if I'm paying myself, but unless I can use miles don't think business is worth the extra cost.
Ultimately, of course, it all comes down to how much you think avoiding x hours of manageable discomfort in economy is worth to you.
edit: if you can (and they may not allow you to book seats unless you are Gold as well) then get a bulkhead seat - miles more room, although the table is a little fiddly
TY Charles.. Back in the day when I was flush I travelled BA Club class but even in the 90's that was £2.2k extra there and back for two to Barbados and wasn't really worth it. B Cal Highland First was very good and a lot cheaper. My legs cannot cope nor can my brain with any flight over 4 hrs.. after that I am starting to climb the walls if not asleep...
Canada is what does it to me. Regardless of where I've come from or where I'm going, Canada goes on for ever and drives me nuts.
That and the Friday evening flight from Helsinki to London
A bit of fuss this morning about sunday trading, something govt shouldn't even be discussing, it is entirely down to individual traders when they choose to buy or sell things.
Government needs to get out of the way.
To be fair that's what the government is trying to do! (Or at least delegating the right to get out of the way to local government)
Presumably they won't have to pay National Insurance if they can't claim - has anyone worked out the net cost?
Why not ? - they will still receive free education and healthcare.
Daft comment.
Technically you could pass a law to take from people without giving them what they're paying for, but that just encorages people to work off the books, and you'll lose other revenue as well.
In terms of the argument downthread, the more aggressive Kippers make me determined to knock on doors to defeat them at elections. Meanwhile, the sanctimoniousness of left-wing pro-EU Conservatives makes me want to join UKIP.
Presumably they won't have to pay National Insurance if they can't claim - has anyone worked out the net cost?
Why not ? - they will still receive free education and healthcare.
Daft comment.
Hmm. Neither of these is paid for by NI. In theory. Although these days there is no longer a national insurance fund as such. I think it raises about £110 billion, 90% of which goes straight out on state pensions.
I can't see why the LibDems would want to put much effort into Oldham. This is not good territory for them - at best they'll lift their vote share from derisory to embarrassingly low. If I were them I'd be managing expectations downwards as much as possible, and wait for somewhere more promising to come along.
Presumably they won't have to pay National Insurance if they can't claim - has anyone worked out the net cost?
Why not ? - they will still receive free education and healthcare.
Daft comment.
Technically you could pass a law to take from people without giving them what they're paying for, but that just encorages people to work off the books, and you'll lose other revenue as well.
Or you could give them a choice - pay in full for 5 years and if you hang around and do your time then you can receive some of the unaffordable perks of living in the Uk.
@JEO - if I were a betting man (ha) I'd postulate that Cameron may get something like excluding EU migrants from UK benefits for no more than 6 months.
He won't do a deal on taking more economic migrants but, in exchange, the EU will want extra billions from the UK for its budget please.
Presumably they won't have to pay National Insurance if they can't claim - has anyone worked out the net cost?
National insurance theoretically pays for the health service, which I don't think anyone is suggesting should be blocked. In reality, it also pays for education, defence etc, which they benefit from.
I can't see why the LibDems would want to put much effort into Oldham. This is not good territory for them - at best they'll lift their vote share from derisory to embarrassingly low. If I were them I'd be managing expectations downwards as much as possible, and wait for somewhere more promising to come along.
Think of the future bar chart possibilities if they increase their share of the vote a lot here.
A bit of fuss this morning about sunday trading, something govt shouldn't even be discussing, it is entirely down to individual traders when they choose to buy or sell things.
Government needs to get out of the way.
To be fair that's what the government is trying to do! (Or at least delegating the right to get out of the way to local government)
Yes I agree, its the Nats that have blocked it, plus a few tory Mps I believe, which is more worrying. I was in a pub last sunday and people were complaining about sunday trading without a hint of irony.
We are governed very badly, every day provides more evidence.
can any of you travellers tell me about BA world traveller plus. I have an O night flight 11 hrs prob and I am debating paying the extra
I like it. I don't know if you ever flew old business class (before flat beds) but it's similar.
Wider chairs, with 2x vs 3x on the aisles and 4x vs 6x in the middle. Slightly better food (not that it really matters), more leg room and less imposition from people in front lowering their chairs.
On long haul I'd usually fly premium economy if I'm paying myself, but unless I can use miles don't think business is worth the extra cost.
Ultimately, of course, it all comes down to how much you think avoiding x hours of manageable discomfort in economy is worth to you.
edit: if you can (and they may not allow you to book seats unless you are Gold as well) then get a bulkhead seat - miles more room, although the table is a little fiddly
TY Charles.. Back in the day when I was flush I travelled BA Club class but even in the 90's that was £2.2k extra there and back for two to Barbados and wasn't really worth it. B Cal Highland First was very good and a lot cheaper. My legs cannot cope nor can my brain with any flight over 4 hrs.. after that I am starting to climb the walls if not asleep...
Canada is what does it to me. Regardless of where I've come from or where I'm going, Canada goes on for ever and drives me nuts.
That and the Friday evening flight from Helsinki to London
Indeed, or flying London-Singapore, fall asleep after dinner as you fly across India, wake up after a nice long nap, still crossing India.
can any of you travellers tell me about BA world traveller plus. I have an O night flight 11 hrs prob and I am debating paying the extra
I like it. I don't know if you ever flew old business class (before flat beds) but it's similar.
Wider chairs, with 2x vs 3x on the aisles and 4x vs 6x in the middle. Slightly better food (not that it really matters), more leg room and less imposition from people in front lowering their chairs.
On long haul I'd usually fly premium economy if I'm paying myself, but unless I can use miles don't think business is worth the extra cost.
