I seriously can't believe what Remain are doing - it's so incredibly damaging to their own Party.
No
The only people damaging their Party are (by and large) the same Bastards who tried it in the 90s
The closet Kippers on the Tory backbenches hate Cameron much more than Brussels, and they are quite prepared to destroy the party to take down the man
They seem to be jealous. He is a proven winner, whereas their champions have all been serial losers
Nonsense. If Cameron had either (a) not said he would recommend Leave if the EU didn't reform, or (b) recommended Leave when it didn't, there would have been no split.
The schedule to me looks too much like the David Cameron show. The majority of support for Remain comes from outside the Conservative party.
I am not convinced that much of it will be worth watching.
I expect it'll be reasonably entertaining TV, but yes, the schedule raises more questions than it answers. The Tories are pretty polarised on this; Labour is on the whole not, but Labour voters aren't sure whether to get involved at all, so Remain needs to make sure that both Corbyn and Alan Johnson OR Sadiq Khan get into the schedule - each of them appeals to a different segment of the Labour electorate so they're both needed in there.
If Remain does lose, Cameron will have no-one to blame but himself. He'll be remembered as the PM who took the UK out of Europe: scorned on all sides at home and abroad. What a legacy.
Alternatively, he had the courage to ask the British people what they thought, and acted on the answer.....
Why would he be scorned for respecting the will of the people?
He is already alienating large numbers of Tories. If you believe the warnings about Brexit he'll also be scorned for failing to prevent it, having precipitated it only to buy some time with internal party critics.
Yes, but why is seeking, then respecting, the will of the people something worthy of scorn?
What is already worthy of scorn is Cameron's willingness to risk so much - according to him, the governor of the Bank of England and so many others - in order to prevent a leakage of a few votes to UKIP. Should he end up on the losing side, his inability to persuade the electorate that his warnings were credible will also be worthy of scorn. And scorn he will get - on all sides and from all parts the world. He will be remembered for failing.
He also thinks that a Labour government would be a catastrophe (although of course any right small r thinking person thinks this too).
He's not about to ban general elections, is he?
Not sure what that has to do with calling a referendum he says would be catastrophic to lose in order to prevent a few people voting UKIP.
Oddly enough, as I look through the broadcast schedule, the one thing there isn't a lot of is or are "debates". There are interviews and question-answering aplenty but not a lot of actual real, honest to goodness debate.
Cameron's refusal to debate with another Conservative is, as I said, clear as it automatically puts that other Conservative on an equal footing with the Prime Minister who, in terms of his own party, would no longer be primus, let alone primus inter pares. In effect, it would make that opposing speaker the leader-in-waiting in the eyes of the public and especially if he was perceived to have bested the Prime Minister in the debate.
The other problem is if Cameron ducked the debate and left it to Osborne or May, a strong performance by either of them would equally undermine Cameron who, after all, initiated the Referendum and who seems determined to stake his personal and political capital on being the leader of the winning REMAIN campaign.
If LEAVE can't use any of their Conservatives to debate Cameron, then it has to be Farage who at least has a modicum of recognition. Debating with a pro-LEAVE Labour figure of any significance risks it becoming a party political match (and a strong performance by that Labour figure would also be a risk to Corbyn) and there is no authoritative pro-LEAVE non-party figure out there so we come back to Nigel who has quite literally nothing and everything to lose.
IF Farage does well against Cameron, it enhances his political reputation once again - if he fails, LEAVE and in particular LEAVE Conservatives have a fall guy.
Yet more sense cutting through a lot of bull from mr stodge.
And yet still 6000+ Alexa places ahead of 'Britain's most read political blog'. I guess the rev will really know things are on the slide when he's within a 1000.
Good morning all. So all us suckers will have to continue paying the TV license fee until 2027. So much for the much vaunted negotiations and changes to the BBC which help all the license payers up and down the country.
Rather like Cameron's cheap sell out to the EU. This Tory government can't help being weak when called upon to defend the British public, but strong when it comes to taking all the austerity measures they can to fill the ever emptying government coffers.
Realistically thanks to permanent rebels like David Davis and Nadine Dorries there is no alternative. If Cameron tried to go further he'd lose a vote in the Commons. Blame Davis et al
Yes it does. The BBC which has become another arm of government, in most peoples eyes.
Odd, as a lot of Tories think it is automatically biased against them, so not a very good arm of the government right now given they form that government.
The deficit's still of Brownian proportions and industrial production is now back in recession, while latest PMI's suggest we are close to flatline overall.
Osborne is hoping that the referendum vote will give him cover for his failures.
If the ONS announces poor figures next month - Osborne will blame it on Brexit.
SO...In that case Cameron will earn the scorn of fools..No matter which way it goes..it will be the long awaited choice of the People.. but you and other lefties don't like that..
I can remember how I voted at every General and Holyrood election except for 2001. It is frustrating the hell out of me.
I gave New Labour the benefit of the doubt, and I was developing a few doubts by then. Given the choice of Blair pre Iraq and Hague it wasn't a difficult decision.
I voted for Hague in 2001 and Clegg in 2015, not a very common pattern I expect!
Me too.
Well 2001 was more because one local candidate was crap and 2015 by the fact both major local candidates were crap, but it comes to the same thing.
1997 too young, would have voted Labour 2001 Conservative 2005 Green 2010 Conservative 2012by Labour 2015 Lib Dem.
Interesting though I also voted Tory in 2005 and 2010
The deficit's still of Brownian proportions and industrial production is now back in recession, while latest PMI's suggest we are close to flatline overall.
Osborne is hoping that the referendum vote will give him cover for his failures.
If the ONS announces poor figures next month - Osborne will blame it on Brexit.
I imagine so, although that being the case I wonder what he'll say if figures are poor in the months after a remain win, should it happen. If fear of Brexit leads to quick negative impacts, removal of that fear should see a positive impact quickly.
Well produced piece, but one point. Is English the most widely spoken lanuage? Might be in commerce, but I thought that on a purely numbers basis it was second or third.
Mandarin is spoken by more people, but they are pretty much all in China.
I doubt that is true anymore. It is true for first languages but many globally speak English as a second language just as well or better than many Brits speak it as a first. Go to the Netherlands and ask a young adult if they speak English and they will look at you like you have asked them if they are capable of crossing the road by themselves.
Very true. I used to edit a games magazine, and the standard of written English from two Norwegian contrributors was better than the English contributors.
