@MSmithsonPB: I'm getting more info about the very poor turnout in Oldham. Could be sub 30%. Question is who that favours
Hmm, it's not obvious who it favours. Could be Labour voters 'staying away in droves', favouring UKIP if they are more motivated, or it could be that no-one is particularly bothered and that would tend to favour Labour (and the Conservatives) as being likely to be better organised on getting postal votes in.
now you're prevaricating and obfuscating. Anyway, thanks for your help.
A wonderful insight into the Kipperish mind: explaining that life is not as simplistic as the Kippers think is 'prevaricating and obfuscating'.
What one actually needs to do is to analyse the problem in some detail - immigration is not a simple matter at all, with different groups of people coming here (and leaving here) in varying numbers for different reasons, and driven by different factors. But of course, you're not interested in any of that.
I am actually quite interested in knowing what the mechanics were of the trying to reduce net immigration pledge.
I can only imagine some kind of selection criteria? How else?
I understand Jeremy Corbyn shuffled in late because he was having a meal. He must have known the time the closing speeches were taking place. Are we to induce from that, that he wasn't going to attend initially and had to be "persuaded?"
Alex Salmond has looked like he has been sat on a thistle for weeks now. I don't know what his problem is. At least the SNP have managed to find someone just as smug and arrogant in Angus Robertson.
Do we know what %age of the electorate have postal votes?
The Tories
330/1
Can't see it happening, but was worth three quid for a grand.
I assume that the large Asian population handed their postal votes for Labour in at the mosque last Friday, if that assumption is correct then a very low turnout favours the red team.
now you're prevaricating and obfuscating. Anyway, thanks for your help.
A wonderful insight into the Kipperish mind: explaining that life is not as simplistic as the Kippers think is 'prevaricating and obfuscating'.
What one actually needs to do is to analyse the problem in some detail - immigration is not a simple matter at all, with different groups of people coming here (and leaving here) in varying numbers for different reasons, and driven by different factors. But of course, you're not interested in any of that.
No, I'm interested in govt policy rather than prevarication and obfuscation. You stated quite clearly that you understand it but refuse to be drawn on figures.
We all know why, its because the govt is failing dismally.
Do we know what %age of the electorate have postal votes?
The Tories
330/1
Can't see it happening, but was worth three quid for a grand.
I assume that the large Asian population handed their postal votes for Labour in at the mosque last Friday, if that assumption is correct then a very low turnout favours the red team.
Politically though the issue is quite simple and doesn't require too much study. Cameron said his government will reduce net immigration to below 100,000 pa. it is currently running at above 300,000 and the last set of figures showed an increase not a decrease.
There is performance and there are excuses. Cameron has failed and is failing to perform to the criteria he himself set.
True enough. However, the question is: does any other party have a better idea of what to do? One which is feasible and makes sense, I mean.
Well, the UKIP one of introducing the system used in Australia for all immigrants might be a starter for ten. It seems to work for the Aussies so one can hardly argue that it doesn't make sense. I am sure the ardent Europhile tendency will argue that it is impossible for the UK to negotiate a deal with the EU which would allow such a thing, so whether such an immigration policy is feasible is probably a matter of person political conviction rather than objective fact.
I am actually quite interested in knowing what the mechanics were of the trying to reduce net immigration pledge.
I can only imagine some kind of selection criteria? How else?
They clamped down on the bogus college-scam, and they tightened up the non-EU point-based system considerably - it's actually now pretty draconian. They also tightened the financial criteria for bringing spouses in.
All that had some effect - immigration dropped by around 100,000 a year from 2010 to 2012/13.
However, there are also factors pushing in the other direction: emigration dropped, also by around 100,000 a year, between 2010 and now. More students are now coming here, hopefully bona-fide ones now, which everyone agrees is a good thing. And a lot more people are coming here from EU countries, which the government can't do much about in the short term (changes to benefits will help a bit at the margin, but I don't think will have a big effect).
If you look at the actual figures by category, there's really no low-hanging fruit. The only major category where there looks to be scope for big reductions is EU immigration, but that would require us not only to leave the EU and the EEA, but also to negotiate a deal which excluded free movement: that is by no means a no-brainer; in fact, it looks extremely hard to me.
@MSmithsonPB: I'm getting more info about the very poor turnout in Oldham. Could be sub 30%. Question is who that favours
Hmm, it's not obvious who it favours. Could be Labour voters 'staying away in droves', favouring UKIP if they are more motivated, or it could be that no-one is particularly bothered and that would tend to favour Labour (and the Conservatives) as being likely to be better organised on getting postal votes in.