Ultimately, of course, it all comes down to how much you think avoiding x hours of manageable discomfort in economy is worth to you.
edit: if you can (and they may not allow you to book seats unless you are Gold as well) then get a bulkhead seat - miles more room, although the table is a little fiddly
You fly commercial?
I have stakeholders to consider - I'm not some high-falutin' hedge fund manager
In terms of the argument downthread, the more aggressive Kippers make me determined to knock on doors to defeat them at elections. Meanwhile, the sanctimoniousness of left-wing pro-EU Conservatives makes me want to join UKIP.
Once again, I agree with every word.
You both make good points, at times I allow my emotions to get the better of me. I put it down to a group of particularly smug tories at 5.30am on election night.
I can't see why the LibDems would want to put much effort into Oldham. This is not good territory for them - at best they'll lift their vote share from derisory to embarrassingly low. If I were them I'd be managing expectations downwards as much as possible, and wait for somewhere more promising to come along.
*) To energise the activist base: being seen to give up is not a good sign for the troops. *) To practice, so when a better opportunity comes along they are ready for it. *) Potentially to practice new techniques (if any). *) To get more (and hopefully better) media coverage.
@JEO - if I were a betting man (ha) I'd postulate that Cameron may get something like excluding EU migrants from UK benefits for no more than 6 months.
He won't do a deal on taking more economic migrants but, in exchange, the EU will want extra billions from the UK for its budget please.
Cameron will get a lot more than that. Six months would be just 12.5% of what the four years Cameron has asked for, and that is already a dramatic climb down from talk of an "emergency brake". I think he will get three years at an absolute minimum, and remember - his letter is a carefully drafted document after squaring things with EU leaders already.
I still think there is a greater than 70% possibility there will be a positive surprise in the negotiation deal not covered in the letter.
Mr. Rentool, not sure the Kippers will rise. They reportedly have serious money worries and the failure at the election must have disheartened many (haven't many memberships lapsed since?).
If they run a good ground game, they should be able to raise their vote share.
I think if the Tories are very quiet (which is likely), then there may well be Con->UKIP tactical voting.
If I lived in Oldham and I thank Allah I don't, I'd vote tactically in this by election. For Labour.
A bad result for Labour and they might topple Corbyn.
Plus I like reminding Kippers they've never won a Westminster seat without a defector incumbent.
Given Ukip's failure to ever win a single conservative seat, as you say their MPs have been Tories anyway, then this by election for them is critical. They now seek to morph into an alternate labour party. They claim that now it is labour 'heartland' seats that are ready to topple. They will look sillynand pointless if they cannot back this up. The LDs and UKIP are after different parts of the Labour vote, how will they compare? You would not expect the Tories to do too brilliantly here, although Cameron's current EU approach may help. It's not a Tory seat, nothing is going to change parliamentary arithmetic, the labour man is not a corbynista. When is the Autumn Statement in relation to the election date?
A bit of fuss this morning about sunday trading, something govt shouldn't even be discussing, it is entirely down to individual traders when they choose to buy or sell things.
Government needs to get out of the way.
To be fair that's what the government is trying to do! (Or at least delegating the right to get out of the way to local government)
Yes I agree, its the Nats that have blocked it, plus a few tory Mps I believe, which is more worrying. I was in a pub last sunday and people were complaining about sunday trading without a hint of irony.
We are governed very badly, every day provides more evidence.
Anyone would think that the Whining Nats are trying to stir things up.
Still, keeps them out of the HoC bars a bit longer.
@JEO - if I were a betting man (ha) I'd postulate that Cameron may get something like excluding EU migrants from UK benefits for no more than 6 months.
He won't do a deal on taking more economic migrants but, in exchange, the EU will want extra billions from the UK for its budget please.
Cameron will get a lot more than that. Six months would be just 12.5% of what the four years Cameron has asked for, and that is already a dramatic climb down from talk of an "emergency brake". I think he will get three years at an absolute minimum, and remember - his letter is a carefully drafted document after squaring things with EU leaders already.
I still think there is a greater than 70% possibility there will be a positive surprise in the negotiation deal not covered in the letter.
Look at the Open Europe Twitter link I just posted. It's incredibly unpopular across the EU.
From what I read over the weekend, current discussions are focussed on "months" not years.
In terms of the argument downthread, the more aggressive Kippers make me determined to knock on doors to defeat them at elections. Meanwhile, the sanctimoniousness of left-wing pro-EU Conservatives makes me want to join UKIP.
Once again, I agree with every word.
You both make good points, at times I allow my emotions to get the better of me. I put it down to a group of particularly smug tories at 5.30am on election night.
Election night at 5:30am? That's when Mark Reckless lost?
If we can't be smug then, when are we allowed to be smug?
In terms of the argument downthread, the more aggressive Kippers make me determined to knock on doors to defeat them at elections. Meanwhile, the sanctimoniousness of left-wing pro-EU Conservatives makes me want to join UKIP.
Once again, I agree with every word.
You both make good points, at times I allow my emotions to get the better of me. I put it down to a group of particularly smug tories at 5.30am on election night.
Insured benefits such as JSA (contributory) and ESA (contributory) are based on making adequate class 2 contributions in two recent Relevant Income Tax Years. People don't qualify just by paying their stamp last week/month etc.
Some EU citizens get insured benefits based on reciprocal arrangements paid for by their country of origin.
The big issue is means tested benefits like housing benefit, tax credits and child benefit. They cost about £70bn a year, I believe.
On Topic - I would be thinking - Lib Dems to save deposit - and comfortably, can quite easily see them in the 7%-12% range. Greens (and Loonies) to lose theirs with about 3.5% and 1% respectively. That leaves the Tories soft-pedalling (even if they don't do anything and the LD's go hell for leather they should stay above them, so struggle to see them coming anything other than 3rd) - let's say 15%. That leaves about 70% between Labour and UKIP which I would put somewhere at 45% - 25%.
