People keep making the false and incorrect assumption that everyone on the minimum wage is a benefit claimant. They are not, just as all tax credit claimants are not minimum wage earners.
Actually I have addressed them. It will increase their cost base. They will have to charge more for their services or improve productivity enough to absorb them. At the margins there will be a loss of employment but the overall gain for the State is the cost of labour is more appropriately allocated to the employer.
It is not a "no brainer" but if the corner shop pays less we, the taxpayers, pay more. Where that trade off is best placed is tricky and liable to change as the economy changes but the objective of getting the cost of labour back on the employer is sound tory philosophy.
And there really is no need to be quite so defensive. The "free market" position is perfectly rational and supported by many on the right. I personally don't think they are right about this.
The unknown is if those people being laid off at the margins will increase the benefit bill either through JSA, or more likely by working elsewhere at lower hours (and the long tail of benefits that follows there from ), than the savings made by introducing the living wage.
I would expect the supervisor to get a pay rise though it may be less than 20%
Now we're making progress.
So the cleaner gets 20%, the supervisor slightly less, what about the manager?
Because eventually they'll all get paid the same.
Perhaps Osborne can give them all a blue suit and a bicycle too.
What an utterly bizarre attitude. Such hostility to people getting more money at a time when the labour market is buoyant and when employers could do with a nudge to make their employees more productive is baffling.
Mr Meeks, if it's bizarre perhaps you could help Mr Thompson out and answer my question below. It's easy to laud a popular, vote winning policy without looking in to the ramifications. You can call me angry, hostile or bizarre but you still won't address my perfectly reasonable questions.
It's scarcely a queation. The longstanding policy is to ensure that all employees receive a wage of a given value. That value is to increase sharply but effectively the same policy continues, at a higher level of aspiration. What employers choose to do in response for employees earning more than that value is their business.
Should it increase by further step changes in the future? Why not, as and when the economy is sufficeintly strong to bear those increased aspirations? Should we be aiming for complete equality of wages? That's not on anyone's agenda as far as I know and it doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
I'm completely at a loss to see just what riles you so much about this.
I appreciate you're at a loss but Mr Thompson and other Tories on here know exactly the point I'm making. You don't roll back the state on one hand and enforce pay rises on companies on the other.
Now you're not the only person that thinks a living wage is a good idea, I'm curious why those that opposed a min wage now want to raise it.
Incidentally, I haven't said whether or not I agree with it.
You've totally missed the tax/benefits point.
No I haven't.
And you wonder why you are seen as hostile.
Dear me, you accuse me of something unfairly and then call me hostile!
I'd be grateful if you could address me questions below.
When I've answered your questions you've ignored the answers...
If the British electorate were to vote Leave, would that be the end of the matter? Of course not. There would then follow a period of frantic negotiations and concession making by other EU members, not least the Germans, seeking to persuade us to change our minds, probably resulting in a further do or die referendum a couple of years later.
You still don't address my question about the impact on SMEs and those currently earning the living wage.
This is a clever tactic, publish a popular but ill considered policy and then attack as heartless those who oppose it. Labour did it for 18 years now the Tories have picked up the baton.
I've already been called angry and hostile for asking perfectly reasonable questions.
Osborne has a massive problem, the living wage will massively Impact SMEs, now he wants them to file tax returns quarterly. Thatcher understood who voted for her.
Mr 63, if someone has a business model based on the state paying his workers enough to live on then he deserves to go under. Actually what such a business owner is doing is enriching himself at the expense of the taxpayer.
(For those that worry about such things please read he/his/himself as gender neutral shorthand. I do know that ladies also run SMEs)
Many care home and aspects of social care will go under.
"I think Nigel Farage is right, the way to fight membership of the European Union is on immigration"
Then Finkelstein is a fool.
Why? It is the most important issue to many people, one that they see the effects of in their daily lives. The more high minded approach may appeal to politicos who like to use a thousand words to say what could be said in ten, but their vote is only worth the same as the millions of people who want something done about immigration and its effect on their life
I agree that immigration is a concern for a great many people, but is not the only important issue the UK faces and is not necessarily the concern of the undecideds who will ultimately decide the outcome of the referendum. – Strikes me as daft for the Leave camp to have only one string to its bow.
Its the most relevant issue and the easiest to make a point with to many people who aren't interested in politics. The technical arguments for leaving just wont resonate with 99% of people however much they turn on those who like arguing about politics
It's not about motivating the 35% for whom immigration is the biggest issue. Those people will come and vote Out regardless.
You say that as if the other 65% are pro immigration!
I'm not saying the other 65% are pro immigration.
But don't forget that half the country barely sees an immigrant. The vast majority of immigration (particularly EU immigration) is into the South East.
You really are out of touch with how things have changed during the last decade.
I mostly agree with that. I think if it was certain that Leave meant EEA on pre-negotiated terms that would change things a lot.
Here's the difficulty:
If it's EU vs EEA, then a lot of business people support Out, but a lot of people for whom immigration is the biggest issue throw their hands up and complain that it's a big stitch up.
If it's EU vs Completely Out, then there will be very little business support, and quite a lot of EEA supporters will reluctantly decide that going with the EU is less of a risk.
Let me tell you about my day job. I am a fund manager at a medium sized firm. We have a lot of European clients - mostly in France and Norway. The EEA single market for services (and financial services) means we can sell to people across the continent under UK regulation, and without having local offices and regulated entities, and capital sitting in local company subsidiaries, etc. When we sell our products to Australians and Canadians, we use local firms to provide that regulatory shield for us. But, of course, they take a third of the revenue. If we left and joined the EEA, it would be business as usual for us. If we left and went completely alone, it would be a very serious issue for our business. We'd either need to invest in opening a regulated Paris office, and put up capital there, or use a firm inside the EU to distribute our product and lose a significant chunk of the revenue. I don't think anyone at my firm would choose Completely Out over EU. But quite a lot would choose EEA over EU.
Why?
Apart from no CAP or CFP, and saving a bit of money on EU contributions, why pick EEA over EFTA?
That a number of individually justifiable measures need to be taken just suggests that the previous government was quite happy to manipulate the system for their own advantage and that these need to be reversed.
Complaining about the cut in Short money in particular is not likely to meet with much favour from taxpayers who have had to deal with plenty of cuts themselves.
I wouldn't necessarily agree that the individual measures are justifiable, but that's not Rawnsley's point. There are lots of things in the political landscape that are arguably undesirable and could be changed, but if you select only those which damage whoever happens to be in opposition, there an overall undemocratic intent at work.
To take your example, funding of opposition. The Short money was introduced by a Labour government to help the opposition research alternative policies, to compensate for the lack of access to the Civil Service. It has never been seen as controversial, since it's in the national interest that both sides have well-researched policies. It's being reduced at the same time as new restrictions are imposed on another funding stream for the opposition, union donations.
If a genuine attempt was being made to reduce the cost of politics, few would grumble - we could lower the national spending limits and close the loopholes on targeting of marginals. But nothing whatsoever is being done to reduce the flow of money from businesses to the governing party. The intent is clearly partisan.
Businesses are able to fund whoever they want with their own money. Unions are having their right to fund whoever they want with other people's money restricted. It's an asymmetric problem so of course deserves an asymmetric response.
As for Short money, if it's to help opposition parties research policies, Corbyn's Labour doesn't need it: he already knows what he likes and who he wants to emulate.
Unions have representative conferencesx where the ordinary member has a chance to have his or her say.
Mr. L., I often read on these pages of people wanting to know what precisely what what the out option would entail. Would we have X, or Y, would we be a member of A and under what terms? And so on. The problem is that nobody can know. A leaving state's future relationship with the EU can only be negotiated after that state has decided to leave and has invoked Article 50. It is EU's very own Catch 22.
So, if you want to know what leaving would entail vis a vis our future relationship with the EU then you are going to be disappointed. Furthermore, anyone trying to make their case to go or stay on the basis of the terms of that relationship (looking at you FlightPath) is being disingenuous.
I suppose the out campaigners could campaign on what they would hope to negotiate, but that would be a mess a minute's consideration would reveal. Better then to campaign on broad principles, immigration, rule of law, ability to make our own mistakes, ability to kick out the rascals who make the mistakes, outward looking to the world, freedom, £10bn a year contributions, and so on and so forth.
On a tangent, there will be a new EU treaty see the Five President's Report and that treaty will I think cast the UK into associate member status by virtue of the fact that we will not be a member of the Euro. However the timescale for the new treaty is not one that suits Mr. Cameron. So even if Remain wins this time I think there will be another referendum within ten years or so as to whether the UK will want to be an associate member.
The details are a matter of negotiation but the direction of travel is not. Let's keep it simple: in the EEA or out of it? As Robert said downthread within the EEA but out of the EU is quite acceptable from a business perspective. It does mean some arguments, notably immigration, are not in play. Out needs to be honest and clear about this. Lying and fantasy is for losers, ask the SNP.
I mostly agree with that. I think if it was certain that Leave meant EEA on pre-negotiated terms that would change things a lot.
Here's the difficulty:
If it's EU vs EEA, then a lot of business people support Out, but a lot of people for whom immigration is the biggest issue throw their hands up and complain that it's a big stitch up.
If it's EU vs Completely Out, then there will be very little business support, and quite a lot of EEA supporters will reluctantly decide that going with the EU is less of a risk.
Let me tell you about my day job. I am a fund manager at a medium sized firm. We have a lot of European clients - mostly in France and Norway. The EEA single market for services (and financial services) means we can sell to people across the continent under UK regulation, and without having local offices and regulated entities, and capital sitting in local company subsidiaries, etc. When we sell our products to Australians and Canadians, we use local firms to provide that regulatory shield for us. But, of course, they take a third of the revenue. If we left and joined the EEA, it would be business as usual for us. If we left and went completely alone, it would be a very serious issue for our business. We'd either need to invest in opening a regulated Paris office, and put up capital there, or use a firm inside the EU to distribute our product and lose a significant chunk of the revenue. I don't think anyone at my firm would choose Completely Out over EU. But quite a lot would choose EEA over EU.
Why?
Apart from no CAP or CFP, and saving a bit of money on EU contributions, why pick EEA over EFTA?
ICYMI-@Kevin_Maguire Dec 19 "Why did 800 people boo George Osborne at the London premiere of the new Star Wars film? That was the cinema's capacity". Confirms Osborne's price is too short and a lay,lay,lay-in the betting sense.If he goes for Remain,he could easily be on the wrong side of the selectorate of the Tory party and he polls worse than Jezza.Corbyn v Osborne could swing things Labour's way on the vital question of leadership.Osborne just hasn't got it and Corbyn's consensual and inclusive style may be an attractive alternative.
I mostly agree with that. I think if it was certain that Leave meant EEA on pre-negotiated terms that would change things a lot.
Here's the difficulty:
If it's EU vs EEA, then a lot of business people support Out, but a lot of people for whom immigration is the biggest issue throw their hands up and complain that it's a big stitch up.