If UKIP think they have a sniff and act accordingly, then it favours them.
My gut feeling is the latter of your scenarios, and a comfy Labour win on a silly turn out.
Apparently there is a call doing the rounds on social media for a minute of noise at 7pm tonight against bombing ISIL. Go out of the house and bang a pan. I think the Icelandic people did something like this over banking scandals a few years back.
Do banging wheelie bin lids count? The wind's blowing quite strongly here & my wheelie bin is already at it.
How many times did Corbyn fail to follow party policy without being deselected? Why should his MPs not follow his own footsteps?
Because he had the support of his constituency party, maybe ? Geddit ?
So all of these trots and SWP entryists that are swamping local parties should have a say over the future of sitting Labour MPs? Seems crazy to allow such a brazen attempt to poison the Labour party with extreme leftism.
@MSmithsonPB: I'm getting more info about the very poor turnout in Oldham. Could be sub 30%. Question is who that favours
Hmm, it's not obvious who it favours. Could be Labour voters 'staying away in droves', favouring UKIP if they are more motivated, or it could be that no-one is particularly bothered and that would tend to favour Labour (and the Conservatives) as being likely to be better organised on getting postal votes in.
If UKIP think they have a sniff and act accordingly, then it favours them.
My gut feeling is the latter of your scenarios, and a comfy Labour win on a silly turn out.
If your gut feeling is correct, I'm sure Twitter will be clogged with outraged lefties complaining that they only got 12%* of voters to support them.
Politically though the issue is quite simple and doesn't require too much study. Cameron said his government will reduce net immigration to below 100,000 pa. it is currently running at above 300,000 and the last set of figures showed an increase not a decrease.
There is performance and there are excuses. Cameron has failed and is failing to perform to the criteria he himself set.
True enough. However, the question is: does any other party have a better idea of what to do? One which is feasible and makes sense, I mean.
Well, the UKIP one of introducing the system used in Australia for all immigrants might be a starter for ten. It seems to work for the Aussies so one can hardly argue that it doesn't make sense. I am sure the ardent Europhile tendency will argue that it is impossible for the UK to negotiate a deal with the EU which would allow such a thing, so whether such an immigration policy is feasible is probably a matter of person political conviction rather than objective fact.
Reducing immigration while at the same time being the only country in Europe experiencing growth is almost impossible. A policy to seriously reduce immigration would mean that with a couple of professional exceptions we allow only higher rate taxpayers to move to the UK.
@MSmithsonPB: I'm getting more info about the very poor turnout in Oldham. Could be sub 30%. Question is who that favours
Hmm, it's not obvious who it favours. Could be Labour voters 'staying away in droves', favouring UKIP if they are more motivated, or it could be that no-one is particularly bothered and that would tend to favour Labour (and the Conservatives) as being likely to be better organised on getting postal votes in.
If UKIP think they have a sniff and act accordingly, then it favours them.
My gut feeling is the latter of your scenarios, and a comfy Labour win on a silly turn out.
If your gut feeling is correct, I'm sure Twitter will be clogged with outraged lefties complaining that they only got 12%* of voters to support them.
* 40% of a 30% turnout
More likely it will be greeted as a landslide comparable to 1997 and a massive vindication of Corbyn's efforts to advert military action etc etc.
@MSmithsonPB: I'm getting more info about the very poor turnout in Oldham. Could be sub 30%. Question is who that favours
Hmm, it's not obvious who it favours. Could be Labour voters 'staying away in droves', favouring UKIP if they are more motivated, or it could be that no-one is particularly bothered and that would tend to favour Labour (and the Conservatives) as being likely to be better organised on getting postal votes in.
If UKIP think they have a sniff and act accordingly, then it favours them.
My gut feeling is the latter of your scenarios, and a comfy Labour win on a silly turn out.
If your gut feeling is correct, I'm sure Twitter will be clogged with outraged lefties complaining that they only got 12%* of voters to support them.
* 40% of a 30% turnout
More likely it will be greeted as a landslide comparable to 1997 and a massive vindication of Corbyn's efforts to advert military action etc etc.
In the face of omnipresent hostile media, don't forget that.
Apparently there is a call doing the rounds on social media for a minute of noise at 7pm tonight against bombing ISIL. Go out of the house and bang a pan. I think the Icelandic people did something like this over banking scandals a few years back.
Do banging wheelie bin lids count? The wind's blowing quite strongly here & my wheelie bin is already at it.