In summary my rough prediction at this stage would be:
Labour 45% UKIP 25% Con 15% LD 10% Grn 3.5% Loony 1.5%
In terms of the argument downthread, the more aggressive Kippers make me determined to knock on doors to defeat them at elections. Meanwhile, the sanctimoniousness of left-wing pro-EU Conservatives makes me want to join UKIP.
Once again, I agree with every word.
You both make good points, at times I allow my emotions to get the better of me. I put it down to a group of particularly smug tories at 5.30am on election night.
Election night at 5:30am? That's when Mark Reckless lost?
If we can't be smug then, when are we allowed to be smug?
@JEO - if I were a betting man (ha) I'd postulate that Cameron may get something like excluding EU migrants from UK benefits for no more than 6 months.
He won't do a deal on taking more economic migrants but, in exchange, the EU will want extra billions from the UK for its budget please.
Cameron will get a lot more than that. Six months would be just 12.5% of what the four years Cameron has asked for, and that is already a dramatic climb down from talk of an "emergency brake". I think he will get three years at an absolute minimum, and remember - his letter is a carefully drafted document after squaring things with EU leaders already.
I still think there is a greater than 70% possibility there will be a positive surprise in the negotiation deal not covered in the letter.
Look at the Open Europe Twitter link I just posted. It's incredibly unpopular across the EU.
From what I read over the weekend, current discussions are focussed on "months" not years.
Those heat maps in the Twitter link looked very positive. It was mainly yellows and greens, with only a few reds coming from countries that desperately need support/EU funding from either us or Germany. They can be bounced into line.
If we don't get something that can be credibly argued to reduce EU immigration, the Remain side won't have anything to say on the number 1 concern to the British public. We would end up leaving, and the rest of the EU knows that.
Those are certainly quite high amounts being paid to substantial numbers of people. Maybe I've underestimated the potential effect on numbers if we can do something about this (although the big increase in the minimum wage works in the opposite direction, of course).
In terms of the argument downthread, the more aggressive Kippers make me determined to knock on doors to defeat them at elections. Meanwhile, the sanctimoniousness of left-wing pro-EU Conservatives makes me want to join UKIP.
Once again, I agree with every word.
You both make good points, at times I allow my emotions to get the better of me. I put it down to a group of particularly smug tories at 5.30am on election night.
Election night at 5:30am? That's when Mark Reckless lost?
If we can't be smug then, when are we allowed to be smug?
When Labour are defeated. UKIP have all sorts of flaws, but ultimately they are fellow, if misguided, conservatives. The real danger has and always will be socialism and cultural leftism.
In terms of the argument downthread, the more aggressive Kippers make me determined to knock on doors to defeat them at elections. Meanwhile, the sanctimoniousness of left-wing pro-EU Conservatives makes me want to join UKIP.
Once again, I agree with every word.
You both make good points, at times I allow my emotions to get the better of me. I put it down to a group of particularly smug tories at 5.30am on election night.
Election night at 5:30am? That's when Mark Reckless lost?
If we can't be smug then, when are we allowed to be smug?
I don't think being outwardly smug is ever acceptable, its a dreadful trait.
Still I improved the ukip/tory ratio from 1:13 to 1:2, I can understand why they were pleased to see the back of me.
In terms of the argument downthread, the more aggressive Kippers make me determined to knock on doors to defeat them at elections. Meanwhile, the sanctimoniousness of left-wing pro-EU Conservatives makes me want to join UKIP.
Once again, I agree with every word.
You both make good points, at times I allow my emotions to get the better of me. I put it down to a group of particularly smug tories at 5.30am on election night.
Election night at 5:30am? That's when Mark Reckless lost?
If we can't be smug then, when are we allowed to be smug?
8.30 am when Ed Balls was defenestrated.
I will never forget that. I had planned to go bed around 6ish but when I learned that Balls deep in trouble in Morley and Outwood I drank 3 red bulls so I wouldn't miss it.
Ended up staying up to see Farage lose too which was the cherry on the parfait that morning.
@JEO - if I were a betting man (ha) I'd postulate that Cameron may get something like excluding EU migrants from UK benefits for no more than 6 months.
He won't do a deal on taking more economic migrants but, in exchange, the EU will want extra billions from the UK for its budget please.
Cameron will get a lot more than that. Six months would be just 12.5% of what the four years Cameron has asked for, and that is already a dramatic climb down from talk of an "emergency brake". I think he will get three years at an absolute minimum, and remember - his letter is a carefully drafted document after squaring things with EU leaders already.
I still think there is a greater than 70% possibility there will be a positive surprise in the negotiation deal not covered in the letter.
What we cannot be too sure of is how much the wider EU is ready for reform, so the negotiations may be easier than thought. But I can only repeat is what is driving the British position is the way the EU is going to have to change, thanks to the Euro. The eurozone will only work with closer political union. What would throw Britain out of the EU is in fact if the EU were to renage on whatever agreement is finally arrived at. I am not sure there are enough visceral EU haters in the country to deliver an OUT vote but that might change if the EU cheat somehow on the Agreement.
I can't see why the LibDems would want to put much effort into Oldham. This is not good territory for them - at best they'll lift their vote share from derisory to embarrassingly low. If I were them I'd be managing expectations downwards as much as possible, and wait for somewhere more promising to come along.
I disagree. If they do nothing the story becomes "Lib Dems lose their deposit" They have to do something to at least show some signs of recovery, even if it is only a little improvement
Those are certainly quite high amounts being paid to substantial numbers of people. Maybe I've underestimated the potential effect on numbers if we can do something about this (although the big increase in the minimum wage works in the opposite direction, of course).
