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?
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.
Fell asleep on the sofa about 5am during Boris's rambling victory speech. Woke about 6, staggered up to bed and got up about 8am for work - but didn't get in until 10am after I decided I couldn't leave home until Balls had gone.
@Casino_Royale - Yes, we do agree on some things! (Quite a lot, actually)
Yes, we do. But we can tear chunks out of each other where we don't!
Maybe that's just politics..
The Conservative party is like an eagle, soaring above all others, because we have a strong left wing and a strong right wing, but its brains are in the middle
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.
Maybe we could have a betting market on Cameron's word not being decisive.
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.
What stops healthcare tourism in the EU? If I was a Bulgarian needing cancer treatment, can I just turn up in the UK to receive much better quality treatment from the NHS?
@Casino_Royale - Yes, we do agree on some things! (Quite a lot, actually)
Yes, we do. But we can tear chunks out of each other where we don't!
Maybe that's just politics..
The Conservative party is like an eagle, soaring above all others, because we have a strong left wing and a strong right wing, but its brains are in the middle
So the Labour Party is more like a sycamore leaf, with all the weight at one end and doomed to a dizzying fall.
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.
You can make anything sound dirty TSE.
I've got a mind like a Welsh railway. One track and filthy.
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.
That's the equivalent of about £50k isn't it ?
Near enough. And it goes higher with each extra child.
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.
What stops healthcare tourism in the EU? If I was a Bulgarian needing cancer treatment, can I just turn up in the UK to receive much better quality treatment from the NHS?
Better off in France. Much, much better cancer care.
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.
"Students" and family reunions are the big ones.
Personally, I think all non-EU students should be required to register their names and addresses with the home office, as well as the university, and physically leave the country before reapplying for a work permit if they want to stay here after graduation.
Family reunions (particularly from MENA and the sub-continent) of aunts, uncles, cousins, sisters and brothers should be ended - possibly with an exemption or clarification within the new British bill of rights - and I'd apply points qualifications to spouses as well as an income requirement.
There should be no presumption of settlement in the UK for any UK national marrying whoever they choose worldwide. They should qualify on their own merits.
That taken together should cut it by 100k. I think getting net immigration below 150k is going to be very difficult indeed.
Been playing a little with the new Electoral Calculus results. Not yet looked whether this is typical, but Labour won the council wards comprising Morley & Outwood by a total of 3261 votes in May, on a slightly lower number of returned papers than for the GE ballot boxes next door.
@Casino_Royale - Yes, we do agree on some things! (Quite a lot, actually)
Yes, we do. But we can tear chunks out of each other where we don't!
Maybe that's just politics..
The Conservative party is like an eagle, soaring above all others, because we have a strong left wing and a strong right wing, but its brains are in the middle
Is one wing wet and the other dry? Can't be that good for the aerodynamics
What stops healthcare tourism in the EU? If I was a Bulgarian needing cancer treatment, can I just turn up in the UK to receive much better quality treatment from the NHS?
In principle, your Bulgarian would not be eligible for free treatment - it doesn't cover coming here to get treatment. (It would be different is he was already working here and was then diagnosed). In addition, in principle the costs are supposed to be recharged to the country of origin.
Of course in practice it doesn't always work like that. There's a good summary here:
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.
What stops healthcare tourism in the EU? If I was a Bulgarian needing cancer treatment, can I just turn up in the UK to receive much better quality treatment from the NHS?
I don't know the workings on the NHS, but in theory you have to be a worker to enjoy freedom of movement, I believe.
I don't suppose anyone checks this type of thing in the health service, but I can foresee the day when they are required to impose exactly the same gateway checks that social security offices do.
Dan Hannan's article is excellent and succinct as usual.
Cameron has tried an interesting tack today in using plainer and more forthright language than usual, but at the end of the day he is still selling something which amounts to virtually nothing.
It's still a scam and no conservative (other than of the Ted Heath tendency) should be convinced by it.
Been playing a little with the new Electoral Calculus results. Not yet looked whether this is typical, but Labour won the council wards comprising Morley & Outwood by a total of 3261 votes in May, on a slightly lower number of returned papers than for the GE ballot boxes next door.
I'm sat on the train opposite two women who briefly discussed the referendum. The one reading the Express is a Leaver, the other is on the fence and "needs more information".
End of anecdote.
Conclusion: Vote Leave need to hand out free copies of the Express!
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)
Agreed. Conservatism is not all about the money for me. Traditional families, communities, traditions, heritage, and defending our social culture are both valuable and relevant attributes that are worth advocating.
To do so does not imply intolerance or regressive social views either, even if they are sometimes equated as such.
Been playing a little with the new Electoral Calculus results. Not yet looked whether this is typical, but Labour won the council wards comprising Morley & Outwood by a total of 3261 votes in May, on a slightly lower number of returned papers than for the GE ballot boxes next door.
Ah, less interesting than I thought. Strong independents in Tory leaning wards.
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.
It won't be possible, the basic premise of the EU is freedom of movement, the other member states will never agree to us restricting movement - why would/should they?
I appreciate you are keeping an open mind but you'll be disappointed if you believe Cameron can get any sort of meaningful terms. If the EU appease us they open the floodgates to the other 27 members making demands and in effect that's the end of the whole project.
The bureaucrats will want to keep it together whether we're part of it or not.
There is an irony for kipper bashers, if we vote OUT Ukip MEP's have campaigned to get the sack, I'm surprised more isn't made of that.
Been playing a little with the new Electoral Calculus results. Not yet looked whether this is typical, but Labour won the council wards comprising Morley & Outwood by a total of 3261 votes in May, on a slightly lower number of returned papers than for the GE ballot boxes next door.
Family reunions (particularly from MENA and the sub-continent) of aunts, uncles, cousins, sisters and brothers should be ended - possibly with an exemption or clarification within the new British bill of rights - and I'd apply points qualifications to spouses as well as an income requirement.
There should be no presumption of settlement in the UK for any UK national marrying whoever they choose worldwide. They should qualify on their own merits.
Good luck with that. You will get no where with spouses, its subject to a direct challenge under Article 8 with very strong EU case law already there, no chance of changing that while we are in the EU. Even on the very few circumstances that they might not succeed with Article 8, the Singh(*) ruling means its trivial to circumvent anyway via another EEA country.
*R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department, [1992] 3 CMLR 358 ECJ
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.
What stops healthcare tourism in the EU? If I was a Bulgarian needing cancer treatment, can I just turn up in the UK to receive much better quality treatment from the NHS?
I'm not holding my breath but it would be fascinating to see some constituency polls in Labour marginals like Barrow&Furness, Bishop Auckland, Copeland, NE Derbyshire, Newcastle-under-Lyme to see whether Corbyn is in danger of losing those types of seats to the Tories.
In modern Scotland – whether it’s the dysfunctional polis, the factory schools in which children can no longer be guaranteed protection from fatal assault, or the hospital that’s the equivalent of two small towns – size really does matter. I’m not sure about anything else.
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.
Fell asleep on the sofa about 5am during Boris's rambling victory speech. Woke about 6, staggered up to bed and got up about 8am for work - but didn't get in until 10am after I decided I couldn't leave home until Balls had gone.
I needed to savour that one....
