Except Cameron's majority isn't that big, Labour certainly wont help him with his little local difficulty, and lots of Tory MPs will be looking over their shoulder at their electorate... and their constituency association.. could all get a bit squeaky bum.
None of which is relevant.
At that election, people can vote for a Tory that has negotiated a deal including free movement, or Labour who would give away more if they could.
Nancy Reagan's death is likely to lead to a lot of retrospectives on the Reagan years.
This could boost the Republican vote, but it could also motivate some Democrat voters, by reminding them of what they dislike about the Republicans. Are there any precedents that indicate what the next effect is likely to be?
Except Cameron's majority isn't that big, Labour certainly wont help him with his little local difficulty, and lots of Tory MPs will be looking over their shoulder at their electorate... and their constituency association.. could all get a bit squeaky bum.
None of which is relevant.
At that election, people can vote for a Tory that has negotiated a deal including free movement, or Labour who would give away more if they could.
Or stay at home.
Or deselect their remainian MP that claimed to be a sceptic at his selection interview.
Nancy Reagan's death is likely to lead to a lot of retrospectives on the Reagan years.
This could boost the Republican vote, but it could also motivate some Democrat voters, by reminding them of what they dislike about the Republicans. Are there any precedents that indicate what the next effect is likely to be?
Negligible in the general election, though might give Trump a minor boost in the primaries
I maintain that if immigration carries on at the current levels until the next election then the Tories will have a big problem.
The only reason I can think of why it won't will be a huge financial crisis, in which case they will also have big problems.
EU immigration is largely a consequence of the fact that unemployment rates are lower in the UK than in most of the EU, and that wages are higher.
There is therefore a natural economic balancing effect: as people flow out of (say) Poland and towards the UK, they raise the cost of living in the UK, and lower it in Poland; and they have the opposite effect on wages.
Falling rent and living costs make Eastern Europe a more attractive place to be than it used to be. This was seen first in the former East Germany and Berlin, which has become one of the hottest places for start ups, and is now being seen in Krakow in Poland.
It's also worth remembering that certain crisis hit Eurozone countries - such as Ireland and Spain - saw big flows of migrants to the UK in 2012-2014. As those economies were the fastest growing in Europe last year (6+% and 3+% GDP growth rates), they will start seeing migrant flows reverse.
Except Cameron's majority isn't that big, Labour certainly wont help him with his little local difficulty, and lots of Tory MPs will be looking over their shoulder at their electorate... and their constituency association.. could all get a bit squeaky bum.
None of which is relevant.
At that election, people can vote for a Tory that has negotiated a deal including free movement, or Labour who would give away more if they could.
Or stay at home.
Or deselect their remainian MP that claimed to be a sceptic at his selection interview.
It cuts both ways: I know a remainian, who told his selection committee he was a remanian come out for Leave because he's so scared of being deselected.
Except Cameron's majority isn't that big, Labour certainly wont help him with his little local difficulty, and lots of Tory MPs will be looking over their shoulder at their electorate... and their constituency association.. could all get a bit squeaky bum.
None of which is relevant.
At that election, people can vote for a Tory that has negotiated a deal including free movement, or Labour who would give away more if they could.
Or Kipper who, presumably, will be offering a more restrictive immigration policy (and who could leave the EEA/EFTA if necessary to implement)
Except Cameron's majority isn't that big, Labour certainly wont help him with his little local difficulty, and lots of Tory MPs will be looking over their shoulder at their electorate... and their constituency association.. could all get a bit squeaky bum.
None of which is relevant.
At that election, people can vote for a Tory that has negotiated a deal including free movement, or Labour who would give away more if they could.
Or stay at home.
Or deselect their remainian MP that claimed to be a sceptic at his selection interview.
It cuts both ways: I know a remainian, who told his selection committee he was a remanian come out for Leave because he's so scared of being deselected.
This really should be the settled and coherent view of all the LEAVE campaigns. "We disagree on free movement, and on many other things. But if you vote for us, YOU, the British electorate, will be able to determine your immigration policy democratically.
Except that's not true. Promoting such deceit reveals the paucity of the leave campaign's intellectual foundation.
Assuming leave win the referendum, Article 50 will be triggered, and by the time of the next election the deal will be done.
That deal will be negotiated by Cameron's successor, and if he (or she) negotiates free movement in exchange for trade, which is the most likely outcome, then there is no vote at the next election that can prevent that (Labour would resign Lisbon given the chance)
I thought the deal was going to take ten years?? Make your mind up!!
Except Cameron's majority isn't that big, Labour certainly wont help him with his little local difficulty, and lots of Tory MPs will be looking over their shoulder at their electorate... and their constituency association.. could all get a bit squeaky bum.
None of which is relevant.
At that election, people can vote for a Tory that has negotiated a deal including free movement, or Labour who would give away more if they could.