I saw an article earlier which said 40% of EU migrants claim benefits. I wonder what share of them could be put off by a four year ban? Maybe half of the 40%? That would be about 100,000 right?
Of course, a restriction of six months wouldn't put anyone off.
"Q: Is it clear this is not as substantial as you originally thought? There is no emergency brake, there is no repatriation of power of labour laws, there is no treaty change.
Cameron says the BBC cannot have it both ways: saying this is impossible to achieve, but also insubstantial. The truth is somewhere in between, he suggests"
I can imagine a world where insubstantial aims are impossible to achieve. Such is the EU. No emergency brake and no repatriation of labour laws are major climbdowns, which is why it is essential he gets a four year ban and also a double QMV system for non-Euro members.
@JEO - if I were a betting man (ha) I'd postulate that Cameron may get something like excluding EU migrants from UK benefits for no more than 6 months.
He won't do a deal on taking more economic migrants but, in exchange, the EU will want extra billions from the UK for its budget please.
Cameron will get a lot more than that. Six months would be just 12.5% of what the four years Cameron has asked for, and that is already a dramatic climb down from talk of an "emergency brake". I think he will get three years at an absolute minimum, and remember - his letter is a carefully drafted document after squaring things with EU leaders already.
I still think there is a greater than 70% possibility there will be a positive surprise in the negotiation deal not covered in the letter.
What we cannot be too sure of is how much the wider EU is ready for reform, so the negotiations may be easier than thought. But I can only repeat is what is driving the British position is the way the EU is going to have to change, thanks to the Euro. The eurozone will only work with closer political union. What would throw Britain out of the EU is in fact if the EU were to renage on whatever agreement is finally arrived at. I am not sure there are enough visceral EU haters in the country to deliver an OUT vote but that might change if the EU cheat somehow on the Agreement.
It won't be "visceral EU haters" who deliver an OUT vote.
It will be moderate sceptics, like myself, who come to the conclusion that it's not for us.
Those are certainly quite high amounts being paid to substantial numbers of people. Maybe I've underestimated the potential effect on numbers if we can do something about this (although the big increase in the minimum wage works in the opposite direction, of course).
There are plenty of welfare recipients in London especially who would need to be in the 40% tax bracket to achieve the same take home incomes in full time employment, Richard.
On Topic - I would be thinking - Lib Dems to save deposit - and comfortably, can quite easily see them in the 7%-12% range. Greens (and Loonies) to lose theirs with about 3.5% and 1% respectively. That leaves the Tories soft-pedalling (even if they don't do anything and the LD's go hell for leather they should stay above them, so struggle to see them coming anything other than 3rd) - let's say 15%. That leaves about 70% between Labour and UKIP which I would put somewhere at 45% - 25%.
In summary my rough prediction at this stage would be:
Labour 45% UKIP 25% Con 15% LD 10% Grn 3.5% Loony 1.5%
Only one loony so far? What a quiet by-election this turning into. Where is Elvis and his bus pass when you need him?
In terms of the argument downthread, the more aggressive Kippers make me determined to knock on doors to defeat them at elections. Meanwhile, the sanctimoniousness of left-wing pro-EU Conservatives makes me want to join UKIP.
Once again, I agree with every word.
You both make good points, at times I allow my emotions to get the better of me. I put it down to a group of particularly smug tories at 5.30am on election night.
Election night at 5:30am? That's when Mark Reckless lost?
If we can't be smug then, when are we allowed to be smug?
I don't think being outwardly smug is ever acceptable, its a dreadful trait.
Still I improved the ukip/tory ratio from 1:13 to 1:2, I can understand why they were pleased to see the back of me.
I think it was euphoria more than anything else.
Most Tories I know had expected to win the most seats comfortably but were unsure about whether a undemocratic Rainbow alliance might force us out of Downing Street.
It still feels likes a dream.
I see PMQs and see Tory MPs from Plymouth Moor View, Derby North, Bath, Eastleigh, Gower etc and I still have to pinch myself.
I saw an article earlier which said 40% of EU migrants claim benefits. I wonder what share of them could be put off by a four year ban? Maybe half of the 40%? That would be about 100,000 right?
Of course, a restriction of six months wouldn't put anyone off.
Very hard to say. Obviously if the UK government is offering free money, they'll happily take it, who wouldn't? But whether the absence of the free money would tip the balance so that substantial numbers decide not to come here is very hard to assess. My hunch (and I admit this is just a hunch, nothing more) is that maybe we could expect a reduction in the region of 25,000 a year if benefits are severely restricted - useful, but not a game-changer. We'd also save a useful sum on the welfare budget, of course, and it seems right on 'fairness' grounds.
Those are certainly quite high amounts being paid to substantial numbers of people. Maybe I've underestimated the potential effect on numbers if we can do something about this (although the big increase in the minimum wage works in the opposite direction, of course).
I saw an article earlier which said 40% of EU migrants claim benefits. I wonder what share of them could be put off by a four year ban? Maybe half of the 40%? That would be about 100,000 right?
Of course, a restriction of six months wouldn't put anyone off.
I want to believe it but my personal view is that it'll maybe shave off 15-25k a year at most. Possibly more if a full four-year ban is implemented but I'm not holding my breath.
"Cameron says those who advocated British withdrawal say Britain could be like Norway.
But that would mean Britain would have to comply with regulations it could not help write. Single markets have rules, and to have access to the single market, you have to conform with the rules."
After the criticism over his "no say" remarks, he has changed his language to be more accurate and not overstate the case. This is exactly what I hoped he would do. Hopefully, the BSE campaign will follow his lead.
There are plenty of welfare recipients in London especially who would need to be in the 40% tax bracket to achieve the same take home incomes in full time employment, Richard.