When I was changing planes in Dubai last year, I wanted to ask a random baggage handler where the loo was, but it seemed culturally sensitive etc. first to ask if he spoke English. He said, irritably, "Of course I do. Do you think that because I'm an Arab I'm an ignorant peasant?" That's the sort of trouble that Guardian readers get into... still not sure who was right!
The schedule to me looks too much like the David Cameron show. The majority of support for Remain comes from outside the Conservative party.
I am not convinced that much of it will be worth watching.
I expect it'll be reasonably entertaining TV, but yes, the schedule raises more questions than it answers. The Tories are pretty polarised on this; Labour is on the whole not, but Labour voters aren't sure whether to get involved at all, so Remain needs to make sure that both Corbyn and Alan Johnson OR Sadiq Khan get into the schedule - each of them appeals to a different segment of the Labour electorate so they're both needed in there.
If Remain does lose, Cameron will have no-one to blame but himself. He'll be remembered as the PM who took the UK out of Europe: scorned on all sides at home and abroad. What a legacy.
Alternatively, he had the courage to ask the British people what they thought, and acted on the answer.....
Why would he be scorned for respecting the will of the people?
He is already alienating large numbers of Tories. If you believe the warnings about Brexit he'll also be scorned for failing to prevent it, having precipitated it only to buy some time with internal party critics.
Yes, but why is seeking, then respecting, the will of the people something worthy of scorn?
What is already worthy of scorn is Cameron's willingness to risk so much - according to him, the governor of the Bank of England and so many others - in order to prevent a leakage of a few votes to UKIP. Should he end up on the losing side, his inability to persuade the electorate that his warnings were credible will also be worthy of scorn. And scorn he will get - on all sides and from all parts the world. He will be remembered for failing.
He also thinks that a Labour government would be a catastrophe (although of course any right small r thinking person thinks this too).
He's not about to ban general elections, is he?
Not sure what that has to do with calling a referendum he says would be catastrophic to lose in order to prevent a few people voting UKIP.
How about the BBC showing a documentaries entitled' sixty days after the vote', or maybe 'six years after the vote' showing the result of a Remain or Leave vote. Along the lines of the Ukip one they did before the GE, with all the horror stories that it showed.
I can see them doing a Leave one where inflation rockets and thousands are out of work, but they may decide a Remain one wouldn't be 'appropriate'. To their eyes, it would be balanced and they really would think so.
Yet, I retain a respect for their efforts. It's hard not to be biased when all your reasoning says that you're right.
The schedule to me looks too much like the David Cameron show. The majority of support for Remain comes from outside the Conservative party.
I am not convinced that much of it will be worth watching.
I expect it'll be reasonably entertaining TV, but yes, the schedule raises more questions than it answers. The Tories are pretty polarised on this; Labour is on the whole not, but Labour voters aren't sure whether to get involved at all, so Remain needs to make sure that both Corbyn and Alan Johnson OR Sadiq Khan get into the schedule - each of them appeals to a different segment of the Labour electorate so they're both needed in there.
If Remain does lose, Cameron will have no-one to blame but himself. He'll be remembered as the PM who took the UK out of Europe: scorned on all sides at home and abroad. What a legacy.
Alternatively, he had the courage to ask the British people what they thought, and acted on the answer.....
Why would he be scorned for respecting the will of the people?
He is already alienating large numbers of Tories. If you believe the warnings about Brexit he'll also be scorned for failing to prevent it, having precipitated it only to buy some time with internal party critics.
Yes, but why is seeking, then respecting, the will of the people something worthy of scorn?
What is already worthy of scorn is Cameron's willingness to risk so much - according to him, the governor of the Bank of England and so many others - in order to prevent a leakage of a few votes to UKIP. Should he end up on the losing side, his inability to persuade the electorate that his warnings were credible will also be worthy of scorn. And scorn he will get - on all sides and from all parts the world. He will be remembered for failing.
He also thinks that a Labour government would be a catastrophe (although of course any right small r thinking person thinks this too).
He's not about to ban general elections, is he?
Not sure what that has to do with calling a referendum he says would be catastrophic to lose in order to prevent a few people voting UKIP.
He wanted a Conservative government, which was and is his job. On the assumption he thought a non-Conservative government would be catastrophic and also, because many Conservative supporters wanted to leave the EU, it seems an entirely sensible thing to have done.
How about the BBC showing a documentaries entitled' sixty days after the vote', or maybe 'six years after the vote' showing the result of a Remain or Leave vote. Along the lines of the Ukip one they did before the GE, with all the horror stories that it showed.
I can see them doing a Leave one where inflation rockets and thousands are out of work, but they may decide a Remain one wouldn't be 'appropriate'. To their eyes, it would be balanced and they really would think so.
Yet, I retain a respect for their efforts. It's hard not to be biased when all your reasoning says that you're right.
The deficit's still of Brownian proportions and industrial production is now back in recession, while latest PMI's suggest we are close to flatline overall.
Osborne is hoping that the referendum vote will give him cover for his failures.
If only the deficit was at Brownian proportions.
Gordon's last year as CotE was 2007/8, which had a government deficit of £41bn.
The frontpages are horrible from the Sun, Telegraph and Mail...and the Express.
Those immigration stats are awful and manna for VoteLeave. A MILLION+ more than HMG claimed?!?! And 800k more from the EU alone
Cameron's tens of thousands manifesto commitment is looking more and more like a giant lie.
Those with National Insurance Numbers will be the scrupulous ones with scrupulous employers, theoretically doing the law abiding thing.
There will of course be perfectly legal EU migrants who have been entering the country who didn't bother to register and are working on the black market, cash in hand. Pop over for over six months, cash in hand, no tax, then back home.
I wonder what the count is for this group?
Ask Cameron then multiply by 10.
I'm yet to see comments elsewhere saying anything other than We've Been Lied To, We Still Don't Believe You, What Else Are You Lying About?
The margin of error and the *explanation* simply aren't cutting it. And many are pointing out that the implications for infrastructure, housing, health, education et al aren't covered by those earning minimum wage or slightly above.
IIRC less than 50% of the population is a net contributor to the economy. It seems unlikely that those employed in mid-low skilled jobs will be in this category.
There is always the indirect impact as well.
If one hundred thousand extra people turn up in London every year looking for somewhere to live it impacts on housing conditions, rental prices, BTL demand and so on.
Then we hear people squealing about a lack of affordable housing.