If it's EU vs Completely Out, then there will be very little business support, and quite a lot of EEA supporters will reluctantly decide that going with the EU is less of a risk.
Let me tell you about my day job. I am a fund manager at a medium sized firm. We have a lot of European clients - mostly in France and Norway. The EEA single market for services (and financial services) means we can sell to people across the continent under UK regulation, and without having local offices and regulated entities, and capital sitting in local company subsidiaries, etc. When we sell our products to Australians and Canadians, we use local firms to provide that regulatory shield for us. But, of course, they take a third of the revenue. If we left and joined the EEA, it would be business as usual for us. If we left and went completely alone, it would be a very serious issue for our business. We'd either need to invest in opening a regulated Paris office, and put up capital there, or use a firm inside the EU to distribute our product and lose a significant chunk of the revenue. I don't think anyone at my firm would choose Completely Out over EU. But quite a lot would choose EEA over EU.
Why?
Apart from no CAP or CFP, and saving a bit of money on EU contributions, why pick EEA over EFTA?
Same thing, isn't it? I thought EEA was EU + EFTA.
"I think Nigel Farage is right, the way to fight membership of the European Union is on immigration"
Then Finkelstein is a fool.
Why? It is the most important issue to many people, one that they see the effects of in their daily lives. The more high minded approach may appeal to politicos who like to use a thousand words to say what could be said in ten, but their vote is only worth the same as the millions of people who want something done about immigration and its effect on their life
I agree that immigration is a concern for a great many people, but is not the only important issue the UK faces and is not necessarily the concern of the undecideds who will ultimately decide the outcome of the referendum. – Strikes me as daft for the Leave camp to have only one string to its bow.
Its the most relevant issue and the easiest to make a point with to many people who aren't interested in politics. The technical arguments for leaving just wont resonate with 99% of people however much they turn on those who like arguing about politics
It's not about motivating the 35% for whom immigration is the biggest issue. Those people will come and vote Out regardless.
You say that as if the other 65% are pro immigration!
I'm not saying the other 65% are pro immigration.
But don't forget that half the country barely sees an immigrant. The vast majority of immigration (particularly EU immigration) is into the South East.
You really are out of touch with how things have changed during the last decade.
Isn't more than 90% of EU immigration in London and the South East? (In fact, I'm remembering 93%, but I could be wrong)
"I think Nigel Farage is right, the way to fight membership of the European Union is on immigration"
Then Finkelstein is a fool.
Why? It is the most important issue to many people, one that they see the effects of in their daily lives. The more high minded approach may appeal to politicos who like to use a thousand words to say what could be said in ten, but their vote is only worth the same as the millions of people who want something done about immigration and its effect on their life
I agree that immigration is a concern for a great many people, but is not the only important issue the UK faces and is not necessarily the concern of the undecideds who will ultimately decide the outcome of the referendum. – Strikes me as daft for the Leave camp to have only one string to its bow.
Its the most relevant issue and the easiest to make a point with to many people who aren't interested in politics. The technical arguments for leaving just wont resonate with 99% of people however much they turn on those who like arguing about politics
It's not about motivating the 35% for whom immigration is the biggest issue. Those people will come and vote Out regardless.
You say that as if the other 65% are pro immigration!
I'm not saying the other 65% are pro immigration.
But don't forget that half the country barely sees an immigrant. The vast majority of immigration (particularly EU immigration) is into the South East.
You really are out of touch with how things have changed during the last decade.
That might be putting it a bit strongly, but I broadly agree. When I am not in Asia, my home from home is deepest rural Herefordshire, which until recently was very much an Anglosaxon outpost, a lot of the old-timers are now "bemused" (for want of a better word) to see whole rows of "polski sklep" opening in their high streets. No, its not exactly Beirut, but the cultural dislocation being felt in some rural communities is definitely strongly perceptible.
You still don't address my question about the impact on SMEs and those currently earning the living wage.
This is a clever tactic, publish a popular but ill considered policy and then attack as heartless those who oppose it. Labour did it for 18 years now the Tories have picked up the baton.
I've already been called angry and hostile for asking perfectly reasonable questions.
Osborne has a massive problem, the living wage will massively Impact SMEs, now he wants them to file tax returns quarterly. Thatcher understood who voted for her.
Mr 63, if someone has a business model based on the state paying his workers enough to live on then he deserves to go under. Actually what such a business owner is doing is enriching himself at the expense of the taxpayer.
(For those that worry about such things please read he/his/himself as gender neutral shorthand. I do know that ladies also run SMEs)
That a number of individually justifiable measures need to be taken just suggests that the previous government was quite happy to manipulate the system for their own advantage and that these need to be reversed.
Complaining about the cut in Short money in particular is not likely to meet with much favour from taxpayers who have had to deal with plenty of cuts themselves.
I wouldn't necessarily agree that the individual measures are justifiable, but that's not Rawnsley's point. There are lots of things in the political landscape that are arguably undesirable and could be changed, but if you select only those which damage whoever happens to be in opposition, there an overall undemocratic intent at work.
To take your example, funding of opposition. The Short money was introduced by a Labour government to help the opposition research alternative policies, to compensate for the lack of access to the Civil Service. It has never been seen as controversial, since it's in the national interest that both sides have well-researched policies. It's being reduced at the same time as new restrictions are imposed on another funding stream for the opposition, union donations.
If a genuine attempt was being made to reduce the cost of politics, few would grumble - we could lower the national spending limits and close the loopholes on targeting of marginals. But nothing whatsoever is being done to reduce the flow of money from businesses to the governing party. The intent is clearly partisan.
Businesses are able to fund whoever they want with their own money. Unions are having their right to fund whoever they want with other people's money restricted. It's an asymmetric problem so of course deserves an asymmetric response.
As for Short money, if it's to help opposition parties research policies, Corbyn's Labour doesn't need it: he already knows what he likes and who he wants to emulate.
Unions have representative conferencesx where the ordinary member has a chance to have his or her say.
In theory, perhaps.
In the past I've been offered the chance of being part of the process. I difdn't take for my own reasons, but the opportunity was there. And it wasn't just me.
''If the British electorate were to vote Leave, would that be the end of the matter? Of course not. There would then follow a period of frantic negotiations and concession making by other EU members, not least the Germans, seeking to persuade us to change our minds, probably resulting in a further do or die referendum a couple of years later.''
Best argument for voting no that I can think of. Never accept the first offer.
On topic, the UK (or more accurately, England and a good chunk of Wales) voted Tory because like me they were shitting their pants about an Ed Miliband led Labour government taking office with the tacit aid of the SNP.
That does not imply a lack of concern about immigration. Under FPTP, most of the electorate really didn't have much of a choice. Although it's worth nothing from what Labour have been talking about that had Labour taken office, immigration would already be much higher. For example, by participating in the EU's system for resettling "Syrian" refugees EU-wide. And we'd have no renegotiation or referendum either.
FWIW, I disagree with that internal note to the PM. There was - and is - a strong offer the Conservatives can and should continue to make UKIP supporters based on their manifesto with regard to strong defence, support for marriage in the tax system, EVEL, human rights reform, lower immigration (than Labour) and a modicum of Euroscepticism. If they had any sense, they could leverage the big society narrative on local communities, neighbourliness, pubs, churches, village halls and working men's clubs too to strengthen vulnerable communities.
The big issue is that the Tory leadership just don't really like UKIP or their supporters and voters, and can't help but be rude to them.
1. The extension of QMV through Lisbon combined with the development of a EZ bloc that has that majority. It seems inevitable that the economic policy of the EU will develop in ways not to our advantage and that we may not be able to stop it. Examples have been the FTT, which basically meant London paying taxes for the whole of the EU, the slow to stop development of the single market in services in which we are strong and the threats of having to have establishments in the EZ to provide financial services there.
I started writing a very long piece about the proposed FTT, but the important bit to remember is:
@blackburn63 is correct that the living wage will affect more people than the current NMW. It means that relatively modest differentials amongst the low skilled become devalued since they get paid the same. This can reduce the incentive to train and get qualifications which can have long term implications for productivity. It also increases the marginal cost of labour which means that the "natural" rate of unemployment will be fractionally higher than it would be in a genuinely free market.
But I am still strongly in favour of it. Once you accept that the State has some sort of duty to provide a safety net which allows people to have a minimum standard of living the question is really who pays for it. WTC puts an unacceptable and unsustainable share of that burden on the tax payer. It should rest on those who want to employ the worker and make a profit from his labour. Increasing the cost of labour also incentivises employers to improve productivity offsetting the negative effect I have described above.
What is the sustainable level of living wage very much depends on the state of the economy and the opportunities available to make profit from labour. When the economy is generating hundreds of thousands of additional jobs a year there is, as Alastair points out, an opportunity to transfer more of the costs of employment to the employer and Osborne was right to take it. The living wage is one of his more important policies in delivering welfare cuts and I think, despite the issues in paragraph 1, Tories should support it wholeheartedly.
You still don't address my question about the impact on SMEs and those currently earning the living wage.
This is a clever tactic, publish a popular but ill considered policy and then attack as heartless those who oppose it. Labour did it for 18 years now the Tories have picked up the baton.
I've already been called angry and hostile for asking perfectly reasonable questions. Osborne has a massive problem, the living wage will massively Impact SMEs, now he wants them to file tax returns quarterly. Thatcher understood who voted for her.
You are happy to ignore the cuts in corporation tax; it was 28% under Brown, it has been cut to 20% under Osborne and will be cut to 18%. You have an obsession with SMEs but the govt is in part at least funding this cut in CT (which is a benefit to SMEs by raising £7.8bn from big business during this parliament by forcing companies with profits of more than £20m a year to pay their corporation tax four months early. Meantime why should poor income tax payers fund any company because it does not pay fair wages. As soon as we have any benefits system the whole relationship changes when we get taxpayers funding tax credits to low wage earners. Why should I as a tax payer pay a penny to help the likes of Ashley laugh all the way to the bank??
''If the British electorate were to vote Leave, would that be the end of the matter? Of course not. There would then follow a period of frantic negotiations and concession making by other EU members, not least the Germans, seeking to persuade us to change our minds, probably resulting in a further do or die referendum a couple of years later.''
Best argument for voting no that I can think of. Never accept the first offer.
Actually I have addressed them. It will increase their cost base. They will have to charge more for their services or improve productivity enough to absorb them. At the margins there will be a loss of employment but the overall gain for the State is the cost of labour is more appropriately allocated to the employer.
It is not a "no brainer" but if the corner shop pays less we, the taxpayers, pay more. Where that trade off is best placed is tricky and liable to change as the economy changes but the objective of getting the cost of labour back on the employer is sound tory philosophy.
And there really is no need to be quite so defensive. The "free market" position is perfectly rational and supported by many on the right. I personally don't think they are right about this.