Couldve been worse, you could have been on the bowling side for your life this afternoon when this happened
"1.4 Taskin Ahmed to Imrul Kayes, no run, good length around off, gets behind the line to block . Oh my Lord! What a big chaos there..Back of a length and moving across, Kayes stays on the crease and pushes it in front of cover point. He was quickly off for the single but was sent back by Shehzad. Dilshan shy at the stumps but not able to hit and no one was backing up. Then the man from the deep ran forward and throws it towards the strikers end and Dilshan tries to ran across and collect it near the stumps, in the meantime even Kayes tries to move across for a run but collides with him and fall down. When all this happening Shehzad too ends up at the striker's end. And they goes upstairs as the fielder recollect the ball and throws it towards the bowler's end, looks like Shehzad needs to walk back. Oh Wait, more confusion and drama, after looking out numerous replays third umpire judges that as not-out. Looks like Dilshan deliberately tried to stop Kayes and hence five penalty runs has been awarded to the Victorians. They didn't count this ball and will be re-bowling. Also one run has been awarded to Imrul Kayes along with the penalty. "
@MSmithsonPB: I'm getting more info about the very poor turnout in Oldham. Could be sub 30%. Question is who that favours
Hmm, it's not obvious who it favours. Could be Labour voters 'staying away in droves', favouring UKIP if they are more motivated, or it could be that no-one is particularly bothered and that would tend to favour Labour (and the Conservatives) as being likely to be better organised on getting postal votes in.
If UKIP think they have a sniff and act accordingly, then it favours them.
My gut feeling is the latter of your scenarios, and a comfy Labour win on a silly turn out.
If your gut feeling is correct, I'm sure Twitter will be clogged with outraged lefties complaining that they only got 12%* of voters to support them.
* 40% of a 30% turnout
More likely it will be greeted as a landslide comparable to 1997 and a massive vindication of Corbyn's efforts to advert military action etc etc.
In the face of omnipresent hostile media, don't forget that.
I am actually quite interested in knowing what the mechanics were of the trying to reduce net immigration pledge.
I can only imagine some kind of selection criteria? How else?
They clamped down on the bogus college-scam, and they tightened up the non-EU point-based system considerably - it's actually now pretty draconian. They also tightened the financial criteria for bringing spouses in.
All that had some effect - immigration dropped by around 100,000 a year from 2010 to 2012/13.
However, there are also factors pushing in the other direction: emigration dropped, also by around 100,000 a year, between 2010 and now. More students are now coming here, hopefully bona-fide ones now, which everyone agrees is a good thing. And a lot more people are coming here from EU countries, which the government can't do much about in the short term (changes to benefits will help a bit at the margin, but I don't think will have a big effect).
If you look at the actual figures by category, there's really no low-hanging fruit. The only major category where there looks to be scope for big reductions is EU immigration, but that would require us not only to leave the EU and the EEA, but also to negotiate a deal which excluded free movement: that is by no means a no-brainer; in fact, it looks extremely hard to me.
which rather begs the question why make the pledge if it is in effect impossible to honour?
How many times did Corbyn fail to follow party policy without being deselected? Why should his MPs not follow his own footsteps?
Because he had the support of his constituency party, maybe ? Geddit ?
So all of these trots and SWP entryists that are swamping local parties should have a say over the future of sitting Labour MPs? Seems crazy to allow such a brazen attempt to poison the Labour party with extreme leftism.
Ed Milliband take a bow. The man who changed the rules, and broke the Labour Party.
which rather begs the question why make the pledge if it is in effect impossible to honour?
It was a blunder, no doubt about it.
In mitigation, though, I don't think anyone expected the disparity between the Eurozone and the UK job markets to be so dramatic, and that has undoubtedly been a large part of the problem.
I also think it's a good long-term aim to get net migration down below 100,000 a year, so I don't favour abandoning the target. But we have to be realistic about the timescale.
How many times did Corbyn fail to follow party policy without being deselected? Why should his MPs not follow his own footsteps?
Because he had the support of his constituency party, maybe ? Geddit ?
So all of these trots and SWP entryists that are swamping local parties should have a say over the future of sitting Labour MPs? Seems crazy to allow such a brazen attempt to poison the Labour party with extreme leftism.
Ed Milliband take a bow. The man who changed the rules, and broke the Labour Party.
To those who said that the Falkirk scandal was a storm in a teacup, well that storm is now tearing the party in half!
By the time the moderates realise that the entryists are serious about deselections it will be too late to do anything about it. They need to break away now if they want to stand a chance of getting SDP2 up and running in time for the 2020 election.
I am actually quite interested in knowing what the mechanics were of the trying to reduce net immigration pledge.