It was a moment that all the family could enjoy, adults and children dancing about the room as a grateful public booted him out.
Mr. L, what did Cameron say about Boris' position?
He said that those who think we can vote out as a basis for a better renegotiation were deluding themselves. Out means out and the British people will only be asked once.
I'm sat on the train opposite two women who briefly discussed the referendum. The one reading the Express is a Leaver, the other is on the fence and "needs more information".
End of anecdote.
Conclusion: Vote Leave need to hand out free copies of the Express!
The Express is the one and only national paper that I don't get. I see that everything from The Star to the Sun, from The Mail to The Guardian has a USP and an audience. But who buys the Express? And why?
I'm not holding my breath but it would be fascinating to see some constituency polls in Labour marginals like Barrow&Furness, Bishop Auckland, Copeland, NE Derbyshire, Newcastle-under-Lyme to see whether Corbyn is in danger of losing those types of seats to the Tories.
The problem obviously would be how do we know if any such polls are remotely accurate? Given the ones prior to the GE had 'variable' success...
I think it's quite an interesting by-election, even though turnout seems likely to be awful. It will road-test several things:
1. Does attacking Corbyn produce shedloads of votes from WWC voters? The constituency seems quite optimal for it - UKIP are highlighting their view of Corbyn (not unlike the Tory position), and there has been a large BNP vote there in the past. But UKIP seems off the boil in most places.
2. Conversely, can Labour get out a reasonable share in a traditional Labour seat with few Guardianistas? Will the flood of new members in the area (not, apparently, in the constituency itself) leap out and do stuff, or are they passive types?
3. Can the LibDems start to pull back, as suggested downthread? They too have a history of some success in the seat.
4. Can the Tories shoulder aside these rival attractions and make a decent showing in a northern seat, or are they writing the North off?
5. Are the Greens going to get squeezed, or do their voters only go for True Corbyn candidates?
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.
"Students" and family reunions are the big ones.
Personally, I think all non-EU students should be required to register their names and addresses with the home office, as well as the university, and physically leave the country before reapplying for a work permit if they want to stay here after graduation.
Family reunions (particularly from MENA and the sub-continent) of aunts, uncles, cousins, sisters and brothers should be ended - possibly with an exemption or clarification within the new British bill of rights - and I'd apply points qualifications to spouses as well as an income requirement.
There should be no presumption of settlement in the UK for any UK national marrying whoever they choose worldwide. They should qualify on their own merits.
That taken together should cut it by 100k. I think getting net immigration below 150k is going to be very difficult indeed.
Nah: the next time we have a recession in the UK then net migration will go negative...
Brits will leave for Canada and the US and Australia.
While for EU migrants, if it's a question of being unemployed somewhere cheap and with your family, or being unemployed somewhere expensive and away from your family, then they'll choose the former.
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.
What stops healthcare tourism in the EU? If I was a Bulgarian needing cancer treatment, can I just turn up in the UK to receive much better quality treatment from the NHS?
Tom Sharpe, the late great novelist, told me he was a healthcare tourist, who always travelled to Spain to make sure he was sick in the right place.
I'm sat on the train opposite two women who briefly discussed the referendum. The one reading the Express is a Leaver, the other is on the fence and "needs more information".
End of anecdote.
Conclusion: Vote Leave need to hand out free copies of the Express!
The Express is the one and only national paper that I don't get. I see that everything from The Star to the Sun, from The Mail to The Guardian has a USP and an audience. But who buys the Express? And why?
Fans of poorly-evidenced weather predictions and dead princesses.
Been playing a little with the new Electoral Calculus results. Not yet looked whether this is typical, but Labour won the council wards comprising Morley & Outwood by a total of 3261 votes in May, on a slightly lower number of returned papers than for the GE ballot boxes next door.
The Wall Street Journal said: “Spectre is full of not-good things, and some oppressively bad things that may come to feel like drill bits twirling in your skull.”
"... our multiple skills shortages given the incompetence and ineptitude of our Educational establishment for anything other than a small elite and the opportunities ..."
An awful lot of those skill shortages are not down to a poor education system but the flat refusal of employers to invest in their business by training staff or indeed in modern machinery (the UK is so far down the list in the use of industrial robots we barely meet first world standards).
Long experience, going back to the end of WW2 has shown that senior management in too many UK companies just will not invest. It is therefore time HMG forced them to do so. Two levies plus an additional income tax might do it.
The Wall Street Journal said: “Spectre is full of not-good things, and some oppressively bad things that may come to feel like drill bits twirling in your skull.”
When it comes out on DVD, I may load the whole thing into Adobe Premiere Pro and cut about 30 minutes from the movie: the car chase in Rome (boring), most of the "C" subplot, and half the wanderings around the world. I reckon getting it down to two hours would improve it immeasurably.
The Wall Street Journal said: “Spectre is full of not-good things, and some oppressively bad things that may come to feel like drill bits twirling in your skull.”
When it comes out on DVD, I may load the whole thing into Adobe Premiere Pro and cut about 30 minutes from the movie: the car chase in Rome (boring), most of the "C" subplot, and half the wanderings around the world. I reckon getting it down to two hours would improve it immeasurably.
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.
IIRC my final prediction here was something like 285 Conservative to 265 Labour.
I remember clicking onto the BBC at 10 pm and seeing their headline "Conservatives projected to be ahead on seats " and thinking it would be around those numbers, and being gob-smacked when the projection had them on 319.
@WingsScotland: I hope an aeroplane delivering dirty needles to an incinerator crashes onto Ian Murray tonight.
Did you see the follow up from Wings over Bath? Not his finest hour.
No.
Have a look at Ian Murray's screen grab. Though Wings Over Bath seems to be very found of shorter over used Anglo Saxon words as tools to enhance his political commentary.
@WingsScotland: I hope an aeroplane delivering dirty needles to an incinerator crashes onto Ian Murray tonight.
Did you see the follow up from Wings over Bath? Not his finest hour.
No.
Have a look at Ian Murray's screen grab. Though Wings Over Bath seems to be very found of shorter over used Anglo Saxon words as tools to enhance his political commentary.
Wings, like many of his fellow travellers, isn't very bright.
@WingsScotland: I hope an aeroplane delivering dirty needles to an incinerator crashes onto Ian Murray tonight.
Did you see the follow up from Wings over Bath? Not his finest hour.
No.
Have a look at Ian Murray's screen grab. Though Wings Over Bath seems to be very found of shorter over used Anglo Saxon words as tools to enhance his political commentary.
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.
Voters are contrary however. They rate UKIP as having the best policy on immigration and give Farage the best net satisfaction rating of any party leader.
@Sean_F Reverences to an exit poll in sombre tones on Radio 4 presenters after 11.00 suggested that something they hadn't expected was going on.
Stayed up all night, for Cable amongst others. Though three resignations in under an hour after Balls had been defeated was another highlight or bonus.
Results from Scotland, were extraordinary, and highlight Labour's failings up there. Pity that Gordon Brown had decided to stand down earlier.
Been playing a little with the new Electoral Calculus results. Not yet looked whether this is typical, but Labour won the council wards comprising Morley & Outwood by a total of 3261 votes in May, on a slightly lower number of returned papers than for the GE ballot boxes next door.