Yes, I know you made this point yesterday and you could well be right that the effect will be bigger than I thought.
Those are certainly quite high amounts being paid to substantial numbers of people. Maybe I've underestimated the potential effect on numbers if we can do something about this (although the big increase in the minimum wage works in the opposite direction, of course).
I saw an article earlier which said 40% of EU migrants claim benefits. I wonder what share of them could be put off by a four year ban? Maybe half of the 40%? That would be about 100,000 right?
Of course, a restriction of six months wouldn't put anyone off.
Given the growth in welfare under Brown which Osborne is trying to stop, we should remember that virtually everyone is on welfare. If Osborne is successfull in cutting 12 billion more from welfare then we would by definition be less attractive to migrate to. Can I repeat the figures from David Smith the Sunday Times economics correspondent, if the cuts to tax credits undertaken in the last parliament under the coalition had not happened then the current tax credits bill would be £40bn not the £30bn we have now. So there have been cuts of 10bn already and the govt plan another 4.
Those are certainly quite high amounts being paid to substantial numbers of people. Maybe I've underestimated the potential effect on numbers if we can do something about this (although the big increase in the minimum wage works in the opposite direction, of course).
I saw an article earlier which said 40% of EU migrants claim benefits. I wonder what share of them could be put off by a four year ban? Maybe half of the 40%? That would be about 100,000 right?
Of course, a restriction of six months wouldn't put anyone off.
It will not deter single, able bodied adults, nor wealthy and educated migrants.
What it will do is deter people with children who are only capable of achieving low pay employment.
This will have a positive, compound effect on rents, housing availability, pressure on schools, NHS services, labour market wages and jobs etc.
I heard a good chunk but not all of Cameron's speech coming in. What it demonstrated to me is that Mike is right and his final position will be decisive on this.
At the risk of receiving lots of abuse it is just so unusual these days to hear a politician who can speak like a grown up, setting out the issues, the problems and the alternatives. He squashed Boris' position flat and then squished it around a little. If Boris wants to get a meaningful job once his term as Mayor comes to an end he better get with the program, and fast.
In terms of the argument downthread, the more aggressive Kippers make me determined to knock on doors to defeat them at elections. Meanwhile, the sanctimoniousness of left-wing pro-EU Conservatives makes me want to join UKIP.
Once again, I agree with every word.
You both make good points, at times I allow my emotions to get the better of me. I put it down to a group of particularly smug tories at 5.30am on election night.
Election night at 5:30am? That's when Mark Reckless lost?
If we can't be smug then, when are we allowed to be smug?
I don't think being outwardly smug is ever acceptable, its a dreadful trait.
Still I improved the ukip/tory ratio from 1:13 to 1:2, I can understand why they were pleased to see the back of me.
I think it was euphoria more than anything else.
Most Tories I know had expected to win the most seats comfortably but were unsure about whether a undemocratic Rainbow alliance might force us out of Downing Street.
It still feels likes a dream.
I see PMQs and see Tory MPs from Plymouth Moor View, Derby North, Bath, Eastleigh, Gower etc and I still have to pinch myself.
Each to their own but I find your approach extraordinary.
In terms of the argument downthread, the more aggressive Kippers make me determined to knock on doors to defeat them at elections. Meanwhile, the sanctimoniousness of left-wing pro-EU Conservatives makes me want to join UKIP.
Once again, I agree with every word.
You both make good points, at times I allow my emotions to get the better of me. I put it down to a group of particularly smug tories at 5.30am on election night.
Election night at 5:30am? That's when Mark Reckless lost?
If we can't be smug then, when are we allowed to be smug?
8.30 am when Ed Balls was defenestrated.
I will never forget that. I had planned to go bed around 6ish but when I learned that Balls deep in trouble in Morley and Outwood I drank 3 red bulls so I wouldn't miss it.
Ended up staying up to see Farage lose too which was the cherry on the parfait that morning.
Mr eagles, if anyone ever wants to know what it will be like if an asteroid ever should hit the earth they should cast their minds back to the universal reactions to the exit poll at 10.01pm.
"Cameron says those who advocated British withdrawal say Britain could be like Norway.
But that would mean Britain would have to comply with regulations it could not help write. Single markets have rules, and to have access to the single market, you have to conform with the rules."
After the criticism over his "no say" remarks, he has changed his language to be more accurate and not overstate the case. This is exactly what I hoped he would do. Hopefully, the BSE campaign will follow his lead.
But he is still absolutely and fundamentally wrong. Norway does help write all new single market legislation. He has made a statement that is more accurately false.
I can't see why the LibDems would want to put much effort into Oldham. This is not good territory for them - at best they'll lift their vote share from derisory to embarrassingly low. If I were them I'd be managing expectations downwards as much as possible, and wait for somewhere more promising to come along.
I disagree. If they do nothing the story becomes "Lib Dems lose their deposit" They have to do something to at least show some signs of recovery, even if it is only a little improvement
How bad is it for Farron if the LibDems campaign and still lose their deposit? Is anybody really paying any attention?
I heard a good chunk but not all of Cameron's speech coming in. What it demonstrated to me is that Mike is right and his final position will be decisive on this.
At the risk of receiving lots of abuse it is just so unusual these days to hear a politician who can speak like a grown up, setting out the issues, the problems and the alternatives. He squashed Boris' position flat and then squished it around a little. If Boris wants to get a meaningful job once his term as Mayor comes to an end he better get with the program, and fast.
I saw an article earlier which said 40% of EU migrants claim benefits. I wonder what share of them could be put off by a four year ban? Maybe half of the 40%? That would be about 100,000 right?
Of course, a restriction of six months wouldn't put anyone off.