The unknown is if those people being laid off at the margins will increase the benefit bill either through JSA, or more likely by working elsewhere at lower hours (and the long tail of benefits that follows there from ), than the savings made by introducing the living wage.
Sure, that is a matter of calculation. But Osborne inherited a situation where an increase in employment meant that the benefit bill went up. It is one of the main reasons that growth in employment has not brought the deficit bill down in the way it normally did. That has to change or we have to all pay a lot more tax. Personally I would rather pay another 20p for my cappuccino.
"I think Nigel Farage is right, the way to fight membership of the European Union is on immigration"
Then Finkelstein is a fool.
Why? It is the most important issue to many people, one that they see the effects of in their daily lives. The more high minded approach may appeal to politicos who like to use a thousand words to say what could be said in ten, but their vote is only worth the same as the millions of people who want something done about immigration and its effect on their life
I agree that immigration is a concern for a great many people, but is not the only important issue the UK faces and is not necessarily the concern of the undecideds who will ultimately decide the outcome of the referendum. – Strikes me as daft for the Leave camp to have only one string to its bow.
Its the most relevant issue and the easiest to make a point with to many people who aren't interested in politics. The technical arguments for leaving just wont resonate with 99% of people however much they turn on those who like arguing about politics
It's not about motivating the 35% for whom immigration is the biggest issue. Those people will come and vote Out regardless.
You say that as if the other 65% are pro immigration!
I'm not saying the other 65% are pro immigration.
But don't forget that half the country barely sees an immigrant. The vast majority of immigration (particularly EU immigration) is into the South East.
You really are out of touch with how things have changed during the last decade.
That might be putting it a bit strongly, but I broadly agree. When I am not in Asia, my home from home is deepest rural Herefordshire, which until recently was very much an Anglosaxon outpost, a lot of the old-timers are now "bemused" (for want of a better word) to see whole rows of "polski sklep" opening in their high streets. No, its not exactly Beirut, but the cultural dislocation being felt in some rural communities is definitely strongly perceptible.
"I think Nigel Farage is right, the way to fight membership of the European Union is on immigration"
Then Finkelstein is a fool.
Why? It is the most important issue to many people, one that they see the effects of in their daily lives. The more high minded approach may appeal to politicos who like to use a thousand words to say what could be said in ten, but their vote is only worth the same as the millions of people who want something done about immigration and its effect on their life
I agree that immigration is a concern for a great many people, but is not the only important issue the UK faces and is not necessarily the concern of the undecideds who will ultimately decide the outcome of the referendum. – Strikes me as daft for the Leave camp to have only one string to its bow.
Its the most relevant issue and the easiest to make a point with to many people who aren't interested in politics. The technical arguments for leaving just wont resonate with 99% of people however much they turn on those who like arguing about politics
It's not about motivating the 35% for whom immigration is the biggest issue. Those people will come and vote Out regardless.
You say that as if the other 65% are pro immigration!
I'm not saying the other 65% are pro immigration.
But don't forget that half the country barely sees an immigrant. The vast majority of immigration (particularly EU immigration) is into the South East.
You really are out of touch with how things have changed during the last decade.
Isn't more than 90% of EU immigration in London and the South East? (In fact, I'm remembering 93%, but I could be wrong)
"I think Nigel Farage is right, the way to fight membership of the European Union is on immigration"
Then Finkelstein is a fool.
Why? It is the most important issue to many people, one that they see the effects of in their daily lives. The more high minded approach may appeal to politicos who like to use a thousand words to say what could be said in ten, but their vote is only worth the same as the millions of people who want something done about immigration and its effect on their life
I agree that immigration is a concern for a great many people, but is not the only important issue the UK faces and is not necessarily the concern of the undecideds who will ultimately decide the outcome of the referendum. – Strikes me as daft for the Leave camp to have only one string to its bow.
Its the most relevant issue and the easiest to make a point with to many people who aren't interested in politics. The technical arguments for leaving just wont resonate with 99% of people however much they turn on those who like arguing about politics
It's not about motivating the 35% for whom immigration is the biggest issue. Those people will come and vote Out regardless.
You say that as if the other 65% are pro immigration!
I'm not saying the other 65% are pro immigration.
But don't forget that half the country barely sees an immigrant. The vast majority of immigration (particularly EU immigration) is into the South East.
You really are out of touch with how things have changed during the last decade.
Isn't more than 90% of EU immigration in London and the South East? (In fact, I'm remembering 93%, but I could be wrong)
Go to Lincolnshire. Or Cheshire.
Yes, of course there are immigrants there.
But still, of the 2.34m EU citizens in the UK, aren't 2m of them in London and the South East?
You still don't address my question about the impact on SMEs and those currently earning the living wage.
This is a clever tactic, publish a popular but ill considered policy and then attack as heartless those who oppose it. Labour did it for 18 years now the Tories have picked up the baton.
I've already been called angry and hostile for asking perfectly reasonable questions.
Osborne has a massive problem, the living wage will massively Impact SMEs, now he wants them to file tax returns quarterly. Thatcher understood who voted for her.
Mr 63, if someone has a business model based on the state paying his workers enough to live on then he deserves to go under. Actually what such a business owner is doing is enriching himself at the expense of the taxpayer.
(For those that worry about such things please read he/his/himself as gender neutral shorthand. I do know that ladies also run SMEs)
Oh... I was reading The Guardian, and it told me that each Nail Bar also had 10 Vietnamese women on the game, perhaps that is where this complication comes from ?
You still don't address my question about the impact on SMEs and those currently earning the living wage.
This is a clever tactic, publish a popular but ill considered policy and then attack as heartless those who oppose it. Labour did it for 18 years now the Tories have picked up the baton.
I've already been called angry and hostile for asking perfectly reasonable questions.
Osborne has a massive problem, the living wage will massively Impact SMEs, now he wants them to file tax returns quarterly. Thatcher understood who voted for her.
Mr 63, if someone has a business model based on the state paying his workers enough to live on then he deserves to go under. Actually what such a business owner is doing is enriching himself at the expense of the taxpayer.
(For those that worry about such things please read he/his/himself as gender neutral shorthand. I do know that ladies also run SMEs)
Many care home and aspects of social care will go under.
Why so, Doc? Care homes will have to raise their fees (which I admit are already eye-watering) but all the rise in NMW will do is remove, in part at least, a hidden subsidy.
I have met a few care home owners in my time and none of them have been poor or even in the struggling middle-class bracket. They are making a lot of money on the back of the taxpayer. Let us have it up front, they can pay their people properly and the increased fees can be paid either by their patients or the state as now but it will be in the open.
*Places mischievous hat on head*
Of course if the medical profession were less het up about prolonging life in all circumstances the problem would be far smaller than it is. Slash booze/fag taxes, provide pensioners with a daily ration of more than the wretched twenty-odd units a week and watch the social care problems fade.
I mostly agree with that. I think if it was certain that Leave meant EEA on pre-negotiated terms that would change things a lot.
Here's the difficulty:
If it's EU vs EEA, then a lot of business people support Out, but a lot of people for whom immigration is the biggest issue throw their hands up and complain that it's a big stitch up.
If it's EU vs Completely Out, then there will be very little business support, and quite a lot of EEA supporters will reluctantly decide that going with the EU is less of a risk.
Let me tell you about my day job. I am a fund manager at a medium sized firm. We have a lot of European clients - mostly in France and Norway. The EEA single market for services (and financial services) means we can sell to people across the continent under UK regulation, and without having local offices and regulated entities, and capital sitting in local company subsidiaries, etc. When we sell our products to Australians and Canadians, we use local firms to provide that regulatory shield for us. But, of course, they take a third of the revenue. If we left and joined the EEA, it would be business as usual for us. If we left and went completely alone, it would be a very serious issue for our business. We'd either need to invest in opening a regulated Paris office, and put up capital there, or use a firm inside the EU to distribute our product and lose a significant chunk of the revenue. I don't think anyone at my firm would choose Completely Out over EU. But quite a lot would choose EEA over EU.
Why?
Apart from no CAP or CFP, and saving a bit of money on EU contributions, why pick EEA over EFTA?
I'm using EEA as shorthand for EFTA/EEA.
Fair enough, but I think there are differences.
The U.K joining EFTA would fundamentally alter its weight and structure but I think that's my preference as it gives us more options on trade and our degree of integration with the ECJ and single market.
In the short-term it also maintains the four freedoms, whilst giving us emergency powers on EU immigration, if invoked, too.
We absolutely need a functioning Opposition but it's not the Government's job to provide it. Of course the Government should not do anything genuinely anti-democratic - real gerrymandering, for example - and if it does that should be vigorously opposed by everyone. I don't think that applies here.
The broader problem here is that since Labour have decided to entertain themselves in a gentleman's way rather than putting up an alternative that looks like it may have a reasonable shot of taking over the government, the governing party doesn't need to worry that it'll end up in opposition. That removes the incentives to make sure the system is balanced so they don't get too badly screwed when their term in office comes to an end.
Very true.
When I said "vigorously opposed by everyone" it did occur to me that that mostly just means ineffectual huffing. The only real check on government is the knowledge that they won't always be in office.
With that said, I don't think anyone seriously expects a 1000 Year Tory Reich do they? So there is still the understanding that the boot will change foot. Maybe not to a Labour foot, but someone's.
I think you are very seriously wrong. The Scotland referendum example is against you. When it looked like Cameron might lose, there were extra concessions galore.
1. The extension of QMV through Lisbon combined with the development of a EZ bloc that has that majority. It seems inevitable that the economic policy of the EU will develop in ways not to our advantage and that we may not be able to stop it. Examples have been the FTT, which basically meant London paying taxes for the whole of the EU, the slow to stop development of the single market in services in which we are strong and the threats of having to have establishments in the EZ to provide financial services there.
I started writing a very long piece about the proposed FTT, but the important bit to remember is:
"I think Nigel Farage is right, the way to fight membership of the European Union is on immigration"
Then Finkelstein is a fool.
Why? It is the most important issue to many people, one that they see the effects of in their daily lives. The more high minded approach may appeal to politicos who like to use a thousand words to say what could be said in ten, but their vote is only worth the same as the millions of people who want something done about immigration and its effect on their life
I agree that immigration is a concern for a great many people, but is not the only important issue the UK faces and is not necessarily the concern of the undecideds who will ultimately decide the outcome of the referendum. – Strikes me as daft for the Leave camp to have only one string to its bow.
Its the most relevant issue and the easiest to make a point with to many people who aren't interested in politics. The technical arguments for leaving just wont resonate with 99% of people however much they turn on those who like arguing about politics
It's not about motivating the 35% for whom immigration is the biggest issue. Those people will come and vote Out regardless.
You say that as if the other 65% are pro immigration!
I'm not saying the other 65% are pro immigration.
But don't forget that half the country barely sees an immigrant. The vast majority of immigration (particularly EU immigration) is into the South East.
You really are out of touch with how things have changed during the last decade.