I can only imagine some kind of selection criteria? How else?
They clamped down on the bogus college-scam, and they tightened up the non-EU point-based system considerably - it's actually now pretty draconian. They also tightened the financial criteria for bringing spouses in.
All that had some effect - immigration dropped by around 100,000 a year from 2010 to 2012/13.
However, there are also factors pushing in the other direction: emigration dropped, also by around 100,000 a year, between 2010 and now. More students are now coming here, hopefully bona-fide ones now, which everyone agrees is a good thing. And a lot more people are coming here from EU countries, which the government can't do much about in the short term (changes to benefits will help a bit at the margin, but I don't think will have a big effect).
If you look at the actual figures by category, there's really no low-hanging fruit. The only major category where there looks to be scope for big reductions is EU immigration, but that would require us not only to leave the EU and the EEA, but also to negotiate a deal which excluded free movement: that is by no means a no-brainer; in fact, it looks extremely hard to me.
'Ed Milliband take a bow. The man who changed the rules, and broke the Labour Party.'
Not entirely fair – not even Ed could have predicted the stupidity of Ma Beckett & Co.
It was pretty much predicted by the collective PB mind at the time, that allowing anyone to vote in a leadership election then nominating someone like Corbyn was a recipe for disaster. And so it comes to pass, the various nutters that Kinnock spend the best part of a decade getting rid of from the party, are back with a vengeance.
We got turnout down to sub 20 at a similar point last time around.
A week or so ago on here I suggested turnout would be at the 20% mark. I don't want it to go much below though - I want Lucy Powell to keep the post-war record at 18-odd%
I am actually quite interested in knowing what the mechanics were of the trying to reduce net immigration pledge.
I can only imagine some kind of selection criteria? How else?
They clamped down on the bogus college-scam, and they tightened up the non-EU point-based system considerably - it's actually now pretty draconian. They also tightened the financial criteria for bringing spouses in.
All that had some effect - immigration dropped by around 100,000 a year from 2010 to 2012/13.
However, there are also factors pushing in the other direction: emigration dropped, also by around 100,000 a year, between 2010 and now. More students are now coming here, hopefully bona-fide ones now, which everyone agrees is a good thing. And a lot more people are coming here from EU countries, which the government can't do much about in the short term (changes to benefits will help a bit at the margin, but I don't think will have a big effect).
If you look at the actual figures by category, there's really no low-hanging fruit. The only major category where there looks to be scope for big reductions is EU immigration, but that would require us not only to leave the EU and the EEA, but also to negotiate a deal which excluded free movement: that is by no means a no-brainer; in fact, it looks extremely hard to me.
Very interesting post!
It's a post full of common sense and unfortunately for kippers, facts. A safer healthier and more democratic and prosperous world will lower the current pressures on migration. This to my mind is what aid and interventions are about. Our problem then is British migration increasing to more pleasant climes.
As a slight aside, I doubt that there is a worse official document in publication than the ONS Quarterly Migration Statistics.
They really are a garbled, presentational mess.
Somehow, the bulletin has doubled in length since 2010 and it is a nightmare to extract information from. It is vastly inferior to the Labour Market Bulletin, by comparison.
'Ed Milliband take a bow. The man who changed the rules, and broke the Labour Party.'
Not entirely fair – not even Ed could have predicted the stupidity of Ma Beckett & Co.
Oh I think it's fair, given the history of entryism into the Labour party, and the history of having a loon on the ballot "for balance". Did Ed also come up with the £3 wheeze, or does he have to share the Darwin Award for Politics with someone else?
Postal votes will certainly favour Lab as biggest share normally. UKIP won't have PV operation. My Labour man is blanking me. Is he worried Labour will lose? Probably not but...
As a slight aside, I doubt that there is a worse official document in publication than the ONS Quarterly Migration Statistics.
They really are a garbled, presentational mess.
Somehow, the bulletin has doubled in length since 2010 and it is a nightmare to extract information from. It is vastly inferior to the Labour Market Bulletin, by comparison.
Yes, you are right. Getting hold of basic information about migration is surprisingly hard.
'Ed Milliband take a bow. The man who changed the rules, and broke the Labour Party.'
Not entirely fair – not even Ed could have predicted the stupidity of Ma Beckett & Co.
Oh I think it's fair, given the history of entryism into the Labour party, and the history of having a loon on the ballot "for balance". Did Ed also come up with the £3 wheeze, or does he have to share the Darwin Award for Politics with someone else?
Since regular members voted for Corbyn anyway, it hardly matters.