Or stay at home.
Or deselect their remainian MP that claimed to be a sceptic at his selection interview.
It cuts both ways: I know a remainian, who told his selection committee he was a remanian come out for Leave because he's so scared of being deselected.
Oh, what a miserable specimen. No Tory MP will be deselected (even with the new boundaries) over which side they support in the referendum. None. Unless they already have an acrimonious relationship with their Association because of other matters.
If this wasn't so sad it would be hilarious. I don't understand where the money is coming from for the Rubio backers. Are they hoping for a brokered convention in which the guy who came last will get the nomination?
I maintain that if immigration carries on at the current levels until the next election then the Tories will have a big problem.
The only reason I can think of why it won't will be a huge financial crisis, in which case they will also have big problems.
EU immigration is largely a consequence of the fact that unemployment rates are lower in the UK than in most of the EU, and that wages are higher.
There is therefore a natural economic balancing effect: as people flow out of (say) Poland and towards the UK, they raise the cost of living in the UK, and lower it in Poland; and they have the opposite effect on wages.
Falling rent and living costs make Eastern Europe a more attractive place to be than it used to be. This was seen first in the former East Germany and Berlin, which has become one of the hottest places for start ups, and is now being seen in Krakow in Poland.
It's also worth remembering that certain crisis hit Eurozone countries - such as Ireland and Spain - saw big flows of migrants to the UK in 2012-2014. As those economies were the fastest growing in Europe last year (6+% and 3+% GDP growth rates), they will start seeing migrant flows reverse.
Relative wage level and unemployment rate will matter much more to such flows than GDP growth.
But of course we need accurate immigration numbers to know. Is Cameron still blocking the data on active NINOs from being released?? He still think the public are not to be trusted with the information??
If this wasn't so sad it would be hilarious. I don't understand where the money is coming from for the Rubio backers. Are they hoping for a brokered convention in which the guy who came last will get the nomination?
I maintain that if immigration carries on at the current levels until the next election then the Tories will have a big problem.
The only reason I can think of why it won't will be a huge financial crisis, in which case they will also have big problems.
EU immigration is largely a consequence of the fact that unemployment rates are lower in the UK than in most of the EU, and that wages are higher.
There is therefore a natural economic balancing effect: as people flow out of (say) Poland and towards the UK, they raise the cost of living in the UK, and lower it in Poland; and they have the opposite effect on wages.
Falling rent and living costs make Eastern Europe a more attractive place to be than it used to be. This was seen first in the former East Germany and Berlin, which has become one of the hottest places for start ups, and is now being seen in Krakow in Poland.
It's also worth remembering that certain crisis hit Eurozone countries - such as Ireland and Spain - saw big flows of migrants to the UK in 2012-2014. As those economies were the fastest growing in Europe last year (6+% and 3+% GDP growth rates), they will start seeing migrant flows reverse.
Well that and our very generous in working benefits system.
Honestly the easiest way to stop benefits cheats would be to raise the minimum wage to Swiss levels, axe all in-work benefits, eliminate employers NI and make unemployment benefits payable on a wholly contributory basis. The flow of dodgy migrants who come here to register as "self-employed" and then claim thousands in benefits would completely stop and those who come here to work wouldn't be deterred.
It just needs real hard-headed thinking at the DSS and for the PM to be tough with our own long term unemployed who treat benefits and tax credits as a way of life instead of something to utilise in times of need.
In a low inflation economy it could probably be achieved if it was phased in over 4 or 5 years.
This really should be the settled and coherent view of all the LEAVE campaigns. "We disagree on free movement, and on many other things. But if you vote for us, YOU, the British electorate, will be able to determine your immigration policy democratically.
Except that's not true. Promoting such deceit reveals the paucity of the leave campaign's intellectual foundation.
Assuming leave win the referendum, Article 50 will be triggered, and by the time of the next election the deal will be done.
That deal will be negotiated by Cameron's successor, and if he (or she) negotiates free movement in exchange for trade, which is the most likely outcome, then there is no vote at the next election that can prevent that (Labour would resign Lisbon given the chance)
The people would vote for the next UK Govt and that govt could always renegotiate the deal. Unlike being inside the EU , things can be renegotiated.
But, Cameron's successor would not give free movement IMHO as they want to win 2020.
If this wasn't so sad it would be hilarious. I don't understand where the money is coming from for the Rubio backers. Are they hoping for a brokered convention in which the guy who came last will get the nomination?
Except Cameron's majority isn't that big, Labour certainly wont help him with his little local difficulty, and lots of Tory MPs will be looking over their shoulder at their electorate... and their constituency association.. could all get a bit squeaky bum.
None of which is relevant.
At that election, people can vote for a Tory that has negotiated a deal including free movement, or Labour who would give away more if they could.