Isn't more than 90% of EU immigration in London and the South East? (In fact, I'm remembering 93%, but I could be wrong)
Go to Lincolnshire. Or Cheshire.
Yes, of course there are immigrants there.
But still, of the 2.34m EU citizens in the UK, aren't 2m of them in London and the South East?
I'm not familiar with the detailed statistics. But the proportionate impact on the population of towns like Boston, Spalding and Crewe has been significant, and they now feel very different from 10-15 years ago.
Miss Plato, "In response as a protest, the woman has mischievously put up what she calls an ‘extra special’ display."
Comes to something when putting up Christmas decorations is a minor act of rebellion against officialdom.
Also worth considering how Germany will cope with a million (over 1% of their population has arrived this year), some from Syria, but many from the Balkans, Africa, or other Middle Eastern countries.
"I think Nigel Farage is right, the way to fight membership of the European Union is on immigration"
Then Finkelstein is a fool.
Why? It is the most important issue to many people, one that they see the effects of in their daily lives. The more high minded approach may appeal to politicos who like to use a thousand words to say what could be said in ten, but their vote is only worth the same as the millions of people who want something done about immigration and its effect on their life
I agree that immigration is a concern for a great many people, but is not the only important issue the UK faces and is not necessarily the concern of the undecideds who will ultimately decide the outcome of the referendum. – Strikes me as daft for the Leave camp to have only one string to its bow.
Its the most relevant issue and the easiest to make a point with to many people who aren't interested in politics. The technical arguments for leaving just wont resonate with 99% of people however much they turn on those who like arguing about politics
It's not about motivating the 35% for whom immigration is the biggest issue. Those people will come and vote Out regardless.
You say that as if the other 65% are pro immigration!
I'm not saying the other 65% are pro immigration.
But don't forget that half the country barely sees an immigrant. The vast majority of immigration (particularly EU immigration) is into the South East.
You really are out of touch with how things have changed during the last decade.
Indeed. My folks are in rural Cumbria, and have stated on several occasions that they see a lot of immigrants. Now, admittedly, this is compared a vanishingly small base, and a lot are tradesmen so have more contact with the community than average. But still, saying "half the country barely sees an immigrant" is a sign that someone needs to leave the capital more...
[As an aside, Mum and Dad think the new tradesmen and better and cheaper than the local ones, who needed a "kick up the arse" in their view.]
I mostly agree with that. I think if it was certain that Leave meant EEA on pre-negotiated terms that would change things a lot.
Here's the difficulty:
If it's EU vs EEA, then a lot of business people support Out, but a lot of people for whom immigration is the biggest issue throw their hands up and complain that it's a big stitch up.
If it's EU vs Completely Out, then there will be very little business support, and quite a lot of EEA supporters will reluctantly decide that going with the EU is less of a risk.
Let me tell you about my day job. I am a fund manager at a medium sized firm. We have a lot of European clients - mostly in France and Norway. The EEA single market for services (and financial services) means we can sell to people across the continent under UK regulation, and without having local offices and regulated entities, and capital sitting in local company subsidiaries, etc. When we sell our products to Australians and Canadians, we use local firms to provide that regulatory shield for us. But, of course, they take a third of the revenue. If we left and joined the EEA, it would be business as usual for us. If we left and went completely alone, it would be a very serious issue for our business. We'd either need to invest in opening a regulated Paris office, and put up capital there, or use a firm inside the EU to distribute our product and lose a significant chunk of the revenue. I don't think anyone at my firm would choose Completely Out over EU. But quite a lot would choose EEA over EU.
Why?
Apart from no CAP or CFP, and saving a bit of money on EU contributions, why pick EEA over EFTA?
I'm using EEA as shorthand for EFTA/EEA.
Fair enough, but I think there are differences.
The U.K joining EFTA would fundamentally alter its weight and structure but I think that's my preference as it gives us more options on trade and our degree of integration with the ECJ and single market.
In the short-term it also maintains the four freedoms, whilst giving us emergency powers on EU immigration, if invoked, too.
My memory is not what it was but were we not a member of EFTA before we left to join the EU? What was wrong with EFTA that made us leave in the first place?
If anyone is interested (unlikely) my preferred option is that we step outside all of these groupings and negotiate our own relationship. We are big enough to do so and the world has moved on from the 1950s where being part of a gang was a good idea.
Miss Plato, "In response as a protest, the woman has mischievously put up what she calls an ‘extra special’ display."
Comes to something when putting up Christmas decorations is a minor act of rebellion against officialdom.
Also worth considering how Germany will cope with a million (over 1% of their population has arrived this year), some from Syria, but many from the Balkans, Africa, or other Middle Eastern countries.
Meantime why should poor income tax payers fund any company because it does not pay fair wages.
If someone has four or more children - as 276,000 tax credit families have - who is really responsible for generating their tax credit need? The employer?
Why indeed, are tax credits being given at up to £75pw (with Child Benefit) per child ? Who deemed that necessary? How is the employer responsible for that number or the reproductive activity?
You have an obsession with SMEs but the govt is in part at least funding this cut in CT (which is a benefit to SMEs by raising £7.8bn from big business during this parliament by forcing companies with profits of more than £20m a year to pay their corporation tax four months early.
CT is charged on profits, most starting small businesses don't make a noticeable profit for several years so that will make them nothing.
SMEs comprise 60% of the private sector employment in the UK, and 47% of the private sector turnover in the UK, any Tory that cared about business not tribalism or pensions should be very interested in SMEs
We absolutely need a functioning Opposition but it's not the Government's job to provide it. Of course the Government should not do anything genuinely anti-democratic - real gerrymandering, for example - and if it does that should be vigorously opposed by everyone. I don't think that applies here.
The broader problem here is that since Labour have decided to entertain themselves in a gentleman's way rather than putting up an alternative that looks like it may have a reasonable shot of taking over the government, the governing party doesn't need to worry that it'll end up in opposition. That removes the incentives to make sure the system is balanced so they don't get too badly screwed when their term in office comes to an end.
The Tories have given the next non-Tory government a green light to rewrite the constitution and tackle party funding in an entirely non-consultative way. We won't get one for a while, but when we do the next non-Tory government will prioritise putting the Tories in as weak a position as possible.
The way I look at the EU is to ask myself "if we weren't already in it now, would I be joining it today?"
But we are in it and that's the key point. The opportunity cost of the upheaval of either leaving ( or hypothetically joining) is too great. There are more important problems to solve.
The key point is that people are being asked if they want to stay in. If they decide they want out, they aren't going to accept a feeble "but it's Too Difficult to Do..." line. That is just badgering them that there is only one outcome.
If our politicians, diplomats and civil servants can't find a way to implement the will of the people in a Referendum, then they should resign. Or be sacked.
And there are no more important problems to solve than having the fullest range of tools possible to decide how our nation wishes to address the problems it faces.
Of course we could leave. It's just risky, expensive and backward looking. To your point on the fullest range of tools IMO that clearly comes from being in and leveraging our combined economic clout.
Canada have no way near as much economic clout as the EU yet are in the process of signing an FTA on virtually equal terms........
Negotiations began in 2009... What makes you think everyone in Canada thinks is a good deal for them?
The point of the minimum wage is to move the burden from the Government to the employer..the more the worker gets then there will be less paid out in benefits..
With respect Mr Dodd that doesn't address my questions below.
The living wage and the Tories reminds me of Basil Fawlty.
Don't mention the war, I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it.
I'll bring up the question periodically, there's a few clued up (sic) Tories on here that will be able to explain all.
"I think Nigel Farage is right, the way to fight membership of the European Union is on immigration"
Then Finkelstein is a fool.
Why? It is the most important issue to many people, one that they see the effects of in their daily lives. The more high minded approach may appeal to politicos who like to use a thousand words to say what could be said in ten, but their vote is only worth the same as the millions of people who want something done about immigration and its effect on their life
I agree that immigration is a concern for a great many people, but is not the only important issue the UK faces and is not necessarily the concern of the undecideds who will ultimately decide the outcome of the referendum. – Strikes me as daft for the Leave camp to have only one string to its bow.
Its the most relevant issue and the easiest to make a point with to many people who aren't interested in politics. The technical arguments for leaving just wont resonate with 99% of people however much they turn on those who like arguing about politics
It's not about motivating the 35% for whom immigration is the biggest issue. Those people will come and vote Out regardless.
You say that as if the other 65% are pro immigration!
I'm not saying the other 65% are pro immigration.
But don't forget that half the country barely sees an immigrant. The vast majority of immigration (particularly EU immigration) is into the South East.
You really are out of touch with how things have changed during the last decade.
Isn't more than 90% of EU immigration in London and the South East? (In fact, I'm remembering 93%, but I could be wrong)
From 2011 (but I doubt the proportions have changed since) Polish immigrants per region:
NE 11,000 NW 49,000 YH 37,000 EM 46,000 WM 47,000 East 40,000 Lond 123,000 SE 51,000 SW 36,000 Wales 14,000 Scot 53,000 NIre 15,000
Total 522,000
Proportion:
London = 24% London + SE = 33% London + SE + East = 41%
Meantime why should poor income tax payers fund any company because it does not pay fair wages.
If someone has four or more children - as 276,000 tax credit families have - who is really responsible for generating their tax credit need? The employer?
Why indeed, are tax credits being given at up to £75pw (with Child Benefit) per child ? Who deemed that necessary? How is the employer responsible for that number or the reproductive activity?
I would expect the supervisor to get a pay rise though it may be less than 20%
Now we're making progress.
So the cleaner gets 20%, the supervisor slightly less, what about the manager?
Because eventually they'll all get paid the same.
Perhaps Osborne can give them all a blue suit and a bicycle too.
What an utterly bizarre attitude. Such hostility to people getting more money at a time when the labour market is buoyant and when employers could do with a nudge to make their employees more productive is baffling.
Mr Meeks, if it's bizarre perhaps you could help Mr Thompson out and answer my question below. It's easy to laud a popular, vote winning policy without looking in to the ramifications. You can call me angry, hostile or bizarre but you still won't address my perfectly reasonable questions.
It's scarcely a queation. The longstanding policy is to ensure that all employees receive a wage of a given value. That value is to increase sharply but effectively the same policy continues, at a higher level of aspiration. What employers choose to do in response for employees earning more than that value is their business.
Should it increase by further step changes in the future? Why not, as and when the economy is sufficeintly strong to bear those increased aspirations? Should we be aiming for complete equality of wages? That's not on anyone's agenda as far as I know and it doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
I'm completely at a loss to see just what riles you so much about this.
I appreciate you're at a loss but Mr Thompson and other Tories on here know exactly the point I'm making. You don't roll back the state on one hand and enforce pay rises on companies on the other.
Now you're not the only person that thinks a living wage is a good idea, I'm curious why those that opposed a min wage now want to raise it.
Incidentally, I haven't said whether or not I agree with it.
You've totally missed the tax/benefits point.
No I haven't.
And you wonder why you are seen as hostile.