Ah, less interesting than I thought. Strong independents in Tory leaning wards.
And not atypical. At council elections 2015:
Labour won Derby North wards by 1868 Labour won Bedford wards by around 5000* Labour won Bolton West by around 1450* Tories won Plymouth Moor View by 460, though Electoral Calaculus turnout weighting suggests a very narrow Labour consituency win on these raw numbers.
Nuneaton sadly didn't have a 2015 council election across the whole constituency and alas alas Broxtowe has too many multi seat wards to get my head around (EC suggests Tory majority under 2k).
Given Electoral Calculus have turned away from modelling against polls and towards modelling council elections to get over the mistakes of last times, the fact that they still have to do some pretty serious weighting in even the simple marginals to get anything like a prediction must be a worry.
* some manipulation done around council wards electing multiple councillors or only partly in the constiuency.
I'm sat on the train opposite two women who briefly discussed the referendum. The one reading the Express is a Leaver, the other is on the fence and "needs more information".
End of anecdote.
Conclusion: Vote Leave need to hand out free copies of the Express!
The Express is the one and only national paper that I don't get. I see that everything from The Star to the Sun, from The Mail to The Guardian has a USP and an audience. But who buys the Express? And why?
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.
Voters are contrary however. They rate UKIP as having the best policy on immigration and give Farage the best net satisfaction rating of any party leader.
Well the latter is down to North Korean levels of support from Kipper voters.
The voters, like the parties are often contradictions. I did a SWOT analysis for UKIP last night for this parliament, in the hope of working out what their polling floor and high will be.
I think it is possible we could see UKIP consistently polling in second place in this parliament,
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
Thanks for that Charles - I have just booked a BA flight from Vancouver to London!
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.
Voters are contrary however. They rate UKIP as having the best policy on immigration and give Farage the best net satisfaction rating of any party leader.
Well the latter is down to North Korean levels of support from Kipper voters.
The voters, like the parties are often contradictions. I did a SWOT analysis for UKIP last night for this parliament, in the hope of working out what their polling floor and high will be.
I think it is possible we could see UKIP consistently polling in second place in this parliament,
Been playing a little with the new Electoral Calculus results. Not yet looked whether this is typical, but Labour won the council wards comprising Morley & Outwood by a total of 3261 votes in May, on a slightly lower number of returned papers than for the GE ballot boxes next door.
Ah, less interesting than I thought. Strong independents in Tory leaning wards.
And not atypical. At council elections 2015:
Labour won Derby North wards by 1868 Labour won Bedford wards by around 5000* Labour won Bolton West by around 1450* Tories won Plymouth Moor View by 460, though Electoral Calaculus turnout weighting suggests a very narrow Labour consituency win on these raw numbers.
Nuneaton sadly didn't have a 2015 council election across the whole constituency and alas alas Broxtowe has too many multi seat wards to get my head around (EC suggests Tory majority under 2k).
Given Electoral Calculus have turned away from modelling against polls and towards modelling council elections to get over the mistakes of last times, the fact that they still have to do some pretty serious weighting in even the simple marginals to get anything like a prediction must be a worry.
* some manipulation done around council wards electing multiple councillors or only partly in the constiuency.
There are some seats which very consistently vote differently at local elections to Parliamentary. There are obviously the areas of local Lib Dem strength. But, there are also some seats like Birmingham Edgbaston, Tooting, Westminster North, where the Conservatives do far better locally.
Lord Curzon : "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?" Débutante "My goodness... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... " Lord Curzon: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?" Débutante "What kind of woman do you think I am?!" Lord Curzon: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.”
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.
@JEO, do you have a source for your proportion of EU immigrants claiming benefits?
Behind the Times paywall, but from the mouth of David Cameron himself: "43 per cent of EU migrants rely on the support of the UK benefits system during their first four years in the country. This represents 224,000 EU nationals out of 526,000 new arrivals.
About 148,000 of these claimants, some 66 per cent, receive tax credits, housing benefit and other welfare handouts available to people in work.
Downing Street said that EU migrants entitled to so-called “in-work” benefits claimed an average of £5,000 per family, costing UK taxpayers £530 million in 2013."
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.
Voters are contrary however. They rate UKIP as having the best policy on immigration and give Farage the best net satisfaction rating of any party leader.
Well the latter is down to North Korean levels of support from Kipper voters.
The voters, like the parties are often contradictions. I did a SWOT analysis for UKIP last night for this parliament, in the hope of working out what their polling floor and high will be.
I think it is possible we could see UKIP consistently polling in second place in this parliament,
Behind?
Likely the Tories.
We see the usual government unpopularity mid term, and the voters to express their displeasure by switching not to Labour but to UKIP, add in UKIP making further inroads in to Labour's heartlands and seepage from Lab to the Lib Dems. You could see something like Con 31, UKIP 25, Labour 24, Lib Dems 12
I can also see a situation where the Tories are in third place in the polls behind Labour and the Kippers. That is dependent on there being a Kippergasm after the referendum just like the Natgasm
"David Cameron told four-year halt to migrant benefits 'illegal' Within minutes of David Cameron setting out his EU reform demands, European Parliament president says plan is illegal.
Martin Schulz, the hugely powerful president of the European Parliament, says he thinks David Cameron's plan to restrict migrant benefits is illegal."
The Wall Street Journal said: “Spectre is full of not-good things, and some oppressively bad things that may come to feel like drill bits twirling in your skull.”
I think it's quite an interesting by-election, even though turnout seems likely to be awful. It will road-test several things:
1. Does attacking Corbyn produce shedloads of votes from WWC voters? The constituency seems quite optimal for it - UKIP are highlighting their view of Corbyn (not unlike the Tory position), and there has been a large BNP vote there in the past. But UKIP seems off the boil in most places.
2. Conversely, can Labour get out a reasonable share in a traditional Labour seat with few Guardianistas? Will the flood of new members in the area (not, apparently, in the constituency itself) leap out and do stuff, or are they passive types?
Where the WWC vote goes will be fascinating and is the key to many answers about the election.
3. Can the LibDems start to pull back, as suggested downthread? They too have a history of some success in the seat.
Their history of 'success' is a mirror of their national position. They've polled high teens and low twenties but that was when they were up there in the national share. I don't think there's much to suggest anything constituency-specific. They may save their deposit but I still struggle to see what their positive case is. Going negative on UKIP may simply shift votes to Labour, or vice-versa. Contrary to Mike's comments, they might have been best going with a local candidate just in order to play that card.
Been playing a little with the new Electoral Calculus results. Not yet looked whether this is typical, but Labour won the council wards comprising Morley & Outwood by a total of 3261 votes in May, on a slightly lower number of returned papers than for the GE ballot boxes next door.
Ah, less interesting than I thought. Strong independents in Tory leaning wards.
And not atypical. At council elections 2015:
Labour won Derby North wards by 1868 Labour won Bedford wards by around 5000* Labour won Bolton West by around 1450* Tories won Plymouth Moor View by 460, though Electoral Calaculus turnout weighting suggests a very narrow Labour consituency win on these raw numbers.
Nuneaton sadly didn't have a 2015 council election across the whole constituency and alas alas Broxtowe has too many multi seat wards to get my head around (EC suggests Tory majority under 2k).