Very hard to say. Obviously if the UK government is offering free money, they'll happily take it, who wouldn't? But whether the absence of the free money would tip the balance so that substantial numbers decide not to come here is very hard to assess. My hunch (and I admit this is just a hunch, nothing more) is that maybe we could expect a reduction in the region of 25,000 a year if benefits are severely restricted - useful, but not a game-changer. We'd also save a useful sum on the welfare budget, of course, and it seems right on 'fairness' grounds.
This is why I want a decent time period between the renegotiation and the election so these estimations can be done by a few think tanks.
We currently have new immigration at about 350k a year, and we need to shave 250k off that. That means 125k fewer EU immigrants, if we cut proportionately. If we can only reduce EU immigration by 25k, I'd really need to see how we're going to cut non-EU immigration by a good 100k or more.
I don't need to hit Cameron's "tens of thousands" number, but I expect us to get most of the way there. If that's not possible in the EU, I'm voting out. A sovereign country needs to be able to control its border flows.
At this moment in time, it is perfectly possible for an EU single parent with a couple of kids to turn up in London and take a 16 hours job as a waitress, cleaner etc - and this unlocks:
£11200 tax credits/child benefit £17000 housing benefit/council tax help (Haringey prices) +£6000 wages (tax and NI free)
This tax free income of £35k is supplemented by free education and healthcare.
Or they could stay in Romania, Latvia, Portugal, Slovakia etc.
In terms of the argument downthread, the more aggressive Kippers make me determined to knock on doors to defeat them at elections. Meanwhile, the sanctimoniousness of left-wing pro-EU Conservatives makes me want to join UKIP.
Once again, I agree with every word.
You both make good points, at times I allow my emotions to get the better of me. I put it down to a group of particularly smug tories at 5.30am on election night.
Election night at 5:30am? That's when Mark Reckless lost?
If we can't be smug then, when are we allowed to be smug?
I don't think being outwardly smug is ever acceptable, its a dreadful trait.
Still I improved the ukip/tory ratio from 1:13 to 1:2, I can understand why they were pleased to see the back of me.
I think it was euphoria more than anything else.
Most Tories I know had expected to win the most seats comfortably but were unsure about whether a undemocratic Rainbow alliance might force us out of Downing Street.
It still feels likes a dream.
I see PMQs and see Tory MPs from Plymouth Moor View, Derby North, Bath, Eastleigh, Gower etc and I still have to pinch myself.
Each to their own but I find your approach extraordinary.
I'm enjoying it whilst it lasts. I'm fearful that the Eu referendum will tear the Tory party apart add in a recession and we could see Corbyn leading in the polls
The Parliamentary party only knows two moods, complacency and panic.
I saw an article earlier which said 40% of EU migrants claim benefits. I wonder what share of them could be put off by a four year ban? Maybe half of the 40%? That would be about 100,000 right?
Of course, a restriction of six months wouldn't put anyone off.
Very hard to say. Obviously if the UK government is offering free money, they'll happily take it, who wouldn't? But whether the absence of the free money would tip the balance so that substantial numbers decide not to come here is very hard to assess. My hunch (and I admit this is just a hunch, nothing more) is that maybe we could expect a reduction in the region of 25,000 a year if benefits are severely restricted - useful, but not a game-changer. We'd also save a useful sum on the welfare budget, of course, and it seems right on 'fairness' grounds.
The key to the future of EU immigration is not benefits but the job market. At the moment the chances of employment for the young, motivated, well qualified but unemployed in southern and most of eastern Europe are so much higher here than in their own countries that if you have a bit of get up and go about you it is a no brainer.
Add in our multiple skills shortages given the incompetence and ineptitude of our Educational establishment for anything other than a small elite and the opportunities are currently irresistible. Only Germany comes close in terms of employment and far fewer of these young people will speak German than English.
This may not last. I find it difficult to believe the current level of job creation can continue and there are already hints it is slowing down. Although it is welcome in many ways it is likely that the new Living Wage will reduce the "natural" level of employment in our economy. Those who no longer want the motivated and best coming here should be careful what they wish for.
In terms of the argument downthread, the more aggressive Kippers make me determined to knock on doors to defeat them at elections. Meanwhile, the sanctimoniousness of left-wing pro-EU Conservatives makes me want to join UKIP.
Once again, I agree with every word.
You both make good points, at times I allow my emotions to get the better of me. I put it down to a group of particularly smug tories at 5.30am on election night.
Election night at 5:30am? That's when Mark Reckless lost?
If we can't be smug then, when are we allowed to be smug?
When Labour are defeated. UKIP have all sorts of flaws, but ultimately they are fellow, if misguided, conservatives. The real danger has and always will be socialism and cultural leftism.
Absolutely. They are patriots who have the best interests of this country at heart.
In terms of the argument downthread, the more aggressive Kippers make me determined to knock on doors to defeat them at elections. Meanwhile, the sanctimoniousness of left-wing pro-EU Conservatives makes me want to join UKIP.
Once again, I agree with every word.
You both make good points, at times I allow my emotions to get the better of me. I put it down to a group of particularly smug tories at 5.30am on election night.
Election night at 5:30am? That's when Mark Reckless lost?
If we can't be smug then, when are we allowed to be smug?
When Labour are defeated. UKIP have all sorts of flaws, but ultimately they are fellow, if misguided, conservatives. The real danger has and always will be socialism and cultural leftism.
Absolutely. They are patriots who have the best interests of this country at heart.
Social conservatism is not a dirty word.
Let's clear one thing up, social conservatism isn't a dirty word. It is two dirty words.
I saw an article earlier which said 40% of EU migrants claim benefits. I wonder what share of them could be put off by a four year ban? Maybe half of the 40%? That would be about 100,000 right?
Of course, a restriction of six months wouldn't put anyone off.