Dear me, you accuse me of something unfairly and then call me hostile!
I'd be grateful if you could address me questions below.
When I've answered your questions you've ignored the answers...
Where did you provide any answers, plenty of bluster I would agree.
Mr. L., I often read on these pages of people wanting to know what precisely what what the out option would entail. Would we have X, or Y, would we be a member of A and under what terms? And so on. The problem is that nobody can know. A leaving state's future relationship with the EU can only be negotiated after that state has decided to leave and has invoked Article 50. It is EU's very own Catch 22.
So, if you want to know what leaving would entail vis a vis our future relationship with the EU then you are going to be disappointed. Furthermore, anyone trying to make their case to go or stay on the basis of the terms of that relationship (looking at you FlightPath) is being disingenuous.
I suppose the out campaigners could campaign on what they would hope to negotiate, but that would be a mess a minute's consideration would reveal. Better then to campaign on broad principles, immigration, rule of law, ability to make our own mistakes, ability to kick out the rascals who make the mistakes, outward looking to the world, freedom, £10bn a year contributions, and so on and so forth.
On a tangent, there will be a new EU treaty see the Five President's Report and that treaty will I think cast the UK into associate member status by virtue of the fact that we will not be a member of the Euro. However the timescale for the new treaty is not one that suits Mr. Cameron. So even if Remain wins this time I think there will be another referendum within ten years or so as to whether the UK will want to be an associate member.
The details are a matter of negotiation but the direction of travel is not. Let's keep it simple: in the EEA or out of it? As Robert said downthread within the EEA but out of the EU is quite acceptable from a business perspective. It does mean some arguments, notably immigration, are not in play. Out needs to be honest and clear about this. Lying and fantasy is for losers, ask the SNP.
David, strange idea of what constitutes a loser. SNP seem to be doing very well for losers, unlike the Tories in Scotland who could easily be termed perennial losers.
I think you are very seriously wrong. The Scotland referendum example is against you. When it looked like Cameron might lose, there were extra concessions galore.
Absolutely right! The EU leaders realise that Cameron is an ultra soft touch in these so-called negotiations as he is totally committed to the UK remaining in. That's why he has been offered such a pittance - the real negotiating and the real concession-making will only take place when other EU members finally realise that the British electorate want OUT!
On topic, the UK (or more accurately, England and a good chunk of Wales) voted Tory because like me they were shitting their pants about an Ed Miliband led Labour government taking office with the tacit aid of the SNP.
That does not imply a lack of concern about immigration. Under FPTP, most of the electorate really didn't have much of a choice. Although it's worth nothing from what Labour have been talking about that had Labour taken office, immigration would already be much higher. For example, by participating in the EU's system for resettling "Syrian" refugees EU-wide. And we'd have no renegotiation or referendum either.
FWIW, I disagree with that internal note to the PM. There was - and is - a strong offer the Conservatives can and should continue to make UKIP supporters based on their manifesto with regard to strong defence, support for marriage in the tax system, EVEL, human rights reform, lower immigration (than Labour) and a modicum of Euroscepticism. If they had any sense, they could leverage the big society narrative on local communities, neighbourliness, pubs, churches, village halls and working men's clubs too to strengthen vulnerable communities.
The big issue is that the Tory leadership just don't really like UKIP or their supporters and voters, and can't help but be rude to them.
Shows how feeble and weak minded the voters of England and a large chunk of Wales are, scared of shadows. Pretty pathetic that they would vote for such a poor lot because they were weak minded and lacked a backbone.
You have an obsession with SMEs but the govt is in part at least funding this cut in CT (which is a benefit to SMEs by raising £7.8bn from big business during this parliament by forcing companies with profits of more than £20m a year to pay their corporation tax four months early.
CT is charged on profits, most starting small businesses don't make a noticeable profit for several years so that will make them nothing.
SMEs comprise 60% of the private sector employment in the UK, and 47% of the private sector turnover in the UK, any Tory that cared about business not tribalism or pensions should be very interested in SMEs
Who is saying they are not interested in SMEs? All you are remarking about is starting up SMEs not the established ones. In any event the implication that these companies do not make profits is hardly a tribute to their efficiency. If a business plan is based on paltry wages then it is not much of a business plan.
All laughing rather than crying aside, it just shows how far Gordon handed out sweeties by the jar full.
I've worked with a lot of *entitled* people who thought their salary was an attendance allowance and should be paid more to actually be productive - but this sort of thing blows even my socks off.
''Absolutely right! The EU leaders realise that Cameron is an ultra soft touch in these so-called negotiations as he is totally committed to the UK remaining in.''
If it follows the Scotland model, we will only need to see a few polls with a reasonable out majority to bring the eurocrats back to the table.
Mr. L., I often read on these pages of people wanting to know what precisely what what the out option would entail. Would we have X, or Y, would we be a member of A and under what terms? And so on. The problem is that nobody can know. A leaving state's future relationship with the EU can only be negotiated after that state has decided to leave and has invoked Article 50. It is EU's very own Catch 22.
So, if you want to know what leaving would entail vis a vis our future relationship with the EU then you are going to be disappointed. Furthermore, anyone trying to make their case to go or stay on the basis of the terms of that relationship (looking at you FlightPath) is being disingenuous.
I suppose the out campaigners could campaign on what they would hope to negotiate, but that would be a mess a minute's consideration would reveal. Better then to campaign on broad principles, immigration, rule of law, ability to make our own mistakes, ability to kick out the rascals who make the mistakes, outward looking to the world, freedom, £10bn a year contributions, and so on and so forth.
On a tangent, there will be a new EU treaty see the Five President's Report and that treaty will I think cast the UK into associate member status by virtue of the fact that we will not be a member of the Euro. However the timescale for the new treaty is not one that suits Mr. Cameron. So even if Remain wins this time I think there will be another referendum within ten years or so as to whether the UK will want to be an associate member.
The details are a matter of negotiation but the direction of travel is not. Let's keep it simple: in the EEA or out of it? As Robert said downthread within the EEA but out of the EU is quite acceptable from a business perspective. It does mean some arguments, notably immigration, are not in play. Out needs to be honest and clear about this. Lying and fantasy is for losers, ask the SNP.
David, strange idea of what constitutes a loser. SNP seem to be doing very well for losers, unlike the Tories in Scotland who could easily be termed perennial losers.
Remind me: is Scotland still part of the UK or not? What is todays price of oil?
"I think Nigel Farage is right, the way to fight membership of the European Union is on immigration"
Then Finkelstein is a fool.
effect on their life
Leave camp to have only one string to its bow.
Its the most relevant issue and the easiest to make a point with to many people who aren't interested in politics. The technical arguments for leaving just wont resonate with 99% of people however much they turn on those who like arguing about politics
It's not about motivating the 35% for whom immigration is the biggest issue. Those people will come and vote Out regardless.
You say that as if the other 65% are pro immigration!
I'm not saying the other 65% are pro immigration.
But don't forget that half the country barely sees an immigrant. The vast majority of immigration (particularly EU immigration) is into the South East.
You really are out of touch with how things have changed during the last decade.
That might be putting it a bit strongly, but I broadly agree. When I am not in Asia, my home from home is deepest rural Herefordshire, which until recently was very much an Anglosaxon outpost, a lot of the old-timers are now "bemused" (for want of a better word) to see whole rows of "polski sklep" opening in their high streets. No, its not exactly Beirut, but the cultural dislocation being felt in some rural communities is definitely strongly perceptible.
Vile right wing rag prints 100% lies and southerners are taken in hook line and sinker, meanwhile locally everybody is perfectly happy and the people are being welcomed. Racist Mail readers unhappy.
The parallels are obvious but there are substantial differences. If the EU gives too much to the UK, either within or without the EU, that could prompt more independence votes or nattering from other states for similar.
The EU does not want that. It wants power to the centre.
The process of devolution within the UK sees the reverse.
A long term Just For Fun prediction contest would be very amusing. The really short term ones are interesting - but it'd be great to see how much views change over time.
"I think Nigel Farage is right, the way to fight membership of the European Union is on immigration"
Then Finkelstein is a fool.
Why? It is the most important issue to many people, one that they see the effects of in their daily lives. The more high minded approach may appeal to politicos who like to use a thousand words to say what could be said in ten, but their vote is only worth the same as the millions of people who want something done about immigration and its effect on their life
I agree that immigration is a concern for a great many people, but is not the only important issue the UK faces and is not necessarily the concern of the undecideds who will ultimately decide the outcome of the referendum. – Strikes me as daft for the Leave camp to have only one string to its bow.
Its the most relevant issue and the easiest to make a point with to many people who aren't interested in politics. The technical arguments for leaving just wont resonate with 99% of people however much they turn on those who like arguing about politics
It's not about motivating the 35% for whom immigration is the biggest issue. Those people will come and vote Out regardless.
You say that as if the other 65% are pro immigration!
I'm not saying the other 65% are pro immigration.
But don't forget that half the country barely sees an immigrant. The vast majority of immigration (particularly EU immigration) is into the South East.
You really are out of touch with how things have changed during the last decade.
Indeed. My folks are in rural Cumbria, and have stated on several occasions that they see a lot of immigrants. Now, admittedly, this is compared a vanishingly small base, and a lot are tradesmen so have more contact with the community than average. But still, saying "half the country barely sees an immigrant" is a sign that someone needs to leave the capital more...
[As an aside, Mum and Dad think the new tradesmen and better and cheaper than the local ones, who needed a "kick up the arse" in their view.]
Anyone who thinks Polish immigrants are only in London perhaps needs to drop by any hotel or farm in the land!
Excellent hardworking people doing jobs that Britons do not want to do.
I think you are very seriously wrong. The Scotland referendum example is against you. When it looked like Cameron might lose, there were extra concessions galore.
Can you name one, apart from partial control of road signs.
Vile right wing rag prints 100% lies and southerners are taken in hook line and sinker, meanwhile locally everybody is perfectly happy and the people are being welcomed. Racist Mail readers unhappy.
Mr. L., I often read on these pages of people wanting to know what precisely what what the out option would entail. Would we have X, or Y, would we be a member of A and under what terms? And so on. The problem is that nobody can know. A leaving state's future relationship with the EU can only be negotiated after that state has decided to leave and has invoked Article 50. It is EU's very own Catch 22.
So, if you want to know what leaving would entail vis a vis our future relationship with the EU then you are going to be disappointed. Furthermore, anyone trying to make their case to go or stay on the basis of the terms of that relationship (looking at you FlightPath) is being disingenuous.
I suppose the out campaigners could campaign on what they would hope to negotiate, but that would be a mess a minute's consideration would reveal. Better then to campaign on broad principles, immigration, rule of law, ability to make our own mistakes, ability to kick out the rascals who make the mistakes, outward looking to the world, freedom, £10bn a year contributions, and so on and so forth.