The sheer volume of people is detrimental to infrastructure and wages.
It's great for business trying to suppress wages and BTL landlords cramming six to eight adults into terraced houses in places like Wood Green, East Ham and Hornsey.
Pairs of couples is becoming quite normal in BTL terraced houses. The family home is becoming the two-family-sharer home.
The deficit's still of Brownian proportions and industrial production is now back in recession, while latest PMI's suggest we are close to flatline overall.
Osborne is hoping that the referendum vote will give him cover for his failures.
If the ONS announces poor figures next month - Osborne will blame it on Brexit.
I imagine so, although that being the case I wonder what he'll say if figures are poor in the months after a remain win, should it happen. If fear of Brexit leads to quick negative impacts, removal of that fear should see a positive impact quickly.
Any negative economic news before or after the referendum will certainly be blamed on #Brexit#. That is already happening - and firms will use this as an excuse to explain poor performances as well.
The convenience of it is, it's essentially unprovable one way or the other - especially as the UK economy and the global economy have already been slowing for a few quarters.
How to disentangle what would have happened in any case from any 'referendum' effects - you can't really.
Well produced piece, but one point. Is English the most widely spoken lanuage? Might be in commerce, but I thought that on a purely numbers basis it was second or third.
Mandarin is spoken by more people, but they are pretty much all in China.
I doubt that is true anymore. It is true for first languages but many globally speak English as a second language just as well or better than many Brits speak it as a first. Go to the Netherlands and ask a young adult if they speak English and they will look at you like you have asked them if they are capable of crossing the road by themselves.
Very true. I used to edit a games magazine, and the standard of written English from two Norwegian contrributors was better than the English contributors.
When I was changing planes in Dubai last year, I wanted to ask a random baggage handler where the loo was, but it seemed culturally sensitive etc. first to ask if he spoke English. He said, irritably, "Of course I do. Do you think that because I'm an Arab I'm an ignorant peasant?" That's the sort of trouble that Guardian readers get into... still not sure who was right!
Ha. Everyone here speaks English!
It's an interesting place for culture, as 90% of the population are expatriate. The locals try hard to maintain their culture but with people from every country in the world here, it's becoming increasing difficult for them. Business is all done in English outside the public sector here, where 2/3 of Emiratis work.
I understand that you have some influence in the Conservative Party. I am someone now pretty certain to vote Remain. Could you suggest that your Party follows Ruth Davidson's tactic and keeps UK Government Ministers out of Scotland for the course of this referendum campaign.
I listened to a particularly bad example in the Financial Secretary this morning while last night David Mumdell came across as simply ridiculous on QT. None of this nonsence will help the Remain cause. If there is any talent at all in the new intake of the 22% at Holyrood then get them on TV and keep the Westminster gang off.
And since the Nats have been sitting on the sidelines, here's one from their favourite blogger:
The problem for the SNP is that they’re a one-trick pony. Their electoral success shows that it’s been very good trick, but if you try to repeat any trick too often people eventually work out how it’s done and the magic is ruined. This particular trick only works if you have a credible economic case for independence, and that simply doesn’t exist.
How about the BBC showing a documentaries entitled' sixty days after the vote', or maybe 'six years after the vote' showing the result of a Remain or Leave vote. Along the lines of the Ukip one they did before the GE, with all the horror stories that it showed.
I can see them doing a Leave one where inflation rockets and thousands are out of work, but they may decide a Remain one wouldn't be 'appropriate'. To their eyes, it would be balanced and they really would think so.
Yet, I retain a respect for their efforts. It's hard not to be biased when all your reasoning says that you're right.
Wasn't it Channel 4 not BBC?
HMG aren't selling off their share in C4 now either, apparently. Basically - they seem to be fannying about and u-turning on many pledges. Only a year in and we're seeing endless screwing up. I'm reaching the point where I simply don't believe anything.
How about the BBC showing a documentaries entitled' sixty days after the vote', or maybe 'six years after the vote' showing the result of a Remain or Leave vote. Along the lines of the Ukip one they did before the GE, with all the horror stories that it showed.
I can see them doing a Leave one where inflation rockets and thousands are out of work, but they may decide a Remain one wouldn't be 'appropriate'. To their eyes, it would be balanced and they really would think so.
Yet, I retain a respect for their efforts. It's hard not to be biased when all your reasoning says that you're right.
Wasn't it Channel 4 not BBC?
HMG aren't selling off their share in C4 now either, apparently. Basically - they seem to be fannying about and u-turning on many pledges. Only a year in and we're seeing endless screwing up. I'm reaching the point where I simply don't believe anything.
Well produced piece, but one point. Is English the most widely spoken lanuage? Might be in commerce, but I thought that on a purely numbers basis it was second or third.
Mandarin is spoken by more people, but they are pretty much all in China.
I doubt that is true anymore. It is true for first languages but many globally speak English as a second language just as well or better than many Brits speak it as a first. Go to the Netherlands and ask a young adult if they speak English and they will look at you like you have asked them if they are capable of crossing the road by themselves.
Very true. I used to edit a games magazine, and the standard of written English from two Norwegian contrributors was better than the English contributors.
When I was changing planes in Dubai last year, I wanted to ask a random baggage handler where the loo was, but it seemed culturally sensitive etc. first to ask if he spoke English. He said, irritably, "Of course I do. Do you think that because I'm an Arab I'm an ignorant peasant?" That's the sort of trouble that Guardian readers get into... still not sure who was right!
Ha. Everyone here speaks English!
It's an interesting place for culture, as 90% of the population are expatriate. The locals try hard to maintain their culture but with people from every country in the world here, it's becoming increasing difficult for them. Business is all done in English outside the public sector here, where 2/3 of Emiratis work.
I’ve usually found that “Toilette” with raised eyebrows works fine!
I am not an expert on the right, it is true, but I am struggling to see what differentiates Tory supporters of Brexit from UKIP ones. Where are their main areas of disagreement? What - apart from personality issues - would prevent them being one party?
He'll be remembered as the PM who took the UK out of Europe: scorned on all sides at home and abroad. What a legacy.
Unless it's a raging success, of course...
The last time we took a big step back from the EU, when we left the ERM, was the firing of the starting gun on a 15 year economic boom. Why would leaving the EU itself not be capable of producing a similar result for the next 15 years?
Well, John Major deserves credit for not signing us up to the Euro, and for at least recognising the ERM game was up.