Given Electoral Calculus have turned away from modelling against polls and towards modelling council elections to get over the mistakes of last times, the fact that they still have to do some pretty serious weighting in even the simple marginals to get anything like a prediction must be a worry.
* some manipulation done around council wards electing multiple councillors or only partly in the constiuency.
There are some seats which very consistently vote differently at local elections to Parliamentary. There are obviously the areas of local Lib Dem strength. But, there are also some seats like Birmingham Edgbaston, Tooting, Westminster North, where the Conservatives do far better locally.
Am I right in thinking UKIP won the Thanet Council elections in May, and but didn't win either Thanet South or Thanet North at Westminster level?
"David Cameron told four-year halt to migrant benefits 'illegal' - live Within minutes of David Cameron setting out his EU reform demands, European Parliament president says plan is illegal.
Martin Schulz, the hugely powerful president of the European Parliament, says he thinks David Cameron's plan to restrict migrant benefits is illegal."
Been playing a little with the new Electoral Calculus results. Not yet looked whether this is typical, but Labour won the council wards comprising Morley & Outwood by a total of 3261 votes in May, on a slightly lower number of returned papers than for the GE ballot boxes next door.
Ah, less interesting than I thought. Strong independents in Tory leaning wards.
And not atypical. At council elections 2015:
Labour won Derby North wards by 1868 Labour won Bedford wards by around 5000* Labour won Bolton West by around 1450* Tories won Plymouth Moor View by 460, though Electoral Calaculus turnout weighting suggests a very narrow Labour consituency win on these raw numbers.
Nuneaton sadly didn't have a 2015 council election across the whole constituency and alas alas Broxtowe has too many multi seat wards to get my head around (EC suggests Tory majority under 2k).
Given Electoral Calculus have turned away from modelling against polls and towards modelling council elections to get over the mistakes of last times, the fact that they still have to do some pretty serious weighting in even the simple marginals to get anything like a prediction must be a worry.
* some manipulation done around council wards electing multiple councillors or only partly in the constiuency.
There are some seats which very consistently vote differently at local elections to Parliamentary. There are obviously the areas of local Lib Dem strength. But, there are also some seats like Birmingham Edgbaston, Tooting, Westminster North, where the Conservatives do far better locally.
Am I right in thinking UKIP won the Thanet Council elections in May, and but didn't win either Thanet South or Thanet North at Westminster level?
Yes, but I think the council boundaries are somewhat different from the constituencies (the council takes in part of Dover).
"... our multiple skills shortages given the incompetence and ineptitude of our Educational establishment for anything other than a small elite and the opportunities ..."
An awful lot of those skill shortages are not down to a poor education system but the flat refusal of employers to invest in their business by training staff or indeed in modern machinery (the UK is so far down the list in the use of industrial robots we barely meet first world standards).
Long experience, going back to the end of WW2 has shown that senior management in too many UK companies just will not invest. It is therefore time HMG forced them to do so. Two levies plus an additional income tax might do it.
I completely agree with your point but not with your solution. Personally, I would allow 150% reliefs on money spent on training by companies. Usually, they are redoing a job that needs doing that the State had already failed at.
All ethnic minority groups in England are now, on average, more likely to go to university than their White British peers. This is the case even amongst groups who were previously under-represented in higher education, such as those of Black Caribbean ethnic origin, a relatively recent change.
These differences also vary by socio-economic background, and in some cases are very large indeed. For example, Chinese pupils in the lowest socio-economic quintile group are, on average, more than 10 percentage points more likely to go to university than White British pupils in the highest socio-economic quintile group. By contrast, White British pupils in the lowest socio-economic quintile group have participation rates that are more than 10 percentage points lower than those observed for any other ethnic group.
These are amongst the findings of research undertaken by IFS researchers, funded by the Departments of Education and Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), and published by BIS.
I'm sat on the train opposite two women who briefly discussed the referendum. The one reading the Express is a Leaver, the other is on the fence and "needs more information".
End of anecdote.
Conclusion: Vote Leave need to hand out free copies of the Express!
The Express is the one and only national paper that I don't get. I see that everything from The Star to the Sun, from The Mail to The Guardian has a USP and an audience. But who buys the Express? And why?
Labour MP Simon Danczuk pulled out of a parliamentary fact-finding trip to China at the last minute after discovering he would have to fly economy class, the Standard has learned.
The Rochdale MP withdrew after a request to be upgraded was turned down. It led to the whole four-day visit being “killed”, according to a Tory MP. But Mr Danczuk dismissed this as “nonsense”.
It hasn't been discussed much but I wonder whether Farage contested the wrong Thanet constituency. In Thanet North UKIP polled 26% which was only 6 points lower than Farage in South.
Been playing a little with the new Electoral Calculus results. Not yet looked whether this is typical, but Labour won the council wards comprising Morley & Outwood by a total of 3261 votes in May, on a slightly lower number of returned papers than for the GE ballot boxes next door.
Ah, less interesting than I thought. Strong independents in Tory leaning wards.
And not atypical. At council elections 2015:
Labour won Derby North wards by 1868 Labour won Bedford wards by around 5000* Labour won Bolton West by around 1450* Tories won Plymouth Moor View by 460, though Electoral Calaculus turnout weighting suggests a very narrow Labour consituency win on these raw numbers.
Nuneaton sadly didn't have a 2015 council election across the whole constituency and alas alas Broxtowe has too many multi seat wards to get my head around (EC suggests Tory majority under 2k).
Given Electoral Calculus have turned away from modelling against polls and towards modelling council elections to get over the mistakes of last times, the fact that they still have to do some pretty serious weighting in even the simple marginals to get anything like a prediction must be a worry.
* some manipulation done around council wards electing multiple councillors or only partly in the constiuency.
There are some seats which very consistently vote differently at local elections to Parliamentary. There are obviously the areas of local Lib Dem strength. But, there are also some seats like Birmingham Edgbaston, Tooting, Westminster North, where the Conservatives do far better locally.
Am I right in thinking UKIP won the Thanet Council elections in May, and but didn't win either Thanet South or Thanet North at Westminster level?
Yes, but I think the council boundaries are somewhat different from the constituencies (the council takes in part of Dover).
So, having read Cameron's letter my gut feelings are:
- it's longer than the bland plenty of wriggle room statement of principles I expected - it contains some real, important, substantive demands - I like the broad thrust of the letter and its tone - most of it actually seems achievable (and in truth has probably already been agreed in the dialogue already), and the biggest fight is clearly going to be on the last one - immigration. But can any other EU leader REALLY object to an end, across the whole EU, to welfare tourism by introducing the 4 year rule (which presumably would apply across the piece not just as a special derogation or opt out for the UK?)
As the PM says. the devil is in the detail - but if we get all of this, it really could address some fundamental concerns of broadly pro-EU but "not as it currently is" people like me.
Significantly, if you tot up every single point made in the letter, there must be 20 odd particular demands. So the PM really is setting himself up for a difficult time if he only manages to achieve half of this. I wasn't expecting that - so credit for that.
Been playing a little with the new Electoral Calculus results. Not yet looked whether this is typical, but Labour won the council wards comprising Morley & Outwood by a total of 3261 votes in May, on a slightly lower number of returned papers than for the GE ballot boxes next door.