On a tangent, there will be a new EU treaty see the Five President's Report and that treaty will I think cast the UK into associate member status by virtue of the fact that we will not be a member of the Euro. However the timescale for the new treaty is not one that suits Mr. Cameron. So even if Remain wins this time I think there will be another referendum within ten years or so as to whether the UK will want to be an associate member.
The details are a matter of negotiation but the direction of travel is not. Let's keep it simple: in the EEA or out of it? As Robert said downthread within the EEA but out of the EU is quite acceptable from a business perspective. It does mean some arguments, notably immigration, are not in play. Out needs to be honest and clear about this. Lying and fantasy is for losers, ask the SNP.
David, strange idea of what constitutes a loser. SNP seem to be doing very well for losers, unlike the Tories in Scotland who could easily be termed perennial losers.
The Yoons seem very bitter for the side that are supposedly 'winners'.
Mr. L., I often read on these pages of people wanting to know what precisely what what the out option would entail. Would we have X, or Y, would we be a member of A and under what terms? And so on. The problem is that nobody can know. A leaving state's future relationship with the EU can only be negotiated after that state has decided to leave and has invoked Article 50. It is EU's very own Catch 22.
So, if you want to know what leaving would entail vis a vis our future relationship with the EU then you are going to be disappointed. Furthermore, anyone trying to make their case to go or stay on the basis of the terms of that relationship (looking at you FlightPath) is being disingenuous.
I suppose the out campaigners could campaign on what they would hope to negotiate, but that would be a mess a minute's consideration would reveal. Better then to campaign on broad principles, immigration, rule of law, ability to make our own mistakes, ability to kick out the rascals who make the mistakes, outward looking to the world, freedom, £10bn a year contributions, and so on and so forth.
On a tangent, there will be a new EU treaty see the Five President's Report and that treaty will I think cast the UK into associate member status by virtue of the fact that we will not be a member of the Euro. However the timescale for the new treaty is not one that suits Mr. Cameron. So even if Remain wins this time I think there will be another referendum within ten years or so as to whether the UK will want to be an associate member.
The details are a matter of negotiation but the direction of travel is not. Let's keep it simple: in the EEA or out of it? As Robert said downthread within the EEA but out of the EU is quite acceptable from a business perspective. It does mean some arguments, notably immigration, are not in play. Out needs to be honest and clear about this. Lying and fantasy is for losers, ask the SNP.
David, strange idea of what constitutes a loser. SNP seem to be doing very well for losers, unlike the Tories in Scotland who could easily be termed perennial losers.
Remind me: is Scotland still part of the UK or not? What is todays price of oil?
You seem obsessed with the price of oil, SNP are in government in Scotland, more popular than ever and on course for a landslide in May. They have 56 out of 59 in Westminster. Hardly a definition of "Loser".
Major is trying to play a clever game, as he did when he was PM, on this issue: pretending to be concerned but then arguing that staying in is the pragmatic and reasonable choice.
It's worth remembering that (despite Richard N's moans about Labour PMs giving away Britain's vetoes etc.) no-one has done more to turn the EU into an uncomfortable place for the UK than Major.
He could and should have stopped Maastricht. He would have signed us up to euro as well had he not been forced not to by some of his colleagues.
He represents the defeatist Foreign Office mentality more than anyone but hides it behind a mask of reasonableness.
Major got the opt-out from the social chapter and made the first commitment to only enter the Euro after a referendum, something he has said he still opposes
So the cleaner gets 20%, the supervisor slightly less, what about the manager?
Because eventually they'll all get paid the same.
Perhaps Osborne can give them all a blue suit and a bicycle too.
What an utterly bizarre attitude. Such hostility to people getting more money at a time when the labour market is buoyant and when employers could do with a nudge to make their employees more productive is baffling.
Mr Meeks, if it's bizarre perhaps you could help Mr Thompson out and answer my question below. It's easy to laud a popular, vote winning policy without looking in to the ramifications. You can call me angry, hostile or bizarre but you still won't address my perfectly reasonable questions.
It's scarcely a queation. The longstanding policy is to ensure that all employees receive a wage of a given value. That value is to increase sharply but effectively the same policy continues, at a higher level of aspiration. What employers choose to do in response for employees earning more than that value is their business.
Should it increase by further step changes in the future? Why not, as and when the economy is sufficeintly strong to bear those increased aspirations? Should we be aiming for complete equality of wages? That's not on anyone's agenda as far as I know and it doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
I'm completely at a loss to see just what riles you so much about this.
I appreciate you're at a loss but Mr Thompson and other Tories on here know exactly the point I'm making. You don't roll back the state on one hand and enforce pay rises on companies on the other.
Now you're not the only person that thinks a living wage is a good idea, I'm curious why those that opposed a min wage now want to raise it.
Incidentally, I haven't said whether or not I agree with it.
You've totally missed the tax/benefits point.
No I haven't.
And you wonder why you are seen as hostile.
Dear me, you accuse me of something unfairly and then call me hostile!
I'd be grateful if you could address me questions below.
When I've answered your questions you've ignored the answers...
Where did you provide any answers, plenty of bluster I would agree.
ICYMI-@Kevin_Maguire Dec 19 "Why did 800 people boo George Osborne at the London premiere of the new Star Wars film? That was the cinema's capacity". Confirms Osborne's price is too short and a lay,lay,lay-in the betting sense.If he goes for Remain,he could easily be on the wrong side of the selectorate of the Tory party and he polls worse than Jezza.Corbyn v Osborne could swing things Labour's way on the vital question of leadership.Osborne just hasn't got it and Corbyn's consensual and inclusive style may be an attractive alternative.
No problem and hope I didn't cause any offence with my initial comment. But things really have changed massively during the last decade - it would be a rare trip to the supermarket when I didn't hear Polish being spoken.
One thing that surprised me on that report is how many Germans are in the UK and how widely they are dispersed.
Whereas there are far fewer French than I expected - having heard many times that London is supposedly the fifth most populous 'French' city (or suchlike).
''Can you name one, apart from partial control of road signs.''
I don't want to get into an argument with you over Scotland, but I do seem to remember 'Home Rule' being promised at the eleventh hour.
You may well say all this was empty rhetoric and you may be right, but nevertheless Cameron did seem to be much more pliant as you looked like winning.
I have just come to this thread so forgive me if this is now old ground.
The issue of measuring "immigration" and its impact on EUref voting is fraught to say the least. How do those being polled interpret "immigration"? It ignores the issue of control. Relatively few people favour either unrestrained immigration or a total ban. You're trying to measure something which largely exists in shades of grey by offering a black and white option. I think that is probably the issue that Ashworth was trying to deal with but I don't think you can deal with it.
The other variation TSE mentions is the "you and your family" bit. Do polls usually ask about other than strictly personal opinion? How does one interpret "family"? Is it uncles, aunties, cousins or just immediate and dependant family? I suspect it is the latter but I have no basis for that. Are there cultural differences in interpretation? Surely just asking for a personal opinion will cover the family extension. It will embrace those people you care about and feel some responsibility for (family or not). Including the reference to family will inevitably influence expression of views towards uncontentious factors - everyone thinks the NHS is important and lots of doctors come from overseas.
I suppose my conclusion is that you ignore immigration as a factor at your peril. I've not seen much on how the NHS might be affected by REMAIN or LEAVE and if the Scots can believe the tosh that the SNP spouted about the untold wealth that beckoned following a vote for independence, then the economy issue will be settled as far as EUref is concerned in favour of whoever shouts the loudest. I think you would struggle to find many people who don't think that immigration is at the core of the EUref issues.
Did you not follow my £50-bbl Brent bet from 08/2013 (and my drunken £30-bbl within five-years a few minutes later)? Or my classic 33% median Labour-vote bet with BJO that also paid-out...?
I am still working on cunning bets to get junior's costs down: Feel free to contribute to FATJUGS....
If the British electorate were to vote Leave, would that be the end of the matter? Of course not. There would then follow a period of frantic negotiations and concession making by other EU members, not least the Germans, seeking to persuade us to change our minds, probably resulting in a further do or die referendum a couple of years later.
IMO this misreads the other members: there will be no effort to make us come back. The position is like being married to a partner who keeps squabbling about one thing after another. A residual affection plus a dislike of economic dislocation is making other EU countries make an effort to be helpful within limits, despite a strong sense of exasperation. If we vote to leave, the balance will tip and they'll feel a sense of relief, though of course they'll want to make the exit as civil and non-disruptive as possible.
ICYMI-@Kevin_Maguire Dec 19 "Why did 800 people boo George Osborne at the London premiere of the new Star Wars film? That was the cinema's capacity". Confirms Osborne's price is too short and a lay,lay,lay-in the betting sense.If he goes for Remain,he could easily be on the wrong side of the selectorate of the Tory party and he polls worse than Jezza.Corbyn v Osborne could swing things Labour's way on the vital question of leadership.Osborne just hasn't got it and Corbyn's consensual and inclusive style may be an attractive alternative.
On topic, I think the answer is a lot more nuanced than that. Both for UKIP and for Leave, immigration is an issue that they cannot not address. But I think it's got to be recognised as a local issue. IE those directly negatively affected will vote on it but there isn't a broad (enough) sweep of opinion that isn't affected but is still against.
''Can you name one, apart from partial control of road signs.''
I don't want to get into an argument with you over Scotland, but I do seem to remember 'Home Rule' being promised at the eleventh hour.
You may well say all this was empty rhetoric and you may be right, but nevertheless Cameron did seem to be much more pliant as you looked like winning.
I agree he started lying and promising the world, but as we will see again with Europe , he is an empty suit. Any lie to win will do nicely. We have got nothing other than roadsigns, they pretend tax powers , but just cut the block grant by same amount and then deduct 5% for good measure. Will be interesting to see if the punitive fiscal framework plans means that the Smith Imaginary Powers bill does not get passed by Scotland.
If the British electorate were to vote Leave, would that be the end of the matter? Of course not. There would then follow a period of frantic negotiations and concession making by other EU members, not least the Germans, seeking to persuade us to change our minds, probably resulting in a further do or die referendum a couple of years later.
IMO this misreads the other members: there will be no effort to make us come back. The position is like being married to a partner who keeps squabbling about one thing after another. A residual affection plus a dislike of economic dislocation is making other EU countries make an effort to be helpful within limits, despite a strong sense of exasperation. If we vote to leave, the balance will tip and they'll feel a sense of relief, though of course they'll want to make the exit as civil and non-disruptive as possible.
Your problem is that so many votes that the EU didn't like have been ignored in so many countries (Denmark, Ireland, France, Netherlands) and for so long that people assume that a UK LEAVE vote wouldn't be respected and we'd have the usual pattern of 'renegotiations' and 'consultations' and 'clarifications' followed by a promised second referendum.
Especially so when the British politicians and bureaucrats doing all the 'renegotiations' and 'consultations' and 'clarifications' will be people opposed to leaving the EU.
Anyone who thinks Polish immigrants are only in London perhaps needs to drop by any hotel or farm in the land!