Or stay at home.
Or deselect their remainian MP that claimed to be a sceptic at his selection interview.
It cuts both ways: I know a remainian, who told his selection committee he was a remanian come out for Leave because he's so scared of being deselected.
Oh, what a miserable specimen. No Tory MP will be deselected (even with the new boundaries) over which side they support in the referendum. None. Unless they already have an acrimonious relationship with their Association because of other matters.
Very emphatic words. How you can be so sure about 600 yet to be constructed Associations may be a trifle foolhardy.
But, Cameron's successor would not give free movement IMHO as they want to win 2020.
They need trade if they want to win 2020, which probably means free movement
So a deal with minimal trade penalties is off the table? It is said that from Iceland to Turkey there are no such requirements for the non EU except Norway and Switzerland (and that is unsettled).
The idea that being a Leaver is a prerequisite for becoming the next Conservative leader is wrong. It's a textbook example of the well-known cognitive bias known as the 'Availability heuristic', which is geek-speak for giving too much weight to whatever has been getting a lot of attention recently.
If it's a Remain result, the matter will be closed and the party will move on to other considerations, as indeed the polling quoted by TSE shows. The leadership contest in that scenario won't be immediate, so the excitement of the referendum will die down. IMO the clear value in the betting at the moment is Theresa May, the most solid and unifying of the three leading candidates. She's not even particularly associated with Cameron's renegotiate-and-recommend-Remain strategy, so even if you do give a lot of weight to the referendum, it's not a big negative for her. The 8/1 or better on her is good value.
If it's a Leave result, of course, things will be very different; in such a scenario, we will need someone who actually wanted to leave the EU to lead the party through the (no doubt extremely controversial) negotiations. I'm doubtful about Boris, though - is he really the man to lead the party and country in such circumstances?
Comments
At that election, people can vote for a Tory that has negotiated a deal including free movement, or Labour who would give away more if they could.
This could boost the Republican vote, but it could also motivate some Democrat voters, by reminding them of what they dislike about the Republicans. Are there any precedents that indicate what the next effect is likely to be?
Much like Carlton Kirby's commentating on it.
Nancy Reagan, the wife of a truly great President, was an amazing woman. She will be missed!
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/Comment/article1675104.ece
The best article arguing in favour of leave that I have read.
Or deselect their remainian MP that claimed to be a sceptic at his selection interview.
There is therefore a natural economic balancing effect: as people flow out of (say) Poland and towards the UK, they raise the cost of living in the UK, and lower it in Poland; and they have the opposite effect on wages.
Falling rent and living costs make Eastern Europe a more attractive place to be than it used to be. This was seen first in the former East Germany and Berlin, which has become one of the hottest places for start ups, and is now being seen in Krakow in Poland.
It's also worth remembering that certain crisis hit Eurozone countries - such as Ireland and Spain - saw big flows of migrants to the UK in 2012-2014. As those economies were the fastest growing in Europe last year (6+% and 3+% GDP growth rates), they will start seeing migrant flows reverse.
But of course we need accurate immigration numbers to know. Is Cameron still blocking the data on active NINOs from being released?? He still think the public are not to be trusted with the information??
At a brokered convention, delegates will pick two folks from the largest two swing states who bury Clinton's polls, vs a Texan who doesn't
Honestly the easiest way to stop benefits cheats would be to raise the minimum wage to Swiss levels, axe all in-work benefits, eliminate employers NI and make unemployment benefits payable on a wholly contributory basis. The flow of dodgy migrants who come here to register as "self-employed" and then claim thousands in benefits would completely stop and those who come here to work wouldn't be deterred.
It just needs real hard-headed thinking at the DSS and for the PM to be tough with our own long term unemployed who treat benefits and tax credits as a way of life instead of something to utilise in times of need.
In a low inflation economy it could probably be achieved if it was phased in over 4 or 5 years.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
But, Cameron's successor would not give free movement IMHO as they want to win 2020.
Seriously the Democrat race is the easiest ever to work out who will win each state:
White people + farms = Bernie
Black people + cities = Hillary.
If it's a Remain result, the matter will be closed and the party will move on to other considerations, as indeed the polling quoted by TSE shows. The leadership contest in that scenario won't be immediate, so the excitement of the referendum will die down. IMO the clear value in the betting at the moment is Theresa May, the most solid and unifying of the three leading candidates. She's not even particularly associated with Cameron's renegotiate-and-recommend-Remain strategy, so even if you do give a lot of weight to the referendum, it's not a big negative for her. The 8/1 or better on her is good value.
If it's a Leave result, of course, things will be very different; in such a scenario, we will need someone who actually wanted to leave the EU to lead the party through the (no doubt extremely controversial) negotiations. I'm doubtful about Boris, though - is he really the man to lead the party and country in such circumstances?