Ah, less interesting than I thought. Strong independents in Tory leaning wards.
And not atypical. At council elections 2015:
Labour won Derby North wards by 1868 Labour won Bedford wards by around 5000* Labour won Bolton West by around 1450* Tories won Plymouth Moor View by 460, though Electoral Calaculus turnout weighting suggests a very narrow Labour consituency win on these raw numbers.
Nuneaton sadly didn't have a 2015 council election across the whole constituency and alas alas Broxtowe has too many multi seat wards to get my head around (EC suggests Tory majority under 2k).
Given Electoral Calculus have turned away from modelling against polls and towards modelling council elections to get over the mistakes of last times, the fact that they still have to do some pretty serious weighting in even the simple marginals to get anything like a prediction must be a worry.
* some manipulation done around council wards electing multiple councillors or only partly in the constiuency.
There are some seats which very consistently vote differently at local elections to Parliamentary. There are obviously the areas of local Lib Dem strength. But, there are also some seats like Birmingham Edgbaston, Tooting, Westminster North, where the Conservatives do far better locally.
Am I right in thinking UKIP won the Thanet Council elections in May, and but didn't win either Thanet South or Thanet North at Westminster level?
Yes, but I think the council boundaries are somewhat different from the constituencies (the council takes in part of Dover).
All ethnic minority groups in England are now, on average, more likely to go to university than their White British peers. This is the case even amongst groups who were previously under-represented in higher education, such as those of Black Caribbean ethnic origin, a relatively recent change.
These differences also vary by socio-economic background, and in some cases are very large indeed. For example, Chinese pupils in the lowest socio-economic quintile group are, on average, more than 10 percentage points more likely to go to university than White British pupils in the highest socio-economic quintile group. By contrast, White British pupils in the lowest socio-economic quintile group have participation rates that are more than 10 percentage points lower than those observed for any other ethnic group.
These are amongst the findings of research undertaken by IFS researchers, funded by the Departments of Education and Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), and published by BIS.
All ethnic minority groups in England are now, on average, more likely to go to university than their White British peers. This is the case even amongst groups who were previously under-represented in higher education, such as those of Black Caribbean ethnic origin, a relatively recent change.
These differences also vary by socio-economic background, and in some cases are very large indeed. For example, Chinese pupils in the lowest socio-economic quintile group are, on average, more than 10 percentage points more likely to go to university than White British pupils in the highest socio-economic quintile group. By contrast, White British pupils in the lowest socio-economic quintile group have participation rates that are more than 10 percentage points lower than those observed for any other ethnic group.
These are amongst the findings of research undertaken by IFS researchers, funded by the Departments of Education and Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), and published by BIS.
"David Cameron told four-year halt to migrant benefits 'illegal' Within minutes of David Cameron setting out his EU reform demands, European Parliament president says plan is illegal.
Martin Schulz, the hugely powerful president of the European Parliament, says he thinks David Cameron's plan to restrict migrant benefits is illegal."
"David Cameron told four-year halt to migrant benefits 'illegal' - live Within minutes of David Cameron setting out his EU reform demands, European Parliament president says plan is illegal.
Martin Schulz, the hugely powerful president of the European Parliament, says he thinks David Cameron's plan to restrict migrant benefits is illegal."
Will this be the "fake row" that has been forecast?
It probably is illegal at the moment because it discriminates against EU citizens to the betterment of UK citizens. That is what Cameron is trying to change.
"Sweden calls on army to help manage refugee crisis Military chiefs to aid migration agencies as Scandinavian country that has taken far beyond its share of migrants strains from sheer weight of numbers"
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.
"Students" and family reunions are the big.
Nah: the next time we have a recession in the UK then net migration will go negative...
Brits will leave for Canada and the US and Australia.
While for EU migrants, if it's a question of being unemployed somewhere cheap and with your family, or being unemployed somewhere expensive and away from your family, then they'll choose the former.
Why would net immigration go negative when it didn't drop below 150k even in the middle of the credit crunch?
The economic cycle is a factor but plenty of people want to come here because it's safe, liberal, fair, just, mild weathered and with established immigrant communities where they can speak their own language and largely maintain their own customs.
If we have free movement *worldwide* we'd be talking about annual net migration well into seven figures regardless.
Most towns and villages in the south midlands/ south-east would have large shanty towns on their outskirts with migrants seeking refuge from Sub-Saharan Africa, the middle-east, and not a few from the Asia-Pacific region.
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.
Voters are contrary however. They rate UKIP as having the best policy on immigration and give Farage the best net satisfaction rating of any party leader.
"David Cameron told four-year halt to migrant benefits 'illegal' Within minutes of David Cameron setting out his EU reform demands, European Parliament president says plan is illegal.
Martin Schulz, the hugely powerful president of the European Parliament, says he thinks David Cameron's plan to restrict migrant benefits is illegal."
Correct me, please, if I am wrong but couldn't the migrant benefits issue be cured at a stroke if our benefits system was made exclusively contributory? I.e. you only get benefits - including working benefits - if you have contributed for a minimum number of years. So a migrant coming here would get nothing in the same way that an English person would get nothing until they had both contributed.
If that's right, then it's entirely within our own hands to solve the issue Cameron is making such a centrepiece of his negotiations by altering the basis of our benefits system.
Otherwise what Cameron seems to be asking for is the right to discriminate between UK nationals and non-UK nationals and I think this is one hell of an ask from other EU countries and almost certainly not in our interests. If it can be done for migrants then it could be done for companies and could allow the Eurozone, for instance, to discriminate against those outside it.
I'm sat on the train opposite two women who briefly discussed the referendum. The one reading the Express is a Leaver, the other is on the fence and "needs more information".
End of anecdote.
Conclusion: Vote Leave need to hand out free copies of the Express!
The Express is the one and only national paper that I don't get. I see that everything from The Star to the Sun, from The Mail to The Guardian has a USP and an audience. But who buys the Express? And why?
it does have a good cryptic crossword
And the astrology section is good for a laugh
Many years ago I met someone who claimed to know about astrology etc. She told me that she had been given a job writing the astrology column for some (quite substantial) magazine. She said that she’d thought "she'd better do this scientifically so used her Tarot cards", then was most miffed to discover on publication that the somewhere along the line the predictions had been attached to the wrong months!
I did, IIRC manage to keep a straight face and sympathise!
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.
"Students" and family reunions are the big ones.
Personally, I think all non-EU students should be required to register their names and addresses with the home office, as well as the university, and physically leave the country before reapplying for a work permit if they want to stay here after graduation.
Family reunions (particularly from MENA and the sub-continent) of aunts, uncles, cousins, sisters and brothers should be ended - possibly with an exemption or clarification within the new British bill of rights - and I'd apply points qualifications to spouses as well as an income requirement.
There should be no presumption of settlement in the UK for any UK national marrying whoever they choose worldwide. They should qualify on their own merits.
That taken together should cut it by 100k. I think getting net immigration below 150k is going to be very difficult indeed.
The non-EU are the people who do not take up benefits and actually pay taxes !
Correct me, please, if I am wrong but couldn't the migrant benefits issue be cured at a stroke if our benefits system was made exclusively contributory? I.e. you only get benefits - including working benefits - if you have contributed for a minimum number of years. So a migrant coming here would get nothing in the same way that an English person would get nothing until they had both contributed.