Of course turnout could pick up this evening when many voters leave work. It's a bit too soon to judge.
Do people work in Oldham?
It's a foul old night out there. You'd need a really good reason to go and vote for any of them. Like, you're going to hell if you don't...
Are you our man in Manchester? How bad has the weather been? I'm not so many miles upwind of Oldham, admittedly in the rain shadow, and today has been meh despite a bad forecast - partly bright, partly dull, bit damp on the ground, reasonably warm. Only now as I looked out of the window again to confirm is there a nasty wind and driving rain. Evening rush hour might be a wash out, but wonder if a lot of the day hasn't ended up a bit nicer than billed.
@ARKWalton: Cameron had 36k likes on FB for announcing the Syria vote. Corbyn had 250k likes for announcing his disappointment. Democracy has failed.
I'll comment for you. Its the difference between adults who make difficult decisions even though they don't like them and children who think that a policy should be decided by the number of likes on social media.
And I say that as someone who opposes air strikes but understands that it was a balance call. No anger, no threats or likes/dislikes. A difference of opinion on the best way to proceed in a hugely difficult situation.
I am sure those people giving weight to Facebook likes are the same who thought Labour was going to walk the last election and it must have been stolen because hundreds of thousands of 16 year olds were posting about it on facebook.
A different pictures has definitely emerged since the Daily Mail's initial report of 3 white individuals...
Seems highly unlikely the argument at the party was the only reason. It is one thing to go home and come back shooting, but who just happens to have IED's lying around.
"Back at Inland Regional, authorities found three rudimentary explosive devices packed with black powder and rigged to a remote-controlled toy car. That remote was found inside the SUV. And in the vehicle was another pipe-like device, but it was not an explosive, Burguan said."
'Ed Milliband take a bow. The man who changed the rules, and broke the Labour Party.'
Not entirely fair – not even Ed could have predicted the stupidity of Ma Beckett & Co.
Oh I think it's fair, given the history of entryism into the Labour party, and the history of having a loon on the ballot "for balance". Did Ed also come up with the £3 wheeze, or does he have to share the Darwin Award for Politics with someone else?
Since regular members voted for Corbyn anyway, it hardly matters.
Not this time, I agree. But if allows for significant gaming of the system and could well swing the result another time. £30k buys you 10,000 votes.
And even this time around it made the election process a bit of a circus, with both Tory's and SWP members signing up to vote for JC.
We got turnout down to sub 20 at a similar point last time around.
A week or so ago on here I suggested turnout would be at the 20% mark. I don't want it to go much below though - I want Lucy Powell to keep the post-war record at 18-odd%
What's special about Lucy's by-election is that the low turnout couldn't really be blamed on 'lack of people to vote for / they're all the same' - 12 candidates and none of them could persuade people to vote for them! :-)
I am actually quite interested in knowing what the mechanics were of the trying to reduce net immigration pledge.
I can only imagine some kind of selection criteria? How else?
They clamped down on the bogus college-scam, and they tightened up the non-EU point-based system considerably - it's actually now pretty draconian. They also tightened the financial criteria for bringing spouses in.
All that had some effect - immigration dropped by around 100,000 a year from 2010 to 2012/13.
However, there are also factors pushing in the other direction: emigration dropped, also by around 100,000 a year, between 2010 and now. More students are now coming here, hopefully bona-fide ones now, which everyone agrees is a good thing. And a lot more people are coming here from EU countries, which the government can't do much about in the short term (changes to benefits will help a bit at the margin, but I don't think will have a big effect).
If you look at the actual figures by category, there's really no low-hanging fruit. The only major category where there looks to be scope for big reductions is EU immigration, but that would require us not only to leave the EU and the EEA, but also to negotiate a deal which excluded free movement: that is by no means a no-brainer; in fact, it looks extremely hard to me.
One wonders how anyone survives outside the EU facing such hardships as they do.
@ARKWalton: Cameron had 36k likes on FB for announcing the Syria vote. Corbyn had 250k likes for announcing his disappointment. Democracy has failed.
I'll comment for you. Its the difference between adults who make difficult decisions even though they don't like them and children who think that a policy should be decided by the number of likes on social media.
And I say that as someone who opposes air strikes but understands that it was a balance call. No anger, no threats or likes/dislikes. A difference of opinion on the best way to proceed in a hugely difficult situation.
I am sure those people giving weight to Facebook likes are the same who thought Labour was going to walk the last election and it must have been stolen because hundreds of thousands of 16 year olds were posting about it on facebook.
Did you see the link I posted yesterday to the details of the profiles of Leave and Remain voters we discussed?