Excellent hardworking people doing jobs that Britons do not want to do.
I think that you will find that there are few jobs that British people are unwilling to do. Historically there was little difference between low paid jobs and benefits which removed any incentive to join the workplace. This is slowly changing but to label large number of British people as being lazy is quite offensive.
'If the British electorate were to vote Leave, would that be the end of the matter? Of course not. There would then follow a period of frantic negotiations and concession making by other EU members, not least the Germans, seeking to persuade us to change our minds, probably resulting in a further do or die referendum a couple of years later.'
Spot on,the Germans will not want any disruption to their trade with one of their major markets & the EU will be concerned who will be next to follow the UK and who will be paying the UK's contribution.
If the British electorate were to vote Leave, would that be the end of the matter? Of course not. There would then follow a period of frantic negotiations and concession making by other EU members, not least the Germans, seeking to persuade us to change our minds, probably resulting in a further do or die referendum a couple of years later.
IMO this misreads the other members: there will be no effort to make us come back.
Then surely we should definitely leave: why stay where we aren't wanted?
I have just come to this thread so forgive me if this is now old ground.
The issue of measuring "immigration" and its impact on EUref voting is fraught to say the least. How do those being polled interpret "immigration"? It ignores the issue of control. Relatively few people favour either unrestrained immigration or a total ban. You're trying to measure something which largely exists in shades of grey by offering a black and white option. I think that is probably the issue that Ashworth was trying to deal with but I don't think you can deal with it.
The other variation TSE mentions is the "you and your family" bit. Do polls usually ask about other than strictly personal opinion? How does one interpret "family"? Is it uncles, aunties, cousins or just immediate and dependant family? I suspect it is the latter but I have no basis for that. Are there cultural differences in interpretation? Surely just asking for a personal opinion will cover the family extension. It will embrace those people you care about and feel some responsibility for (family or not). Including the reference to family will inevitably influence expression of views towards uncontentious factors - everyone thinks the NHS is important and lots of doctors come from overseas.
I suppose my conclusion is that you ignore immigration as a factor at your peril. I've not seen much on how the NHS might be affected by REMAIN or LEAVE and if the Scots can believe the tosh that the SNP spouted about the untold wealth that beckoned following a vote for independence, then the economy issue will be settled as far as EUref is concerned in favour of whoever shouts the loudest. I think you would struggle to find many people who don't think that immigration is at the core of the EUref issues.
For sure the idiots who voted NO are seeing the chickens come home to roost. Tories are having a field day cutting resources off, hard to believe there were so many self seeking fools to be taken in by Tory lies.
If the British electorate were to vote Leave, would that be the end of the matter? Of course not. There would then follow a period of frantic negotiations and concession making by other EU members, not least the Germans, seeking to persuade us to change our minds, probably resulting in a further do or die referendum a couple of years later.
IMO this misreads the other members: there will be no effort to make us come back.
Then surely we should definitely leave: why stay where we aren't wanted?
Well, if the British want to be in then they should stay. If they don't then they should leave.
What isn't going to happen is other members substantially changing the thing just for them at short notice, but sensible person ever thought it was - this was a political position to get through an election without clearly backing "in" or "out".
"I think Nigel Farage is right, the way to fight membership of the European Union is on immigration"
Then Finkelstein is a fool.
Why? It is the most important issue to many people, one that they see the effects of in their daily lives. The more high minded approach may appeal to politicos who like to use a thousand words to say what could be said in ten, but their vote is only worth the same as the millions of people who want something done about immigration and its effect on their life
I agree that immigration is a concern for a great many people, but is not the only important issue the UK faces and is not necessarily the concern of the undecideds who will ultimately decide the outcome of the referendum. – Strikes me as daft for the Leave camp to have only one string to its bow.
Its the most relevant issue and the easiest to make a point with to many people who aren't interested in politics. The technical arguments for leaving just wont resonate with 99% of people however much they turn on those who like arguing about politics
It's not about motivating the 35% for whom immigration is the biggest issue. Those people will come and vote Out regardless.
You say that as if the other 65% are pro immigration!
I'm not saying the other 65% are pro immigration.
But don't forget that half the country barely sees an immigrant. The vast majority of immigration (particularly EU immigration) is into the South East.
You really are out of touch with how things have changed during the last decade.
Indeed. My folks are in rural Cumbria, and have stated on several occasions that they see a lot of immigrants. Now, admittedly, this is compared a vanishingly small base, and a lot are tradesmen so have more contact with the community than average. But still, saying "half the country barely sees an immigrant" is a sign that someone needs to leave the capital more...
[As an aside, Mum and Dad think the new tradesmen and better and cheaper than the local ones, who needed a "kick up the arse" in their view.]
Anyone who thinks Polish immigrants are only in London perhaps needs to drop by any hotel or farm in the land!
Excellent hardworking people doing jobs that Britons do not want to do.
The fact is that Brits shouldn't be allowed to not want to do those jobs and get welfare payments
ICYMI-@Kevin_Maguire Dec 19 "Why did 800 people boo George Osborne at the London premiere of the new Star Wars film? That was the cinema's capacity". Confirms Osborne's price is too short and a lay,lay,lay-in the betting sense.If he goes for Remain,he could easily be on the wrong side of the selectorate of the Tory party and he polls worse than Jezza.Corbyn v Osborne could swing things Labour's way on the vital question of leadership.Osborne just hasn't got it and Corbyn's consensual and inclusive style may be an attractive alternative.
If the British electorate were to vote Leave, would that be the end of the matter? Of course not. There would then follow a period of frantic negotiations and concession making by other EU members, not least the Germans, seeking to persuade us to change our minds, probably resulting in a further do or die referendum a couple of years later.
IMO this misreads the other members: there will be no effort to make us come back.
Then surely we should definitely leave: why stay where we aren't wanted?
It's not that we're not wanted. What is not wanted is a continual game of silly b*****s from a country who's reps seem detrmined to be unhelpful and indeed destructive.
I have just come to this thread so forgive me if this is now old ground.
The issue of measuring "immigration" and its impact on EUref voting is fraught to say the least. How do those being polled interpret "immigration"? It ignores the issue of control. Relatively few people favour either unrestrained immigration or a total ban. You're trying to measure something which largely exists in shades of grey by offering a black and white option. I think that is probably the issue that Ashworth was trying to deal with but I don't think you can deal with it.
The other variation TSE mentions is the "you and your family" bit. Do polls usually ask about other than strictly personal opinion? How does one interpret "family"? Is it uncles, aunties, cousins or just immediate and dependant family? I suspect it is the latter but I have no basis for that. Are there cultural differences in interpretation? Surely just asking for a personal opinion will cover the family extension. It will embrace those people you care about and feel some responsibility for (family or not). Including the reference to family will inevitably influence expression of views towards uncontentious factors - everyone thinks the NHS is important and lots of doctors come from overseas.
I suppose my conclusion is that you ignore immigration as a factor at your peril. I've not seen much on how the NHS might be affected by REMAIN or LEAVE and if the Scots can believe the tosh that the SNP spouted about the untold wealth that beckoned following a vote for independence, then the economy issue will be settled as far as EUref is concerned in favour of whoever shouts the loudest. I think you would struggle to find many people who don't think that immigration is at the core of the EUref issues.
For sure the idiots who voted NO are seeing the chickens come home to roost. Tories are having a field day cutting resources off, hard to believe there were so many self seeking fools to be taken in by Tory lies.
Shame the SNP cut off resources to the Forth Road Bridge then, eh? It's a good job you weren't a self-seeking fool who was taken in by the SNP's lies over it.
And before you give your usual replies: try to give some links to your 'evidence' ...
I have just come to this thread so forgive me if this is now old ground.
The issue of measuring "immigration" and its impact on EUref voting is fraught to say the least. How do those being polled interpret "immigration"? It ignores the issue of control. Relatively few people favour either unrestrained immigration or a total ban. You're trying to measure something which largely exists in shades of grey by offering a black and white option. I think that is probably the issue that Ashworth was trying to deal with but I don't think you can deal with it.
The other variation TSE mentions is the "you and your family" bit. Do polls usually ask about other than strictly personal opinion? How does one interpret "family"? Is it uncles, aunties, cousins or just immediate and dependant family? I suspect it is the latter but I have no basis for that. Are there cultural differences in interpretation? Surely just asking for a personal opinion will cover the family extension. It will embrace those people you care about and feel some responsibility for (family or not). Including the reference to family will inevitably influence expression of views towards uncontentious factors - everyone thinks the NHS is important and lots of doctors come from overseas.
I suppose my conclusion is that you ignore immigration as a factor at your peril. I've not seen much on how the NHS might be affected by REMAIN or LEAVE and if the Scots can believe the tosh that the SNP spouted about the untold wealth that beckoned following a vote for independence, then the economy issue will be settled as far as EUref is concerned in favour of whoever shouts the loudest. I think you would struggle to find many people who don't think that immigration is at the core of the EUref issues.
For sure the idiots who voted NO are seeing the chickens come home to roost. Tories are having a field day cutting resources off, hard to believe there were so many self seeking fools to be taken in by Tory lies.
Shame the SNP cut off resources to the Forth Road Bridge then, eh? It's a good job you weren't a self-seeking fool who was taken in by the SNP's lies over it.
And before you give your usual replies: try to give some links to your 'evidence' ...
Anyone who thinks Polish immigrants are only in London perhaps needs to drop by any hotel or farm in the land!
Excellent hardworking people doing jobs that Britons do not want to do.
That last bit is not wholly true, though it may reflect on those junior doctors you were so keen to support. Take for example the big market gardens in the Chichester area, there is no way a Brit, no matter how fit and hard working, can get a look in now; all the labour is sewn up by Polish gangmasters working out of Bognor Regis.
I would also take issue that there are lots of jobs that Brits don't want to do and/or are too lazy to do well. A good chunk of the problem is down to employers falling for the propaganda (such as your own post) and applying reverse discrimination - this youngster is a Brit therefore they are lazy, unreliable, etc. so I'd best reject them in favour of a Lithuanian, Pole, whatever. Then we have the firms that will not train Brits, and why should they because they can import such rare skills as welders from abroad.
We have a lousy education system and we have too many young people who are content to live on benefits (and minor crime), but to write off so many people into some ghastly underclass because it is easier to import labour is a very wicked thing.
I have just come to this thread so forgive me if this is now old ground.
The issue of measuring "immigration" and its impact on EUref voting is fraught to say the least. How do those being polled interpret "immigration"? It ignores the issue of control. Relatively few people favour either unrestrained immigration or a total ban. You're trying to measure something which largely exists in shades of grey by offering a black and white option. I think that is probably the issue that Ashworth was trying to deal with but I don't think you can deal with it.