If that's right, then it's entirely within our own hands to solve the issue Cameron is making such a centrepiece of his negotiations by altering the basis of our benefits system.
Otherwise what Cameron seems to be asking for is the right to discriminate between UK nationals and non-UK nationals and I think this is one hell of an ask from other EU countries and almost certainly not in our interests. If it can be done for migrants then it could be done for companies and could allow the Eurozone, for instance, to discriminate against those outside it.
So no money for NEETs then, no help for those just coming out of education and no help for the severely disabled, no help for those newly started work but needing help with housing (other hardship examples are available)?
Contributory systems have much to commend them but they need a safety net for those not covered. And how do we stop the safety net being used by EU citizens? I think the government looked at this quite seriously (remember that nonsense about no one getting benefits until they were 23 or 24?) but have wisely decided that is not the way to address it.
I think you are right that this will not be easy. If, for example, the criteria was 4 years residence in the UK then it could theoretically apply to practically everyone but that is probably indirectly discriminatory.
"David Cameron told four-year halt to migrant benefits 'illegal' - live Within minutes of David Cameron setting out his EU reform demands, European Parliament president says plan is illegal.
Martin Schulz, the hugely powerful president of the European Parliament, says he thinks David Cameron's plan to restrict migrant benefits is illegal."
Will this be the "fake row" that has been forecast?
It probably is illegal at the moment because it discriminates against EU citizens to the betterment of UK citizens. That is what Cameron is trying to change.
What I meant was, has he already got some sort of agreement to this, which he can present as a great achievement? From last year: "The European court of justice (ECJ) has ruled that Germany can refuse welfare benefits to EU migrants if they have never held a job in the country.
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.
"Students" and family reunions are the big ones.
Personally, I think all non-EU students should be required to register their names and addresses with the home office, as well as the university, and physically leave the country before reapplying for a work permit if they want to stay here after graduation.
Family reunions (particularly from MENA and the sub-continent) of aunts, uncles, cousins, sisters and brothers should be ended - possibly with an exemption or clarification within the new British bill of rights - and I'd apply points qualifications to spouses as well as an income requirement.
There should be no presumption of settlement in the UK for any UK national marrying whoever they choose worldwide. They should qualify on their own merits.
That taken together should cut it by 100k. I think getting net immigration below 150k is going to be very difficult indeed.
The non-EU are the people who do not take up benefits and actually pay taxes !
I don't see how you can make any broad brush assumptions about EU versus non-EU migration.
I think you are right that this will not be easy. If, for example, the criteria was 4 years residence in the UK then it could theoretically apply to practically everyone but that is probably indirectly discriminatory.
Perhaps it could be contributory but with educational time attracting a notional contribution?
I'm sure the EU bureaucrats can come up with some such logical somersault. After all, they managed to solve the difficulty of the status of Northern Cyprus by declaring it to be simultaneously in the EU and not in the EU; this should be a doddle in comparison, if the political will is there.
So, having read Cameron's letter my gut feelings are:
- it's longer than the bland plenty of wriggle room statement of principles I expected - it contains some real, important, substantive demands - I like the broad thrust of the letter and its tone - most of it actually seems achievable (and in truth has probably already been agreed in the dialogue already), and the biggest fight is clearly going to be on the last one - immigration. But can any other EU leader REALLY object to an end, across the whole EU, to welfare tourism by introducing the 4 year rule (which presumably would apply across the piece not just as a special derogation or opt out for the UK?)
As the PM says. the devil is in the detail - but if we get all of this, it really could address some fundamental concerns of broadly pro-EU but "not as it currently is" people like me.
Significantly, if you tot up every single point made in the letter, there must be 20 odd particular demands. So the PM really is setting himself up for a difficult time if he only manages to achieve half of this. I wasn't expecting that - so credit for that.
Will it be enough though?
If he achieved all of that it still wouldn't convince me as it doesn't include limits on EU powers on justice, social and employment legislation and reform of the CAP/CFP. It would have to be a very substantive increase in subsidiarity and the role of national parliaments, including an emergency brake and limits/caps on EU migration, to convince me to stay.
However, it'd probably be enough for Cameron to win the referendum.
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 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.
"Students" and family reunions are the big ones.
Personally, I think all non-EU students should be required to register their names and addresses with the home office, as well as the university, and physically leave the country before reapplying for a work permit if they want to stay here after graduation.
Family reunions (particularly from MENA and the sub-continent) of aunts, uncles, cousins, sisters and brothers should be ended - possibly with an exemption or clarification within the new British bill of rights - and I'd apply points qualifications to spouses as well as an income requirement.
There should be no presumption of settlement in the UK for any UK national marrying whoever they choose worldwide. They should qualify on their own merits.
That taken together should cut it by 100k. I think getting net immigration below 150k is going to be very difficult indeed.
The non-EU are the people who do not take up benefits and actually pay taxes !
I don't see how you can make any broad brush assumptions about EU versus non-EU migration.
Do you have any evidence for that statement?
It seems unlikely. The publication of the numbers is erratic, but in general, EU citizens have an employment rate that is above average, while non-EU citizens have an employment rate that is well below average.
Correct me, please, if I am wrong but couldn't the migrant benefits issue be cured at a stroke if our benefits system was made exclusively contributory? I.e. you only get benefits - including working benefits - if you have contributed for a minimum number of years. So a migrant coming here would get nothing in the same way that an English person would get nothing until they had both contributed.
If that's right, then it's entirely within our own hands to solve the issue Cameron is making such a centrepiece of his negotiations by altering the basis of our benefits system.
Otherwise what Cameron seems to be asking for is the right to discriminate between UK nationals and non-UK nationals and I think this is one hell of an ask from other EU countries and almost certainly not in our interests. If it can be done for migrants then it could be done for companies and could allow the Eurozone, for instance, to discriminate against those outside it.
I've argued that no benefits should be payable to anyone at all without three to five years NI contributions.
I suspect we'd have very little migration because Brits would have all the jobs under this system,
Correct me, please, if I am wrong but couldn't the migrant benefits issue be cured at a stroke if our benefits system was made exclusively contributory? I.e. you only get benefits - including working benefits - if you have contributed for a minimum number of years. So a migrant coming here would get nothing in the same way that an English person would get nothing until they had both contributed.
If that's right, then it's entirely within our own hands to solve the issue Cameron is making such a centrepiece of his negotiations by altering the basis of our benefits system.
Otherwise what Cameron seems to be asking for is the right to discriminate between UK nationals and non-UK nationals and I think this is one hell of an ask from other EU countries and almost certainly not in our interests. If it can be done for migrants then it could be done for companies and could allow the Eurozone, for instance, to discriminate against those outside it.
So no money for NEETs then, no help for those just coming out of education and no help for the severely disabled, no help for those newly started work but needing help with housing (other hardship examples are available)?
Contributory systems have much to commend them but they need a safety net for those not covered. And how do we stop the safety net being used by EU citizens? I think the government looked at this quite seriously (remember that nonsense about no one getting benefits until they were 23 or 24?) but have wisely decided that is not the way to address it.
I think you are right that this will not be easy. If, for example, the criteria was 4 years residence in the UK then it could theoretically apply to practically everyone but that is probably indirectly discriminatory.