We got turnout down to sub 20 at a similar point last time around.
A week or so ago on here I suggested turnout would be at the 20% mark. I don't want it to go much below though - I want Lucy Powell to keep the post-war record at 18-odd%
What's special about Lucy's by-election is that the low turnout couldn't really be blamed on 'lack of people to vote for / they're all the same' - 12 candidates and none of them could persuade people to vote for them! :-)
It's hard to believe none of the other11 would not have been a better choice though.
"...they tightened up the non-EU point-based system considerably - it's actually now pretty draconian ..."
So draconian that 286,000 people were able to immigrate, legally, from non-EU countries in the 12 months to June 2015. Perhaps the new draconian rules haven't kicked in yet, perhaps next year's figures will show a massive drop, perhaps that swooping sound going past my window was a squadron of Gloucester Old Spots on a night flying exercise.
"A policy to seriously reduce immigration would mean that with a couple of professional exceptions we allow only higher rate taxpayers to move to the UK."
Sounds good to me. With the exception of genuine students (for whom separate arrangements must be made) anyone who is not a net taxpayer is a drain on the public purse and why should we wish to push the welfare bill even higher?
We got turnout down to sub 20 at a similar point last time around.
A week or so ago on here I suggested turnout would be at the 20% mark. I don't want it to go much below though - I want Lucy Powell to keep the post-war record at 18-odd%
What's special about Lucy's by-election is that the low turnout couldn't really be blamed on 'lack of people to vote for / they're all the same' - 12 candidates and none of them could persuade people to vote for them! :-)
As a slight aside, I doubt that there is a worse official document in publication than the ONS Quarterly Migration Statistics.
They really are a garbled, presentational mess.
Somehow, the bulletin has doubled in length since 2010 and it is a nightmare to extract information from. It is vastly inferior to the Labour Market Bulletin, by comparison.
Yes, you are right. Getting hold of basic information about migration is surprisingly hard.
Agree with that. Its not as if realising how much of non EU immigration comes from America Canada Australia New Zealand and South Africa (or India) should be made difficult.
How many times did Corbyn fail to follow party policy without being deselected? Why should his MPs not follow his own footsteps?
Because he had the support of his constituency party, maybe ? Geddit ?
So all of these trots and SWP entryists that are swamping local parties should have a say over the future of sitting Labour MPs? Seems crazy to allow such a brazen attempt to poison the Labour party with extreme leftism.
That is the intention. Corbyn is far happier with (say) John Rees, Lindsay German or Andrew Murray than 90% of the PLP. The Momentum thing is the kind of stuff they've spent 30 years dreaming of, a united front of vanguardist lunatics. But instead of a united front against the Conservatives it is (what the far left always is) a witchunt against moderates on the left. This is why I'm so surprised at Nick Palmer's support for Corbyn - he won't be spared their wrath.
I am actually quite interested in knowing what the mechanics were of the trying to reduce net immigration pledge.
I can only imagine some kind of selection criteria? How else?
They clamped down on the bogus college-scam, and they tightened up the non-EU point-based system considerably - it's actually now pretty draconian. They also tightened the financial criteria for bringing spouses in.
All that had some effect - immigration dropped by around 100,000 a year from 2010 to 2012/13.
However, there are also factors pushing in the other direction: emigration dropped, also by around 100,000 a year, between 2010 and now. More students are now coming here, hopefully bona-fide ones now, which everyone agrees is a good thing. And a lot more people are coming here from EU countries, which the government can't do much about in the short term (changes to benefits will help a bit at the margin, but I don't think will have a big effect).
If you look at the actual figures by category, there's really no low-hanging fruit. The only major category where there looks to be scope for big reductions is EU immigration, but that would require us not only to leave the EU and the EEA, but also to negotiate a deal which excluded free movement: that is by no means a no-brainer; in fact, it looks extremely hard to me.
Very interesting post!
It's a post full of common sense and unfortunately for kippers, facts. A safer healthier and more democratic and prosperous world will lower the current pressures on migration. This to my mind is what aid and interventions are about. Our problem then is British migration increasing to more pleasant climes.
That's seriously your answer to immigration issues. Make the rest of the world so nice they won't want to leave. What should we do, send them Lawrence Llewelyn Bowen to spruce up Kandahar? You think that's easier than just not letting people in. And you call others loony.
I am actually quite interested in knowing what the mechanics were of the trying to reduce net immigration pledge.
I can only imagine some kind of selection criteria? How else?