Whether we vote Leave now, or at some point in the future, the events of 1992 were the turning point.
That's fair. He also got us out of the social chapter (at least at first) and achieved more in his negotiations than Cameron.
It is interesting to spectulate just what might have happened if Kinnock had won in April 1992 and decided to remove the EMU opt-out and give it a go.
No it isn't fair, and it isn't right.
Major deserves no credit whatsoever for 'recognising the game was up' re. the ERM. That is 100% at variance with what actually happened - he had to be forced out of it, kicking and screaming, by the markets. Anyone who thinks differently I can only assume was not sentient at the time.
And on the euro, the Maastricht opt-out was forced on him too, by the eurosceptics in his government. Even after it, he still continued to leave the door open to eventual membership.
His record in this area is one of being consistently on the wrong side of the argument.
How about the BBC showing a documentaries entitled' sixty days after the vote', or maybe 'six years after the vote' showing the result of a Remain or Leave vote. Along the lines of the Ukip one they did before the GE, with all the horror stories that it showed.
I can see them doing a Leave one where inflation rockets and thousands are out of work, but they may decide a Remain one wouldn't be 'appropriate'. To their eyes, it would be balanced and they really would think so.
Yet, I retain a respect for their efforts. It's hard not to be biased when all your reasoning says that you're right.
Wasn't it Channel 4 not BBC?
HMG aren't selling off their share in C4 now either, apparently. Basically - they seem to be fannying about and u-turning on many pledges. Only a year in and we're seeing endless screwing up. I'm reaching the point where I simply don't believe anything.
The deficit's still of Brownian proportions and industrial production is now back in recession, while latest PMI's suggest we are close to flatline overall.
Osborne is hoping that the referendum vote will give him cover for his failures.
If the ONS announces poor figures next month - Osborne will blame it on Brexit.
I imagine so, although that being the case I wonder what he'll say if figures are poor in the months after a remain win, should it happen. If fear of Brexit leads to quick negative impacts, removal of that fear should see a positive impact quickly.
And since the Nats have been sitting on the sidelines, here's one from their favourite blogger:
The problem for the SNP is that they’re a one-trick pony. Their electoral success shows that it’s been very good trick, but if you try to repeat any trick too often people eventually work out how it’s done and the magic is ruined. This particular trick only works if you have a credible economic case for independence, and that simply doesn’t exist.
Poor old Royal Canin Kevin, in a permanent state of rage that nobody bar a few spume flecked yoons will listen to him.
What he'd give to be voted one of Scotland's top 10 political websites.
He wisely eschews the Zoomer echo chamber that served the cause of independence so well...
Kev's pathetically desperate to interact with anyone, including 'zoomers'. When anyone replies to his tweets he adopts the characteristics of the terriers he feeds.
My point was that bias can be shown in omission as much as in activity, and that's where the BBC can fail occasionally. Not by rubbishing a viewpoint, which they do occasionally, so much as not assuming something deserves a hearing.
I think the BBC, despite it's Guardinista viewpoint does do its best, but there are bound to be the odd mote.
I am not an expert on the right, it is true, but I am struggling to see what differentiates Tory supporters of Brexit from UKIP ones. Where are their main areas of disagreement? What - apart from personality issues - would prevent them being one party?
Immigration.
Is that a point of difference? Broadly speaking they both think it has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished, no?
Good morning all. So all us suckers will have to continue paying the TV license fee until 2027. So much for the much vaunted negotiations and changes to the BBC which help all the license payers up and down the country.
Rather like Cameron's cheap sell out to the EU. This Tory government can't help being weak when called upon to defend the British public, but strong when it comes to taking all the austerity measures they can to fill the ever emptying government coffers.
I take it you and your lady wife are under 75 years of age?
I think your analysis is half right. I think this is another example of Cameron throwing Conservative interests under the bus to win the referendum (abandoning trade union legislation on the political levy is the glaring example).
@Charles has pointed just how many favours Cameron has traded for personal, not national, advantage.
How about the BBC showing a documentaries entitled' sixty days after the vote', or maybe 'six years after the vote' showing the result of a Remain or Leave vote. Along the lines of the Ukip one they did before the GE, with all the horror stories that it showed.
I can see them doing a Leave one where inflation rockets and thousands are out of work, but they may decide a Remain one wouldn't be 'appropriate'. To their eyes, it would be balanced and they really would think so.
Yet, I retain a respect for their efforts. It's hard not to be biased when all your reasoning says that you're right.
Wasn't it Channel 4 not BBC?
HMG aren't selling off their share in C4 now either, apparently. Basically - they seem to be fannying about and u-turning on many pledges. Only a year in and we're seeing endless screwing up. I'm reaching the point where I simply don't believe anything.
Totally agree with you, @Plato. The government under an ever more berserker Cameron, has become simply a lying machine. Woe to poor Britain!.
Incidentally, the immigration figures being more than a million wrong got about 30s on the BBC at ten last night. Not sure that reflects the significance of the story, to be honest.
And since the Nats have been sitting on the sidelines, here's one from their favourite blogger:
The problem for the SNP is that they’re a one-trick pony. Their electoral success shows that it’s been very good trick, but if you try to repeat any trick too often people eventually work out how it’s done and the magic is ruined. This particular trick only works if you have a credible economic case for independence, and that simply doesn’t exist.
Poor old Royal Canin Kevin, in a permanent state of rage that nobody bar a few spume flecked yoons will listen to him.
What he'd give to be voted one of Scotland's top 10 political websites.
He wisely eschews the Zoomer echo chamber that served the cause of independence so well...
Kev's pathetically desperate to interact with anyone, including 'zoomers'. When anyone replies to his tweets he adopts the characteristics of the terriers he feeds.
The frontpages are horrible from the Sun, Telegraph and Mail...and the Express.
Those immigration stats are awful and manna for VoteLeave. A MILLION+ more than HMG claimed?!?! And 800k more from the EU alone
Cameron's tens of thousands manifesto commitment is looking more and more like a giant lie.
Those with National Insurance Numbers will be the scrupulous ones with scrupulous employers, theoretically doing the law abiding thing.
There will of course be perfectly legal EU migrants who have been entering the country who didn't bother to register and are working on the black market, cash in hand. Pop over for over six months, cash in hand, no tax, then back home.
I wonder what the count is for this group?
Ask Cameron then multiply by 10.