I'm not saying that purely contributory system is necessarily desirable. I was just trying to understand whether this is fundamentally an EU issue or as much an issue with the structure of our benefits system. I do think that a government should be able to prioritise its own citizens over those of others.
It seems to me to be at the heart of what it means to be a nation state.
Being British means something more than simply living in the British Isles.
But that is a very fundamental difference with the whole thrust of the EU which is to eliminate those distinctions.
My main concern with this is that if we do permit discrimination on the grounds of nationality in one area how do we prevent the eurozone discriminating against us on the same basis in areas such as financial services, where the consequences of such discrimination could be very damaging indeed?
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.
Voters are contrary however. They rate UKIP as having the best policy on immigration and give Farage the best net satisfaction rating of any party leader.
Well the latter is down to North Korean levels of support from Kipper voters.
The voters, like the parties are often contradictions. I did a SWOT analysis for UKIP last night for this parliament, in the hope of working out what their polling floor and high will be.
I think it is possible we could see UKIP consistently polling in second place in this parliament,
Behind?
Likely the Tories.
We see the usual government unpopularity mid term, and the voters to express their displeasure by switching not to Labour but to UKIP, add in UKIP making further inroads in to Labour's heartlands and seepage from Lab to the Lib Dems. You could see something like Con 31, UKIP 25, Labour 24, Lib Dems 12
I can also see a situation where the Tories are in third place in the polls behind Labour and the Kippers. That is dependent on there being a Kippergasm after the referendum just like the Natgasm
... and yet the Kippers have dropped by quite large percentages in local by-elections, the polls don't look great and they lost their one council.
Correct me, please, if I am wrong but couldn't the migrant benefits issue be cured at a stroke if our benefits system was made exclusively contributory? I.e. you only get benefits - including working benefits - if you have contributed for a minimum number of years. So a migrant coming here would get nothing in the same way that an English person would get nothing until they had both contributed.
If that's right, then it's entirely within our own hands to solve the issue Cameron is making such a centrepiece of his negotiations by altering the basis of our benefits system.
Otherwise what Cameron seems to be asking for is the right to discriminate between UK nationals and non-UK nationals and I think this is one hell of an ask from other EU countries and almost certainly not in our interests. If it can be done for migrants then it could be done for companies and could allow the Eurozone, for instance, to discriminate against those outside it.
I've argued that no benefits should be payable to anyone at all without three to five years NI contributions.
I suspect we'd have very little migration because Brits would have all the jobs under this system,
The trouble is this kind of scheme falls down because you would end up with the young, or long term unemployed who have never managed to do 3 years work, basically utterly destitute and begging on the streets. I'm all in favour of a more contributory element, but I don't see how it can be exclusively contributory in a modern society.
Comments
I needed to savour that one....
The same also applies to UK and non EU citizens.
Personally, I think all non-EU students should be required to register their names and addresses with the home office, as well as the university, and physically leave the country before reapplying for a work permit if they want to stay here after graduation.
Family reunions (particularly from MENA and the sub-continent) of aunts, uncles, cousins, sisters and brothers should be ended - possibly with an exemption or clarification within the new British bill of rights - and I'd apply points qualifications to spouses as well as an income requirement.
There should be no presumption of settlement in the UK for any UK national marrying whoever they choose worldwide. They should qualify on their own merits.
That taken together should cut it by 100k. I think getting net immigration below 150k is going to be very difficult indeed.
Of course in practice it doesn't always work like that. There's a good summary here:
https://fullfact.org/health/costs_health_tourism-37227
I don't suppose anyone checks this type of thing in the health service, but I can foresee the day when they are required to impose exactly the same gateway checks that social security offices do.
Cameron has tried an interesting tack today in using plainer and more forthright language than usual, but at the end of the day he is still selling something which amounts to virtually nothing.
It's still a scam and no conservative (other than of the Ted Heath tendency) should be convinced by it.
I'm sat on the train opposite two women who briefly discussed the referendum. The one reading the Express is a Leaver, the other is on the fence and "needs more information".
End of anecdote.
Conclusion: Vote Leave need to hand out free copies of the Express!
To do so does not imply intolerance or regressive social views either, even if they are sometimes equated as such.
I appreciate you are keeping an open mind but you'll be disappointed if you believe Cameron can get any sort of meaningful terms. If the EU appease us they open the floodgates to the other 27 members making demands and in effect that's the end of the whole project.
The bureaucrats will want to keep it together whether we're part of it or not.
There is an irony for kipper bashers, if we vote OUT Ukip MEP's have campaigned to get the sack, I'm surprised more isn't made of that.
*R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department, [1992] 3 CMLR 358 ECJ
1. Does attacking Corbyn produce shedloads of votes from WWC voters? The constituency seems quite optimal for it - UKIP are highlighting their view of Corbyn (not unlike the Tory position), and there has been a large BNP vote there in the past. But UKIP seems off the boil in most places.
2. Conversely, can Labour get out a reasonable share in a traditional Labour seat with few Guardianistas? Will the flood of new members in the area (not, apparently, in the constituency itself) leap out and do stuff, or are they passive types?
3. Can the LibDems start to pull back, as suggested downthread? They too have a history of some success in the seat.
4. Can the Tories shoulder aside these rival attractions and make a decent showing in a northern seat, or are they writing the North off?
5. Are the Greens going to get squeezed, or do their voters only go for True Corbyn candidates?
Brits will leave for Canada and the US and Australia.
While for EU migrants, if it's a question of being unemployed somewhere cheap and with your family, or being unemployed somewhere expensive and away from your family, then they'll choose the former.
"... our multiple skills shortages given the incompetence and ineptitude of our Educational establishment for anything other than a small elite and the opportunities ..."
An awful lot of those skill shortages are not down to a poor education system but the flat refusal of employers to invest in their business by training staff or indeed in modern machinery (the UK is so far down the list in the use of industrial robots we barely meet first world standards).
Long experience, going back to the end of WW2 has shown that senior management in too many UK companies just will not invest. It is therefore time HMG forced them to do so. Two levies plus an additional income tax might do it.
When it comes out on DVD, I may load the whole thing into Adobe Premiere Pro and cut about 30 minutes from the movie: the car chase in Rome (boring), most of the "C" subplot, and half the wanderings around the world. I reckon getting it down to two hours would improve it immeasurably.
Holy Hell, no wonder so many get ants in their pants. I'm not bothering with it - and it's crossed off my Wet Sunday Afternoon list as well now. When it comes out on DVD, I may load the whole thing into Adobe Premiere Pro and cut about 30 minutes from the movie: the car chase in Rome (boring), most of the "C" subplot, and half the wanderings around the world. I reckon getting it down to two hours would improve it immeasurably.
I remember clicking onto the BBC at 10 pm and seeing their headline "Conservatives projected to be ahead on seats " and thinking it would be around those numbers, and being gob-smacked when the projection had them on 319.
We underestimated Ed Miliband's crapness.
Stayed up all night, for Cable amongst others. Though three resignations in under an hour after Balls had been defeated was another highlight or bonus.
Results from Scotland, were extraordinary, and highlight Labour's failings up there. Pity that Gordon Brown had decided to stand down earlier.