The other variation TSE mentions is the "you and your family" bit. Do polls usually ask about other than strictly personal opinion? How does one interpret "family"? Is it uncles, aunties, cousins or just immediate and dependant family? I suspect it is the latter but I have no basis for that. Are there cultural differences in interpretation? Surely just asking for a personal opinion will cover the family extension. It will embrace those people you care about and feel some responsibility for (family or not). Including the reference to family will inevitably influence expression of views towards uncontentious factors - everyone thinks the NHS is important and lots of doctors come from overseas.
I suppose my conclusion is that you ignore immigration as a factor at your peril. I've not seen much on how the NHS might be affected by REMAIN or LEAVE and if the Scots can believe the tosh that the SNP spouted about the untold wealth that beckoned following a vote for independence, then the economy issue will be settled as far as EUref is concerned in favour of whoever shouts the loudest. I think you would struggle to find many people who don't think that immigration is at the core of the EUref issues.
For sure the idiots who voted NO are seeing the chickens come home to roost. Tories are having a field day cutting resources off, hard to believe there were so many self seeking fools to be taken in by Tory lies.
Cutting resources off? The SNP is being given increased power to raise income tax and Holyrood will now control virtually all Scottish domestic policy
Comments
Of course not. There would then follow a period of frantic negotiations and concession making by other EU members, not least the Germans, seeking to persuade us to change our minds, probably resulting in a further do or die referendum a couple of years later.
Apart from no CAP or CFP, and saving a bit of money on EU contributions, why pick EEA over EFTA?
Osborne says:
Everybody has to wear their underpants on the head.
Tory tribalists cheer and says "it will stop our hair getting wet".
Others look on and shake head in disbelief.
I'm off out to lunch, I hope you all have a non hostile Sunday
Of course not. There would then follow a period of frantic negotiations and concession making by other EU members, not least the Germans, seeking to persuade us to change our minds, probably resulting in a further do or die referendum a couple of years later.''
Best argument for voting no that I can think of. Never accept the first offer.
That does not imply a lack of concern about immigration. Under FPTP, most of the electorate really didn't have much of a choice. Although it's worth nothing from what Labour have been talking about that had Labour taken office, immigration would already be much higher. For example, by participating in the EU's system for resettling "Syrian" refugees EU-wide. And we'd have no renegotiation or referendum either.
FWIW, I disagree with that internal note to the PM. There was - and is - a strong offer the Conservatives can and should continue to make UKIP supporters based on their manifesto with regard to strong defence, support for marriage in the tax system, EVEL, human rights reform, lower immigration (than Labour) and a modicum of Euroscepticism. If they had any sense, they could leverage the big society narrative on local communities, neighbourliness, pubs, churches, village halls and working men's clubs too to strengthen vulnerable communities.
The big issue is that the Tory leadership just don't really like UKIP or their supporters and voters, and can't help but be rude to them.
It couldn't be introduced under QMV to include the UK
You have an obsession with SMEs but the govt is in part at least funding this cut in CT (which is a benefit to SMEs by raising £7.8bn from big business during this parliament by forcing companies with profits of more than £20m a year to pay their corporation tax four months early.
Meantime why should poor income tax payers fund any company because it does not pay fair wages.
As soon as we have any benefits system the whole relationship changes when we get taxpayers funding tax credits to low wage earners. Why should I as a tax payer pay a penny to help the likes of Ashley laugh all the way to the bank??
.
But still, of the 2.34m EU citizens in the UK, aren't 2m of them in London and the South East?
I have met a few care home owners in my time and none of them have been poor or even in the struggling middle-class bracket. They are making a lot of money on the back of the taxpayer. Let us have it up front, they can pay their people properly and the increased fees can be paid either by their patients or the state as now but it will be in the open.
*Places mischievous hat on head*
Of course if the medical profession were less het up about prolonging life in all circumstances the problem would be far smaller than it is. Slash booze/fag taxes, provide pensioners with a daily ration of more than the wretched twenty-odd units a week and watch the social care problems fade.
The U.K joining EFTA would fundamentally alter its weight and structure but I think that's my preference as it gives us more options on trade and our degree of integration with the ECJ and single market.
In the short-term it also maintains the four freedoms, whilst giving us emergency powers on EU immigration, if invoked, too.
When I said "vigorously opposed by everyone" it did occur to me that that mostly just means ineffectual huffing. The only real check on government is the knowledge that they won't always be in office.
With that said, I don't think anyone seriously expects a 1000 Year Tory Reich do they? So there is still the understanding that the boot will change foot. Maybe not to a Labour foot, but someone's.
I think you are very seriously wrong. The Scotland referendum example is against you. When it looked like Cameron might lose, there were extra concessions galore.
Edit. http://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/PDFDocuments/FTT_April_2014_client_briefing_3.pdf
Comes to something when putting up Christmas decorations is a minor act of rebellion against officialdom.
Also worth considering how Germany will cope with a million (over 1% of their population has arrived this year), some from Syria, but many from the Balkans, Africa, or other Middle Eastern countries.
[As an aside, Mum and Dad think the new tradesmen and better and cheaper than the local ones, who needed a "kick up the arse" in their view.]
If anyone is interested (unlikely) my preferred option is that we step outside all of these groupings and negotiate our own relationship. We are big enough to do so and the world has moved on from the 1950s where being part of a gang was a good idea.
No wonder locals are teed off.
Why indeed, are tax credits being given at up to £75pw (with Child Benefit) per child ? Who deemed that necessary? How is the employer responsible for that number or the reproductive activity?
SMEs comprise 60% of the private sector employment in the UK, and 47% of the private sector turnover in the UK, any Tory that cared about business not tribalism or pensions should be very interested in SMEs
What makes you think everyone in Canada thinks is a good deal for them?
''This report demonstrates in detail how the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) deal is unbalanced, favouring large multinational corporations at the expense of consumers, the environment, and the greater public interest.'' - See more at: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/making-sense-ceta#sthash.vZamtbOr.dpuf
Great year from the Double-Edition from t'Ecomomist....
From some tear-jerkers to proud-traditions. Best - so far - is the question about "Animal Psychology and Cognizance'!
To quote - as it does not appear on the website - pp68 - section "I": Maybe next year will be better...?
NE 11,000
NW 49,000
YH 37,000
EM 46,000
WM 47,000
East 40,000
Lond 123,000
SE 51,000
SW 36,000
Wales 14,000
Scot 53,000
NIre 15,000
Total 522,000
Proportion:
London = 24%
London + SE = 33%
London + SE + East = 41%
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/may/26/foreign-born-uk-population
O, harsh brute!
That's why he has been offered such a pittance - the real negotiating and the real concession-making will only take place when other EU members finally realise that the British electorate want OUT!
I've worked with a lot of *entitled* people who thought their salary was an attendance allowance and should be paid more to actually be productive - but this sort of thing blows even my socks off.
And thanks, Richard for the data
Oh yes they did...
If it follows the Scotland model, we will only need to see a few polls with a reasonable out majority to bring the eurocrats back to the table.
The Conservatives should not have backed down on taxpayer subsidies beyond two children. it was politically weak and financially unwise.
What is todays price of oil?
The parallels are obvious but there are substantial differences. If the EU gives too much to the UK, either within or without the EU, that could prompt more independence votes or nattering from other states for similar.
The EU does not want that. It wants power to the centre.
The process of devolution within the UK sees the reverse.
Why, seen a tasty bet with a bookie?
Excellent hardworking people doing jobs that Britons do not want to do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wKfgimqHCE
'Liam Fox: Britain shouldn't be "tied to an economically failing, socially tense and politically unstable project”.'
The right lines from Liam Fox.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/19/30-per-cent-labour-supporters-jeremy-corbyn-not-leader-election#comment-65420476
One thing that surprised me on that report is how many Germans are in the UK and how widely they are dispersed.
Whereas there are far fewer French than I expected - having heard many times that London is supposedly the fifth most populous 'French' city (or suchlike).
I don't want to get into an argument with you over Scotland, but I do seem to remember 'Home Rule' being promised at the eleventh hour.
You may well say all this was empty rhetoric and you may be right, but nevertheless Cameron did seem to be much more pliant as you looked like winning.
The issue of measuring "immigration" and its impact on EUref voting is fraught to say the least. How do those being polled interpret "immigration"? It ignores the issue of control. Relatively few people favour either unrestrained immigration or a total ban. You're trying to measure something which largely exists in shades of grey by offering a black and white option. I think that is probably the issue that Ashworth was trying to deal with but I don't think you can deal with it.
The other variation TSE mentions is the "you and your family" bit. Do polls usually ask about other than strictly personal opinion? How does one interpret "family"? Is it uncles, aunties, cousins or just immediate and dependant family? I suspect it is the latter but I have no basis for that. Are there cultural differences in interpretation? Surely just asking for a personal opinion will cover the family extension. It will embrace those people you care about and feel some responsibility for (family or not). Including the reference to family will inevitably influence expression of views towards uncontentious factors - everyone thinks the NHS is important and lots of doctors come from overseas.
I suppose my conclusion is that you ignore immigration as a factor at your peril. I've not seen much on how the NHS might be affected by REMAIN or LEAVE and if the Scots can believe the tosh that the SNP spouted about the untold wealth that beckoned following a vote for independence, then the economy issue will be settled as far as EUref is concerned in favour of whoever shouts the loudest. I think you would struggle to find many people who don't think that immigration is at the core of the EUref issues.
I am still working on cunning bets to get junior's costs down: Feel free to contribute to FATJUGS....
:care-in-the-community:
We have got nothing other than roadsigns, they pretend tax powers , but just cut the block grant by same amount and then deduct 5% for good measure.
Will be interesting to see if the punitive fiscal framework plans means that the Smith Imaginary Powers bill does not get passed by Scotland.
Especially so when the British politicians and bureaucrats doing all the 'renegotiations' and 'consultations' and 'clarifications' will be people opposed to leaving the EU.
'If the British electorate were to vote Leave, would that be the end of the matter?
Of course not. There would then follow a period of frantic negotiations and concession making by other EU members, not least the Germans, seeking to persuade us to change our minds, probably resulting in a further do or die referendum a couple of years later.'
Spot on,the Germans will not want any disruption to their trade with one of their major markets & the EU will be concerned who will be next to follow the UK and who will be paying the UK's contribution.
What isn't going to happen is other members substantially changing the thing just for them at short notice, but sensible person ever thought it was - this was a political position to get through an election without clearly backing "in" or "out".
And before you give your usual replies: try to give some links to your 'evidence' ...
I would also take issue that there are lots of jobs that Brits don't want to do and/or are too lazy to do well. A good chunk of the problem is down to employers falling for the propaganda (such as your own post) and applying reverse discrimination - this youngster is a Brit therefore they are lazy, unreliable, etc. so I'd best reject them in favour of a Lithuanian, Pole, whatever. Then we have the firms that will not train Brits, and why should they because they can import such rare skills as welders from abroad.
We have a lousy education system and we have too many young people who are content to live on benefits (and minor crime), but to write off so many people into some ghastly underclass because it is easier to import labour is a very wicked thing.