I'm yet to see comments elsewhere saying anything other than We've Been Lied To, We Still Don't Believe You, What Else Are You Lying About?
The margin of error and the *explanation* simply aren't cutting it. And many are pointing out that the implications for infrastructure, housing, health, education et al aren't covered by those earning minimum wage or slightly above.
IIRC less than 50% of the population is a net contributor to the economy. It seems unlikely that those employed in mid-low skilled jobs will be in this category.
I'd have thought that temporary EU visitors to the UK are highly likely to be net contributors. They're not likely to have kids in tow, so they won't be getting child-related benefits or be using the education system. They're likely to be young and healthy, so little drain in the NHS. So, while their wages may be too low to pay much tax, they'll be taking very little out of the pot. And, of course, no-one escapes paying VAT.
Good morning all. So all us suckers will have to continue paying the TV license fee until 2027. So much for the much vaunted negotiations and changes to the BBC which help all the license payers up and down the country.
Rather like Cameron's cheap sell out to the EU. This Tory government can't help being weak when called upon to defend the British public, but strong when it comes to taking all the austerity measures they can to fill the ever emptying government coffers.
I take it you and your lady wife are under 75 years of age?
I think your analysis is half right. I think this is another example of Cameron throwing Conservative interests under the bus to win the referendum (abandoning trade union legislation on the political levy is the glaring example).
@Charles has pointed just how many favours Cameron has traded for personal, not national, advantage.
I used to laugh when people on here compared Cameron to Ted Heath. But the similarities are becoming uncanny.
In particular, what we now see is a massive loss of authority within his own party and among the public.
Really, he can't go soon enough. But I'm sure he has a comfortable future ahead of him, outside politics.
He'll be remembered as the PM who took the UK out of Europe: scorned on all sides at home and abroad. What a legacy.
Unless it's a raging success, of course...
The last time we took a big step back from the EU, when we left the ERM, was the firing of the starting gun on a 15 year economic boom. Why would leaving the EU itself not be capable of producing a similar result for the next 15 years?
Well, John Major deserves credit for not signing us up to the Euro, and for at least recognising the ERM game was up.
Whether we vote Leave now, or at some point in the future, the events of 1992 were the turning point.
That's fair. He also got us out of the social chapter (at least at first) and achieved more in his negotiations than Cameron.
It is interesting to spectulate just what might have happened if Kinnock had won in April 1992 and decided to remove the EMU opt-out and give it a go.
No it isn't fair, and it isn't right.
Major deserves no credit whatsoever for 'recognising the game was up' re. the ERM. That is 100% at variance with what actually happened - he had to be forced out of it, kicking and screaming, by the markets. Anyone who thinks differently I can only assume was not sentient at the time.
And on the euro, the Maastricht opt-out was forced on him too, by the eurosceptics in his government. Even after it, he still continued to leave the door open to eventual membership.
His record in this area is one of being consistently on the wrong side of the argument.
Major willingly destroyed the economic credibility of the Conservative party in his efforts to keep Britain in the ERM. In this he was fully supported by Clarke and Heseltine.
I rather think they were disappointed that Britain didn't suffer the 3 million job losses, hyperinflation, car factories shutting down, City moving to Frankfurt and sterling becoming 'as worthless as the Ukrainian Coupon' that they all promised would happen if Britain left the ERM.
I was once in a conference/course in Denmark where most of the participants were Scandinavian. The lectures were all in English and during a Norwegian's talk, the person next to me, a Finnish doctor, leaned over to check on the finer points of his grammar. I waffled a little but I was impressed by her perfect English.
"How many languages do you speak?" I asked.
"Seventeen," she replied. "But only eight fluently."
Incidentally, the immigration figures being more than a million wrong got about 30s on the BBC at ten last night. Not sure that reflects the significance of the story, to be honest.
He'll be remembered as the PM who took the UK out of Europe: scorned on all sides at home and abroad. What a legacy.
Unless it's a raging success, of course...
The last time we took a big step back from the EU, when we left the ERM, was the firing of the starting gun on a 15 year economic boom. Why would leaving the EU itself not be capable of producing a similar result for the next 15 years?
Well, John Major deserves credit for not signing us up to the Euro, and for at least recognising the ERM game was up.
Does he? The only reason he "recognised" that the ERM game was up was because there was no choice. He did everything he possibly could to keep us in it, including shoving up interest rates to incredible levels, presiding over a mass house repossession crisis across middle England (paving the way to the Conservatives 1997 meltdown) and generally behaving like an utter fool for days on end when it was obvious to anybody with half a brain that we should leave the ERM.
As far as the Euro is concerned, the only reason this quisling little man didn't sign us up to that is because his Party and the Papers (which were much stronger then) would never have gone along with it. Do you seriously think that if this idiot had had his way he wouldn't have dumped us into the Euro?
John Major is an utter fool. He took his Party down to the worst defeat since the Duke Of Wellington... Why anybody would take any notice of him I have no idea.
It's a very interesting parallel to now, though. There was no ERMexit referendum. It happened because we were forced out. It caused some short-term pain (house price falls and some job losses) but was absolutely the right thing to do for Britain's long term economic and political health. Outside the ERM we diverged from the path to the euro, had a booming economy by 1997 and (despite 1999-2003 being a rather risky time for Sterling, politically, at the whims of Blair) staying out has been absolutely vindicated by events.
The lesson is clear: exiting from EU integration does cause 1-3 years of short-term discomfort. And then it gets better. Much much better.
Good morning all. So all us suckers will have to continue paying the TV license fee until 2027. So much for the much vaunted negotiations and changes to the BBC which help all the license payers up and down the country.
Rather like Cameron's cheap sell out to the EU. This Tory government can't help being weak when called upon to defend the British public, but strong when it comes to taking all the austerity measures they can to fill the ever emptying government coffers.
I take it you and your lady wife are under 75 years of age?
I think your analysis is half right. I think this is another example of Cameron throwing Conservative interests under the bus to win the referendum (abandoning trade union legislation on the political levy is the glaring example).
@Charles has pointed just how many favours Cameron has traded for personal, not national, advantage.
I used to laugh when people on here compared Cameron to Ted Heath. But the similarities are becoming uncanny.
In particular, what we now see is a massive loss of authority within his own party and among the public.
Really, he can't go soon enough. But I'm sure he has a comfortable future ahead of him, outside politics.
You mean he has his future saved as a bigwig of the EU if Remain win, and possibly even if Remain lose.