Labour won Derby North wards by 1868
Labour won Bedford wards by around 5000*
Labour won Bolton West by around 1450*
Tories won Plymouth Moor View by 460, though Electoral Calaculus turnout weighting suggests a very narrow Labour consituency win on these raw numbers.
Nuneaton sadly didn't have a 2015 council election across the whole constituency and alas alas Broxtowe has too many multi seat wards to get my head around (EC suggests Tory majority under 2k).
Given Electoral Calculus have turned away from modelling against polls and towards modelling council elections to get over the mistakes of last times, the fact that they still have to do some pretty serious weighting in even the simple marginals to get anything like a prediction must be a worry.
* some manipulation done around council wards electing multiple councillors or only partly in the constiuency.
twitter.com/DJack_Journo/status/664043982306045952/photo/1
The voters, like the parties are often contradictions. I did a SWOT analysis for UKIP last night for this parliament, in the hope of working out what their polling floor and high will be.
I think it is possible we could see UKIP consistently polling in second place in this parliament,
Lord Curzon : "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?"
Débutante "My goodness... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "
Lord Curzon: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
Débutante "What kind of woman do you think I am?!"
Lord Curzon: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.”
Behind the Times paywall, but from the mouth of David Cameron himself: "43 per cent of EU migrants rely on the support of the UK benefits system during their first four years in the country. This represents 224,000 EU nationals out of 526,000 new arrivals.
About 148,000 of these claimants, some 66 per cent, receive tax credits, housing benefit and other welfare handouts available to people in work.
Downing Street said that EU migrants entitled to so-called “in-work” benefits claimed an average of £5,000 per family, costing UK taxpayers £530 million in 2013."
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4609721.ece
We see the usual government unpopularity mid term, and the voters to express their displeasure by switching not to Labour but to UKIP, add in UKIP making further inroads in to Labour's heartlands and seepage from Lab to the Lib Dems. You could see something like Con 31, UKIP 25, Labour 24, Lib Dems 12
I can also see a situation where the Tories are in third place in the polls behind Labour and the Kippers. That is dependent on there being a Kippergasm after the referendum just like the Natgasm
Within minutes of David Cameron setting out his EU reform demands, European Parliament president says plan is illegal.
Martin Schulz, the hugely powerful president of the European Parliament, says he thinks David Cameron's plan to restrict migrant benefits is illegal."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11985483/EU-referendum-David-Cameron-sets-out-his-demands-to-Europe-live.html
It's ok though because having holes drilled into your brain apparently does you no harm at all.
All ethnic minority groups in England are now, on average, more likely to go to university than their White British peers. This is the case even amongst groups who were previously under-represented in higher education, such as those of Black Caribbean ethnic origin, a relatively recent change.
These differences also vary by socio-economic background, and in some cases are very large indeed. For example, Chinese pupils in the lowest socio-economic quintile group are, on average, more than 10 percentage points more likely to go to university than White British pupils in the highest socio-economic quintile group. By contrast, White British pupils in the lowest socio-economic quintile group have participation rates that are more than 10 percentage points lower than those observed for any other ethnic group.
These are amongst the findings of research undertaken by IFS researchers, funded by the Departments of Education and Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), and published by BIS.
http://bit.ly/1WONQ7H
Labour MP Simon Danczuk pulled out of a parliamentary fact-finding trip to China at the last minute after discovering he would have to fly economy class, the Standard has learned.
The Rochdale MP withdrew after a request to be upgraded was turned down. It led to the whole four-day visit being “killed”, according to a Tory MP. But Mr Danczuk dismissed this as “nonsense”.
http://bit.ly/1PzEmNd
- it's longer than the bland plenty of wriggle room statement of principles I expected
- it contains some real, important, substantive demands
- I like the broad thrust of the letter and its tone
- most of it actually seems achievable (and in truth has probably already been agreed in the dialogue already), and the biggest fight is clearly going to be on the last one - immigration. But can any other EU leader REALLY object to an end, across the whole EU, to welfare tourism by introducing the 4 year rule (which presumably would apply across the piece not just as a special derogation or opt out for the UK?)
As the PM says. the devil is in the detail - but if we get all of this, it really could address some fundamental concerns of broadly pro-EU but "not as it currently is" people like me.
Significantly, if you tot up every single point made in the letter, there must be 20 odd particular demands. So the PM really is setting himself up for a difficult time if he only manages to achieve half of this. I wasn't expecting that - so credit for that.
Will it be enough though?
That's why we need to have the renegotiation and change the law!
Doh!
"Sweden calls on army to help manage refugee crisis
Military chiefs to aid migration agencies as Scandinavian country that has taken far beyond its share of migrants strains from sheer weight of numbers"
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/10/sweden-calls-on-army-to-help-manage-refugee-crisis
The economic cycle is a factor but plenty of people want to come here because it's safe, liberal, fair, just, mild weathered and with established immigrant communities where they can speak their own language and largely maintain their own customs.
If we have free movement *worldwide* we'd be talking about annual net migration well into seven figures regardless.
Most towns and villages in the south midlands/ south-east would have large shanty towns on their outskirts with migrants seeking refuge from Sub-Saharan Africa, the middle-east, and not a few from the Asia-Pacific region.
That's what legislation is about.
If that's right, then it's entirely within our own hands to solve the issue Cameron is making such a centrepiece of his negotiations by altering the basis of our benefits system.
Otherwise what Cameron seems to be asking for is the right to discriminate between UK nationals and non-UK nationals and I think this is one hell of an ask from other EU countries and almost certainly not in our interests. If it can be done for migrants then it could be done for companies and could allow the Eurozone, for instance, to discriminate against those outside it.
I did, IIRC manage to keep a straight face and sympathise!
(Edit: sorry didn't realise it was old-ish news...)
Contributory systems have much to commend them but they need a safety net for those not covered. And how do we stop the safety net being used by EU citizens? I think the government looked at this quite seriously (remember that nonsense about no one getting benefits until they were 23 or 24?) but have wisely decided that is not the way to address it.
I think you are right that this will not be easy. If, for example, the criteria was 4 years residence in the UK then it could theoretically apply to practically everyone but that is probably indirectly discriminatory.
In a landmark ruling on “benefit tourism” that could set an EU-wide legal precedent, the Luxembourg court announced on Tuesday that “economically inactive” migrants from other EU nations can be refused German unemployment benefits under certain conditions."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/11/germany-deny-benefits-welfare-jobless-eu-migrants
Do you have any evidence for that statement?
I'm sure the EU bureaucrats can come up with some such logical somersault. After all, they managed to solve the difficulty of the status of Northern Cyprus by declaring it to be simultaneously in the EU and not in the EU; this should be a doddle in comparison, if the political will is there.
However, it'd probably be enough for Cameron to win the referendum.
I suspect we'd have very little migration because Brits would have all the jobs under this system,
It seems to me to be at the heart of what it means to be a nation state.
Being British means something more than simply living in the British Isles.
But that is a very fundamental difference with the whole thrust of the EU which is to eliminate those distinctions.
My main concern with this is that if we do permit discrimination on the grounds of nationality in one area how do we prevent the eurozone discriminating against us on the same basis in areas such as financial services, where the consequences of such discrimination could be very damaging indeed?