Very hard to say. Obviously if the UK government is offering free money, they'll happily take it, who wouldn't? But whether the absence of the free money would tip the balance so that substantial numbers decide not to come here is very hard to assess. My hunch (and I admit this is just a hunch, nothing more) is that maybe we could expect a reduction in the region of 25,000 a year if benefits are severely restricted - useful, but not a game-changer. We'd also save a useful sum on the welfare budget, of course, and it seems right on 'fairness' grounds.
At this moment in time, it is perfectly possible for an EU single parent with a couple of kids to turn up in London and take a 16 hours job as a waitress, cleaner etc - and this unlocks:
£11200 tax credits/child benefit £17000 housing benefit/council tax help (Haringey prices) +£6000 wages (tax and NI free)
This tax free income of £35k is supplemented by free education and healthcare.
Or they could stay in Romania, Latvia, Portugal, Slovakia etc.
On Topic - I would be thinking - Lib Dems to save deposit - and comfortably, can quite easily see them in the 7%-12% range. Greens (and Loonies) to lose theirs with about 3.5% and 1% respectively. That leaves the Tories soft-pedalling (even if they don't do anything and the LD's go hell for leather they should stay above them, so struggle to see them coming anything other than 3rd) - let's say 15%. That leaves about 70% between Labour and UKIP which I would put somewhere at 45% - 25%.
In summary my rough prediction at this stage would be:
Labour 45% UKIP 25% Con 15% LD 10% Grn 3.5% Loony 1.5%
Only one loony so far? What a quiet by-election this turning into. Where is Elvis and his bus pass when you need him?
The Lib Dems declared a great triumph in the Newark by-election when they narrowly beat the Bus Pass Elvis Party.
I saw an article earlier which said 40% of EU migrants claim benefits. I wonder what share of them could be put off by a four year ban? Maybe half of the 40%? That would be about 100,000 right?
Of course, a restriction of six months wouldn't put anyone off.
Very hard to say. Obviously if the UK government is offering free money, they'll happily take it, who wouldn't? But whether the absence of the free money would tip the balance so that substantial numbers decide not to come here is very hard to assess. My hunch (and I admit this is just a hunch, nothing more) is that maybe we could expect a reduction in the region of 25,000 a year if benefits are severely restricted - useful, but not a game-changer. We'd also save a useful sum on the welfare budget, of course, and it seems right on 'fairness' grounds.
In terms of the argument downthread, the more aggressive Kippers make me determined to knock on doors to defeat them at elections. Meanwhile, the sanctimoniousness of left-wing pro-EU Conservatives makes me want to join UKIP.
Once again, I agree with every word.
You both make good points, at times I allow my emotions to get the better of me. I put it down to a group of particularly smug tories at 5.30am on election night.
Election night at 5:30am? That's when Mark Reckless lost?
If we can't be smug then, when are we allowed to be smug?
When Labour are defeated. UKIP have all sorts of flaws, but ultimately they are fellow, if misguided, conservatives. The real danger has and always will be socialism and cultural leftism.
Absolutely. They are patriots who have the best interests of this country at heart.
Social conservatism is not a dirty word.
I think we have this silly situation where "social conservatism" is seen as extreme conservatism and "economic conservatism" is seen as moderate conservatism. Actually, it's possible to have moderate social conservatism (around supporting the nuclear family, protecting traditional liberties, retaining local traditions etc) and extreme economic conservatism (thinking tax is theft, eliminating all financial support for the poor etc).
What I want is a society that has moderate social conservatism and moderate economic conservatism)
In terms of the argument downthread, the more aggressive Kippers make me determined to knock on doors to defeat them at elections. Meanwhile, the sanctimoniousness of left-wing pro-EU Conservatives makes me want to join UKIP.
Once again, I agree with every word.
You both make good points, at times I allow my emotions to get the better of me. I put it down to a group of particularly smug tories at 5.30am on election night.
Election night at 5:30am? That's when Mark Reckless lost?
If we can't be smug then, when are we allowed to be smug?
When Labour are defeated. UKIP have all sorts of flaws, but ultimately they are fellow, if misguided, conservatives. The real danger has and always will be socialism and cultural leftism.
Absolutely. They are patriots who have the best interests of this country at heart.
Social conservatism is not a dirty word.
Let's clear one thing up, social conservatism isn't a dirty word. It is two dirty words.
Comments
I might be wrong about this but I think the evidence - for now - is not bullish for the Lib Dems.
That's right - just look at how well most people on this board predicted the GE result.
Pride comes before a fall, your's, sooner or later, will be spectacular.
We want to:
Invade France
Launch criminal scum into the North Sea, via trebuchet
Construct a small fleet of Death Stars
Sensible policies for a happier Britain!
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
Daft comment.
LOL
Death Stars are a waste of money. The first two Death Stars were wiped out by a single X wing, and an army of teddy bears respectively.
I'd rather have the French defend me. They'll be more useful than a Death Star.
There is another factor: you're right that most people are not as politically aware as the posters on here are. So what have the people who are only peripherally aware of politics seen recently? Loads of attacks on Corbyn (many justified, some not), and a firm shift of Labour to the left. These messages will have started to sink through to even the politically unaware.
Corbyn's problem is that he is as detached from the 'real' person in the street as Ed was, or Cameron is. For him, the person on the street is a political theory, not a person.
That and the Friday evening flight from Helsinki to London
(Think of what happened to all that debris from the uncompleted Death Star which, from the pictures, was in close orbit around the planet).
He won't do a deal on taking more economic migrants but, in exchange, the EU will want extra billions from the UK for its budget please.
We are governed very badly, every day provides more evidence.
It tells you about the rate, but not the frequency.
*) To practice, so when a better opportunity comes along they are ready for it.