Channel 4 have done a massive job of uncovering Tory expenses suggesting "large-scale and systematic abuse of election rules by the Conservative Party in last year's General Election and three key by-elections in 2014" It looks like 29 winning Tories may be on the slippery slope. UKIP and The Lib-Dems have a genuine grievance.
Surely they'll be able to buy lawyers good enough to spring them free....
What I find odd about the Channel 4 investigation into the hotel expenses for the BattleBus volunteers is that the Conservative Party may have block-booked rooms - and probably got a preferential rate. But nobody seems to have told Channel 4 that the hotel accommodation was paid for by the individual volunteers. Not by the Party.
I know, I was sent the invitation e-mails. Still have them somewhere, no doubt.
Good morning all. So all us suckers will have to continue paying the TV license fee until 2027. So much for the much vaunted negotiations and changes to the BBC which help all the license payers up and down the country.
Rather like Cameron's cheap sell out to the EU. This Tory government can't help being weak when called upon to defend the British public, but strong when it comes to taking all the austerity measures they can to fill the ever emptying government coffers.
I take it you and your lady wife are under 75 years of age?
I think your analysis is half right. I think this is another example of Cameron throwing Conservative interests under the bus to win the referendum (abandoning trade union legislation on the political levy is the glaring example).
@Charles has pointed just how many favours Cameron has traded for personal, not national, advantage.
No, I'm over 80, but the BBC now want the chance to wring more out of the older pensioners by abolishing the largess established in the last few decades.
How about the BBC showing a documentaries entitled' sixty days after the vote', or maybe 'six years after the vote' showing the result of a Remain or Leave vote. Along the lines of the Ukip one they did before the GE, with all the horror stories that it showed.
I can see them doing a Leave one where inflation rockets and thousands are out of work, but they may decide a Remain one wouldn't be 'appropriate'. To their eyes, it would be balanced and they really would think so.
Yet, I retain a respect for their efforts. It's hard not to be biased when all your reasoning says that you're right.
Wasn't it Channel 4 not BBC?
HMG aren't selling off their share in C4 now either, apparently. Basically - they seem to be fannying about and u-turning on many pledges. Only a year in and we're seeing endless screwing up. I'm reaching the point where I simply don't believe anything.
The u-turns and mistakes that Cameron and Osborne are making just beggars belief. Are they taking advice from Gordon Brown?
The frontpages are horrible from the Sun, Telegraph and Mail...and the Express.
Those immigration stats are awful and manna for VoteLeave. A MILLION+ more than HMG claimed?!?! And 800k more from the EU alone
Cameron's tens of thousands manifesto commitment is looking more and more like a giant lie.
Those with National Insurance Numbers will be the scrupulous ones with scrupulous employers, theoretically doing the law abiding thing.
There will of course be perfectly legal EU migrants who have been entering the country who didn't bother to register and are working on the black market, cash in hand. Pop over for over six months, cash in hand, no tax, then back home.
I wonder what the count is for this group?
Ask Cameron then multiply by 10.
I'm yet to see comments elsewhere saying anything other than We've Been Lied To, We Still Don't Believe You, What Else Are You Lying About?
The margin of error and the *explanation* simply aren't cutting it. And many are pointing out that the implications for infrastructure, housing, health, education et al aren't covered by those earning minimum wage or slightly above.
IIRC less than 50% of the population is a net contributor to the economy. It seems unlikely that those employed in mid-low skilled jobs will be in this category.
I'd have thought that temporary EU visitors to the UK are highly likely to be net contributors. They're not likely to have kids in tow, so they won't be getting child-related benefits or be using the education system. They're likely to be young and healthy, so little drain in the NHS. So, while their wages may be too low to pay much tax, they'll be taking very little out of the pot. And, of course, no-one escapes paying VAT.
Misses a few points.
If their wages are low, they are depressing wages of native workers, forcing them onto tax credits.
Also, they've got to be living somewhere, thus pushing the price of housing up.
So, the lowest in British society are further downtrodden so employers and landlords can benefit?
Channel 4 have done a massive job of uncovering Tory expenses suggesting "large-scale and systematic abuse of election rules by the Conservative Party in last year's General Election and three key by-elections in 2014" It looks like 29 winning Tories may be on the slippery slope. UKIP and The Lib-Dems have a genuine grievance.
Surely they'll be able to buy lawyers good enough to spring them free....
What I find odd about the Channel 4 investigation into the hotel expenses for the BattleBus volunteers is that the Conservative Party may have block-booked rooms - and probably got a preferential rate. But nobody seems to have told Channel 4 that the hotel accommodation was paid for by the individual volunteers. Not by the Party.
I know, I was sent the invitation e-mails. Still have them somewhere, no doubt.
Sworn enemies, surely? Don’t bet on it. My hunch is that the SNP and the Tories are heading for a five-year snogathon behind the Holyrood bike sheds.
The bottom line is this: the Tories are about to prop up this minority SNP administration in exactly the same way they did in 2007. Never mind kissing, this is heavy petting.
Cuddling up to the Tories gets the first minister out of a whole lot of bother. For one thing, it provides her administration with stability, at little cost. More importantly, it avoids her being dragged to the left by the Greens or the Lib Dems.
This Farage vs Cameron debate could go very badly for Cameron. Farage will have the time to prepare himself and go in fresh and rested. Cameron will not. Farage can hammer Cameron mercilessly on his record on immigration with fact after fact. The one thing that Farage starts out weak on is his low level of trust with the undecideds which is as bad as Cameron's. But for the wwc watching it could shift some away from voting REMAIN.
Yet more sense cutting through a lot of bull from mr stodge.
Thank you for the kind word, my friend.
I am however deeply conflicted at this time. While it is claimed the Conservative Party is officially neutral in the EU Referendum (and there's an element of truth in that even as senior members of that party take opposing positions and tear lumps out of each other), the same cannot be said of my party, the Liberal Democrats.
Tim Farron has unambiguously nailed his colours to REMAIN, the party is running stalls supporting REMAIN and the information within the party is almost wholly one-sided in its support for REMAIN.
Yet, we know a significant minority of the insignificant Lib Dem voting population and a minority within the party are for LEAVE and I'm one of them. Having been a Party member for more than 30 years, I find myself in profound disagreement with the Party on a key matter of principle and I wonder if I can remain a member of the Party going forward.