They clamped down on the bogus college-scam, and they tightened up the non-EU point-based system considerably - it's actually now pretty draconian. They also tightened the financial criteria for bringing spouses in.
All that had some effect - immigration dropped by around 100,000 a year from 2010 to 2012/13.
However, there are also factors pushing in the other direction: emigration dropped, also by around 100,000 a year, between 2010 and now. More students are now coming here, hopefully bona-fide ones now, which everyone agrees is a good thing. And a lot more people are coming here from EU countries, which the government can't do much about in the short term (changes to benefits will help a bit at the margin, but I don't think will have a big effect).
If you look at the actual figures by category, there's really no low-hanging fruit. The only major category where there looks to be scope for big reductions is EU immigration, but that would require us not only to leave the EU and the EEA, but also to negotiate a deal which excluded free movement: that is by no means a no-brainer; in fact, it looks extremely hard to me.
Very interesting post!
It's a post full of common sense and unfortunately for kippers, facts. A safer healthier and more democratic and prosperous world will lower the current pressures on migration. This to my mind is what aid and interventions are about. Our problem then is British migration increasing to more pleasant climes.
I'm by no means a Conservative, but Cameron's approach (Hague must also get some credit) to aid and migration has generally been rational and coherent. He must be commended for keeping British spending on aid and international development relatively high - although, the political nature of this spending and question marks over how well it is targeted remain significant caveats.
A different pictures has definitely emerged since the Daily Mail's initial report of 3 white individuals...
Seems highly unlikely the argument at the party was the only reason. It is one thing to go home and come back shooting, but who just happens to have IED's lying around.
"Back at Inland Regional, authorities found three rudimentary explosive devices packed with black powder and rigged to a remote-controlled toy car. That remote was found inside the SUV. And in the vehicle was another pipe-like device, but it was not an explosive, Burguan said."
If it is proven to be terrorism, I wonder if this might push Trump over the line.
It would be the biggest terror attack on the US homeland since 9/11
@ARKWalton: Cameron had 36k likes on FB for announcing the Syria vote. Corbyn had 250k likes for announcing his disappointment. Democracy has failed.
I'll comment for you. Its the difference between adults who make difficult decisions even though they don't like them and children who think that a policy should be decided by the number of likes on social media.
And I say that as someone who opposes air strikes but understands that it was a balance call. No anger, no threats or likes/dislikes. A difference of opinion on the best way to proceed in a hugely difficult situation.
I am sure those people giving weight to Facebook likes are the same who thought Labour was going to walk the last election and it must have been stolen because hundreds of thousands of 16 year olds were posting about it on facebook.
Did you see the link I posted yesterday to the details of the profiles of Leave and Remain voters we discussed?
Yes mate and answered when you reposted it later on. Many thanks.
I look forward to all those momentum lads and ladettes standing for parliament themselves. EIther they will grown up or it will be the end of the Labour party.
Comments
I can only imagine some kind of selection criteria? How else?
Alex Salmond has looked like he has been sat on a thistle for weeks now. I don't know what his problem is. At least the SNP have managed to find someone just as smug and arrogant in Angus Robertson.
People without cars and umbrellas and some way from the polling station will be less likely to go out and vote.
If it's hosing down and I need some milk, I'm going to hold off despite owning an umbrella.
Can't see it happening, but was worth three quid for a grand.
I assume that the large Asian population handed their postal votes for Labour in at the mosque last Friday, if that assumption is correct then a very low turnout favours the red team.
We all know why, its because the govt is failing dismally.
We will find a way, or make one.
It's a foul old night out there. You'd need a really good reason to go and vote for any of them. Like, you're going to hell if you don't...
All that had some effect - immigration dropped by around 100,000 a year from 2010 to 2012/13.
However, there are also factors pushing in the other direction: emigration dropped, also by around 100,000 a year, between 2010 and now. More students are now coming here, hopefully bona-fide ones now, which everyone agrees is a good thing. And a lot more people are coming here from EU countries, which the government can't do much about in the short term (changes to benefits will help a bit at the margin, but I don't think will have a big effect).
If you look at the actual figures by category, there's really no low-hanging fruit. The only major category where there looks to be scope for big reductions is EU immigration, but that would require us not only to leave the EU and the EEA, but also to negotiate a deal which excluded free movement: that is by no means a no-brainer; in fact, it looks extremely hard to me.
My gut feeling is the latter of your scenarios, and a comfy Labour win on a silly turn out.
When will I ever learn
* 40% of a 30% turnout
"1.4 Taskin Ahmed to Imrul Kayes, no run, good length around off, gets behind the line to block
.