*) Potentially to practice new techniques (if any).
*) To get more (and hopefully better) media coverage.
I still think there is a greater than 70% possibility there will be a positive surprise in the negotiation deal not covered in the letter.
You would not expect the Tories to do too brilliantly here, although Cameron's current EU approach may help. It's not a Tory seat, nothing is going to change parliamentary arithmetic, the labour man is not a corbynista. When is the Autumn Statement in relation to the election date?
https://mobile.twitter.com/OpenEurope/status/664014040654462976
Still, keeps them out of the HoC bars a bit longer.
and they cut away from the PM's speech well before the end.
From what I read over the weekend, current discussions are focussed on "months" not years.
If we can't be smug then, when are we allowed to be smug?
Some EU citizens get insured benefits based on reciprocal arrangements paid for by their country of origin.
The big issue is means tested benefits like housing benefit, tax credits and child benefit. They cost about £70bn a year, I believe.
In summary my rough prediction at this stage would be:
Labour 45%
UKIP 25%
Con 15%
LD 10%
Grn 3.5%
Loony 1.5%
If we don't get something that can be credibly argued to reduce EU immigration, the Remain side won't have anything to say on the number 1 concern to the British public. We would end up leaving, and the rest of the EU knows that.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/nov/10/camerons-eu-renegotiation-tusk-letter-out-eu-renegotiation-demands-politics-live
Those are certainly quite high amounts being paid to substantial numbers of people. Maybe I've underestimated the potential effect on numbers if we can do something about this (although the big increase in the minimum wage works in the opposite direction, of course).
Still I improved the ukip/tory ratio from 1:13 to 1:2, I can understand why they were pleased to see the back of me.
Ended up staying up to see Farage lose too which was the cherry on the parfait that morning.
But I can only repeat is what is driving the British position is the way the EU is going to have to change, thanks to the Euro. The eurozone will only work with closer political union.
What would throw Britain out of the EU is in fact if the EU were to renage on whatever agreement is finally arrived at. I am not sure there are enough visceral EU haters in the country to deliver an OUT vote but that might change if the EU cheat somehow on the Agreement.
Of course, a restriction of six months wouldn't put anyone off.
Cameron says the BBC cannot have it both ways: saying this is impossible to achieve, but also insubstantial. The truth is somewhere in between, he suggests"
I can imagine a world where insubstantial aims are impossible to achieve. Such is the EU. No emergency brake and no repatriation of labour laws are major climbdowns, which is why it is essential he gets a four year ban and also a double QMV system for non-Euro members.
It will be moderate sceptics, like myself, who come to the conclusion that it's not for us.
Most Tories I know had expected to win the most seats comfortably but were unsure about whether a undemocratic Rainbow alliance might force us out of Downing Street.
It still feels likes a dream.
I see PMQs and see Tory MPs from Plymouth Moor View, Derby North, Bath, Eastleigh, Gower etc and I still have to pinch myself.
I really hope I'm wrong.
"Cameron says those who advocated British withdrawal say Britain could be like Norway.
But that would mean Britain would have to comply with regulations it could not help write. Single markets have rules, and to have access to the single market, you have to conform with the rules."
After the criticism over his "no say" remarks, he has changed his language to be more accurate and not overstate the case. This is exactly what I hoped he would do. Hopefully, the BSE campaign will follow his lead.
Can I repeat the figures from David Smith the Sunday Times economics correspondent, if the cuts to tax credits undertaken in the last parliament under the coalition had not happened then the current tax credits bill would be £40bn not the £30bn we have now. So there have been cuts of 10bn already and the govt plan another 4.
What it will do is deter people with children who are only capable of achieving low pay employment.
This will have a positive, compound effect on rents, housing availability, pressure on schools, NHS services, labour market wages and jobs etc.
At the risk of receiving lots of abuse it is just so unusual these days to hear a politician who can speak like a grown up, setting out the issues, the problems and the alternatives. He squashed Boris' position flat and then squished it around a little. If Boris wants to get a meaningful job once his term as Mayor comes to an end he better get with the program, and fast.
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/david-cameron-will-secure-all-of-his-eu-reforms-because-they-will-alter-nothing/
Whatever is going on behind the scenes, I think he delivered a good no nonsense message to UK Public.
We currently have new immigration at about 350k a year, and we need to shave 250k off that. That means 125k fewer EU immigrants, if we cut proportionately. If we can only reduce EU immigration by 25k, I'd really need to see how we're going to cut non-EU immigration by a good 100k or more.
I don't need to hit Cameron's "tens of thousands" number, but I expect us to get most of the way there. If that's not possible in the EU, I'm voting out. A sovereign country needs to be able to control its border flows.
£11200 tax credits/child benefit
£17000 housing benefit/council tax help (Haringey prices)
+£6000 wages (tax and NI free)
This tax free income of £35k is supplemented by free education and healthcare.
Or they could stay in Romania, Latvia, Portugal, Slovakia etc.
The Parliamentary party only knows two moods, complacency and panic.
@WingsScotland: I hope an aeroplane delivering dirty needles to an incinerator crashes onto Ian Murray tonight.
Mrs Bercow could be Chewbacca.
Add in our multiple skills shortages given the incompetence and ineptitude of our Educational establishment for anything other than a small elite and the opportunities are currently irresistible. Only Germany comes close in terms of employment and far fewer of these young people will speak German than English.
This may not last. I find it difficult to believe the current level of job creation can continue and there are already hints it is slowing down. Although it is welcome in many ways it is likely that the new Living Wage will reduce the "natural" level of employment in our economy. Those who no longer want the motivated and best coming here should be careful what they wish for.
Social conservatism is not a dirty word.
Maybe that's just politics..
What I want is a society that has moderate social conservatism and moderate economic conservatism)