I'm an internationalist and strongly believe in nations working together, collaborating and co-operating to solve the issues that are bigger than any one of them but which affect all of them. I've no problem with pooling sovereignty - NATO has been a stunning success, I have known a lifetime (so far) of relative peace not free of fear or terror admittedly but not the experience of war my parents faced.
Yet to me it seems blindingly obvious the EU is failing and has failed. Set up with the best of intentions and conceived in the aftermath of a terrible war, it should be a huge positive force. Britain needs to shoulder its share of the blame for its failure - we failed to engage in the 1950s when we were still in our superpower Imperial mind-set pre-Suez and having been denied entry by de Gaulle, we've never been enthusiastic or supportive members.
It is an economic and political structure that no longer works for us nor the Greeks nor, I would argue, for many other EU members. As leaders of a reformed and relaunched EFTA, Britain outside the EU can develop a new economic and political model of co-operation recognising the benefits of collaboration and free trade while retaining and respecting the individuality of nations.
Tim Farron and David Cameron believe, as I once did, the EU can be reformed from within - I seen little or no evidence that can happen. Britain will continue to snipe and sneer from the sidelines yet get dragged along like a petulant child in time. We'll have a periodic flounce from a Conservative Prime Minister for domestic or Party consumption but Cameron's biggest mistake is to believe the Referendum will solve the issue within the Conservative Party and beyond - it won't.
Good morning all. So all us suckers will have to continue paying the TV license fee until 2027. So much for the much vaunted negotiations and changes to the BBC which help all the license payers up and down the country.
Rather like Cameron's cheap sell out to the EU. This Tory government can't help being weak when called upon to defend the British public, but strong when it comes to taking all the austerity measures they can to fill the ever emptying government coffers.
I take it you and your lady wife are under 75 years of age?
I think your analysis is half right. I think this is another example of Cameron throwing Conservative interests under the bus to win the referendum (abandoning trade union legislation on the political levy is the glaring example).
@Charles has pointed just how many favours Cameron has traded for personal, not national, advantage.
No, I'm over 80, but the BBC now want the chance to wring more out of the older pensioners by abolishing the largess established in the last few decades.
Wring more out of you? You currently pay nothing. You should be paying the same as the rest of us.
I welcome VapidBilge to the PB company; Long may he post.
However other names came up yesterday when I used the term Arse Licker to describe a PB personality. I also wrote other titles such as "Tuchus Lacher" (Yiddish, same meaning) or Brown Noser, a term used frequently when I was in the Army in the 1950's.
I am not an expert on the right, it is true, but I am struggling to see what differentiates Tory supporters of Brexit from UKIP ones. Where are their main areas of disagreement? What - apart from personality issues - would prevent them being one party?
It's a very interesting parallel to now, though. There was no ERMexit referendum. It happened because we were forced out. It caused some short-term pain (house price falls and some job losses) but was absolutely the right thing to do for Britain's long term economic and political health. Outside the ERM we diverged from the path to the euro, had a booming economy by 1997 and (despite 1999-2003 being a rather risky time for Sterling, politically, at the whims of Blair) staying out has been absolutely vindicated by events.
The lesson is clear: exiting from EU integration does cause 1-3 years of short-term discomfort. And then it gets better. Much much better.
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
No that is also wrong as well.
This is the quarterly pattern of UK GDP growth around the ERM exit in 1992
Far from creating 'short-term pain', the economy leapt forward after the ERM exit, from a period of recession to a period of very strong growth. Employment started grow again by Q1 93, as did house prices.
It's important to get this right because a lot of what is masquerading as 'analysis' of the economic impact of Brexit is based on the same flawed assumptions that many of the analyses of a post-ERM UK were in 1992.
In particular, many analyses are assuming (and note, these are often pure assumptions)
a) a big 'confidence' shock b) a collapse in FDI c) some kind of uncontrolled devaluation d) higher inflation and a hike in interest rates e) a deterioration inn trade performance
All these assumptions were made about what would happen after an ERM exit as well. One well-known commentator's take on things immediately after ERM exit ran along the lines 'a year from now, inflation will be 8-10% and the current account deficit will explode'.
This Farage vs Cameron debate could go very badly for Cameron. Farage will have the time to prepare himself and go in fresh and rested. Cameron will not. Farage can hammer Cameron mercilessly on his record on immigration with fact after fact. The one thing that Farage starts out weak on is his low level of trust with the undecideds which is as bad as Cameron's. But for the wwc watching it could shift some away from voting REMAIN.
The schedule to me looks too much like the David Cameron show. The majority of support for Remain comes from outside the Conservative party.
I am not convinced that much of it will be worth watching.
I expect it'll be reasonably entertaining TV, but yes, the schedule raises more questions than it answers. The Tories are pretty polarised on this; Labour is on the whole not, but Labour voters aren't sure whether to get involved at all, so Remain needs to make sure that both Corbyn and Alan Johnson OR Sadiq Khan get into the schedule - each of them appeals to a different segment of the Labour electorate so they're both needed in there.
If Remain does lose, Cameron will have no-one to blame but himself. He'll be remembered as the PM who took the UK out of Europe: scorned on all sides at home and abroad. What a legacy.
Alternatively, he had the courage to ask the British people what they thought, and acted on the answer.....
Why would he be scorned for respecting the will of the people?
He is already alienating large numbers of Tories. If you believe the warnings about Brexit he'll also be scorned for failing to prevent it, having precipitated it only to buy some time with internal party critics.
Yes, but why is seeking, then respecting, the will of the people something worthy of scorn?
What is already worthy of scorn is Cameron's willingness to risk so much - according to him, the governor of the Bank of England and so many others - in order to prevent a leakage of a few votes to UKIP. Should he end up on the losing side, his inability to persuade the electorate that his warnings were credible will also be worthy of scorn. And scorn he will get - on all sides and from all parts the world. He will be remembered for failing.
He also thinks that a Labour government would be a catastrophe (although of course any right small r thinking person thinks this too).
He's not about to ban general elections, is he?
Not sure what that has to do with calling a referendum he says would be catastrophic to lose in order to prevent a few people voting UKIP.
Because it's democracy.
It is. And so are referendums on any number of other subjects. But the reason we are having this one has nothing to do with anything other than Dave's feeble leadership and his concerns that the Tories might lose a few votes to UKIP.
You have to admire the twisting of the ONS confirmation that the migration figures are accurate into ONE MILLION MORE IMMIGRANTS THAN WE WERE TOLD!