Oh my Lord! What a big chaos there..Back of a length and moving across, Kayes stays on the crease and pushes it in front of cover point. He was quickly off for the single but was sent back by Shehzad. Dilshan shy at the stumps but not able to hit and no one was backing up. Then the man from the deep ran forward and throws it towards the strikers end and Dilshan tries to ran across and collect it near the stumps, in the meantime even Kayes tries to move across for a run but collides with him and fall down. When all this happening Shehzad too ends up at the striker's end. And they goes upstairs as the fielder recollect the ball and throws it towards the bowler's end, looks like Shehzad needs to walk back. Oh Wait, more confusion and drama, after looking out numerous replays third umpire judges that as not-out. Looks like Dilshan deliberately tried to stop Kayes and hence five penalty runs has been awarded to the Victorians. They didn't count this ball and will be re-bowling. Also one run has been awarded to Imrul Kayes along with the penalty. "
http://www.espncricinfo.com/bangladesh-premier-league-2015-16/engine/match/935321.html
Run out with both batsmen at one end. TV umpire says not out and gives 5 penalty runs. Unprecedented I think
Batting team chased it down w 2 balls remaining
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVUKelDWoAAiBuA.jpg
In mitigation, though, I don't think anyone expected the disparity between the Eurozone and the UK job markets to be so dramatic, and that has undoubtedly been a large part of the problem.
I also think it's a good long-term aim to get net migration down below 100,000 a year, so I don't favour abandoning the target. But we have to be realistic about the timescale.
Lucas on QT tonight, so she'll no doubt be putting their position.
Not entirely fair – not even Ed could have predicted the stupidity of Ma Beckett & Co.
By the time the moderates realise that the entryists are serious about deselections it will be too late to do anything about it. They need to break away now if they want to stand a chance of getting SDP2 up and running in time for the 2020 election.
http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/ct24/svet/1628712-asad-pro-ct-rebelove-jsou-jako-zoldaci-vetsina-plni-zajmy-jinych
@ARKWalton: Cameron had 36k likes on FB for announcing the Syria vote. Corbyn had 250k likes for announcing his disappointment. Democracy has failed.
A safer healthier and more democratic and prosperous world will lower the current pressures on migration. This to my mind is what aid and interventions are about.
Our problem then is British migration increasing to more pleasant climes.
They really are a garbled, presentational mess.
Somehow, the bulletin has doubled in length since 2010 and it is a nightmare to extract information from. It is vastly inferior to the Labour Market Bulletin, by comparison.
My Labour man is blanking me. Is he worried Labour will lose? Probably not but...
"Would AV boost turnout in by elections?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34993447
And I say that as someone who opposes air strikes but understands that it was a balance call. No anger, no threats or likes/dislikes. A difference of opinion on the best way to proceed in a hugely difficult situation.
I am sure those people giving weight to Facebook likes are the same who thought Labour was going to walk the last election and it must have been stolen because hundreds of thousands of 16 year olds were posting about it on facebook.
Seems highly unlikely the argument at the party was the only reason. It is one thing to go home and come back shooting, but who just happens to have IED's lying around.
"Back at Inland Regional, authorities found three rudimentary explosive devices packed with black powder and rigged to a remote-controlled toy car. That remote was found inside the SUV. And in the vehicle was another pipe-like device, but it was not an explosive, Burguan said."
And even this time around it made the election process a bit of a circus, with both Tory's and SWP members signing up to vote for JC.
"...they tightened up the non-EU point-based system considerably - it's actually now pretty draconian ..."
So draconian that 286,000 people were able to immigrate, legally, from non-EU countries in the 12 months to June 2015. Perhaps the new draconian rules haven't kicked in yet, perhaps next year's figures will show a massive drop, perhaps that swooping sound going past my window was a squadron of Gloucester Old Spots on a night flying exercise.
@Sandpit
"A policy to seriously reduce immigration would mean that with a couple of professional exceptions we allow only higher rate taxpayers to move to the UK."
Sounds good to me. With the exception of genuine students (for whom separate arrangements must be made) anyone who is not a net taxpayer is a drain on the public purse and why should we wish to push the welfare bill even higher?
Caught with drugs in February 2014 and 'did spy deal to avoid prosecution'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3344214/The-Russian-spy-beheaded-countryman-orphan-recruited-secret-service-caught-drugs.html
Are you referring to George Osborne?
#DedicatedToPB
Arf - Did you expect such an early start when consenting to guest edit on Friday?
I look forward to all those momentum lads and ladettes standing for parliament themselves. EIther they will grown up or it will be the end of the Labour party.