If voters fall for such nonsense, well, they fall for nonsense. If they want to accept the economic risk, then they can choose to the economic risk (they certainly can't complain that they weren't warned). That's democracy, and it's entirely to Cameron's credit that he has given voters the opportunity to make the decision.
Yet more sense cutting through a lot of bull from mr stodge.
Thank you for the kind word, my friend.
I am however deeply conflicted at this time. While it is claimed the Conservative Party is officially neutral in the EU Referendum (and there's an element of truth in that even as senior members of that party take opposing positions and tear lumps out of each other), the same cannot be said of my party, the Liberal Democrats.
Tim Farron has unambiguously nailed his colours to REMAIN, the party is running stalls supporting REMAIN and the information within the party is almost wholly one-sided in its support for REMAIN.
Yet, we know a significant minority of the insignificant Lib Dem voting population and a minority within the party are for LEAVE and I'm one of them. Having been a Party member for more than 30 years, I find myself in profound disagreement with the Party on a key matter of principle and I wonder if I can remain a member of the Party going forward.
I'm an internationalist and strongly believe in nations working together, collaborating and co-operating to solve the issues that are bigger than any one of them but which affect all of them. I've no problem with pooling sovereignty - NATO has been a stunning success, I have known a lifetime (so far) of relative peace not free of fear or terror admittedly but not the experience of war my parents faced.
Yet to me it seems blindingly obvious the EU is failing and has failed. Set up with the best of intentions and conceived in the aftermath of a terrible war, it should be a huge positive force. Britain needs to shoulder its share of the blame for its failure - we failed to engage in the 1950s when we were still in our superpower Imperial mind-set pre-Suez and having been denied entry by de Gaulle, we've never been enthusiastic or supportive members.
It is an economic and political structure that no longer works for us nor the Greeks nor, I would argue, for many other EU members. As leaders of a reformed and relaunched EFTA, Britain outside the EU can develop a new economic and political model of co-operation recognising the benefits of collaboration and free trade while retaining and respecting the individuality of nations.
Tim Farron and David Cameron believe, as I once did, the EU can be reformed from within - I seen little or no evidence that can happen. Britain will continue to snipe and sneer from the sidelines yet get dragged along like a petulant child in time. We'll have a periodic flounce from a Conservative Prime Minister for domestic or Party consumption but Cameron's biggest mistake is to believe the Referendum will solve the issue within the Conservative Party and beyond - it won't.
The schedule to me looks too much like the David Cameron show. The majority of support for Remain comes from outside the Conservative party.
I am not convinced that much of it will be worth watching.
I expect it'll be reasonably entertaining TV, but yes, the schedule raises more questions than it answers. The Tories are pretty polarised on this; Labour is on the whole not, but Labour voters aren't sure whether to get involved at all, so Remain needs to make sure that both Corbyn and Alan Johnson OR Sadiq Khan get into the schedule - each of them appeals to a different segment of the Labour electorate so they're both needed in there.
This looks and feels like a right wing argument that has little to do with Labour voters. That's no surprise given that the referendum is only happening because of internal Tory dynamics and the fear of vote-leak to UKIP.
Cameron is reaping what he sowed: * EU immigrant bashing and misleading stats on benefit claims were deemed helpful for short-term electoral gain, but now that genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back. * Voter registration rules were rewritten to favour the Tories; it turns out potential Remain voters are most likely to be disenfranchised. * The referendum was designed to quieten down the Tory right; that's alienated the Labour people Cameron needs to turnout in order to win.
It's a masterpiece of bad planning in which short-term gain has taken precedence over long-term strategic thought. If Remain does lose, Cameron will have no-one to blame but himself. He'll be remembered as the PM who took the UK out of Europe: scorned on all sides at home and abroad. What a legacy.
"He'll be remembered as the PM who took the UK out of Europe".
No, no - it'll be the VOTERS who took the EU out of Europe. Clearly, you don't like giving voters the choice.
You have to admire the twisting of the ONS confirmation that the migration figures are accurate into ONE MILLION MORE IMMIGRANTS THAN WE WERE TOLD!
If voters fall for such nonsense, well, they fall for nonsense. If they want to accept the economic risk, then they can choose to the economic risk (they certainly can't complain that they weren't warned). That's democracy, and it's entirely to Cameron's credit that he has given voters the opportunity to make the decision.
The PM has spent a number of years saying how awful it is there is such high immigration from the EU into the UK. He also claimed 40% of migrants were on benefits of one kind or another. He has fanned the flames for electoral advantage and is now paying the price. That's his fault, not the fault of voters.
Good morning all. So all us suckers will have to continue paying the TV license fee until 2027. So much for the much vaunted negotiations and changes to the BBC which help all the license payers up and down the country.
Rather like Cameron's cheap sell out to the EU. This Tory government can't help being weak when called upon to defend the British public, but strong when it comes to taking all the austerity measures they can to fill the ever emptying government coffers.
I take it you and your lady wife are under 75 years of age?
I think your analysis is half right. I think this is another example of Cameron throwing Conservative interests under the bus to win the referendum (abandoning trade union legislation on the political levy is the glaring example).
@Charles has pointed just how many favours Cameron has traded for personal, not national, advantage.
No, I'm over 80, but the BBC now want the chance to wring more out of the older pensioners by abolishing the largess established in the last few decades.
To be fair, Mr K, as one who has just had the last but one 70’s birthday, for a country where "we are all in this together" our age group has dome remarkably well!
The only exception of course is interest on savings
You have to admire the twisting of the ONS confirmation that the migration figures are accurate into ONE MILLION MORE IMMIGRANTS THAN WE WERE TOLD!
If voters fall for such nonsense, well, they fall for nonsense. If they want to accept the economic risk, then they can choose to the economic risk (they certainly can't complain that they weren't warned). That's democracy, and it's entirely to Cameron's credit that he has given voters the opportunity to make the decision.
The PM has spent a number of years saying how awful it is there is such high immigration from the EU into the UK. He also claimed 40% of migrants were on benefits of one kind or another. He has fanned the flames for electoral advantage and is now paying the price. That's his fault, not the fault of voters.
He has an entirely schizophrenic attitude towards immigration too.
I am not an expert on the right, it is true, but I am struggling to see what differentiates Tory supporters of Brexit from UKIP ones. Where are their main areas of disagreement? What - apart from personality issues - would prevent them being one party?
Immigration.
Is that a point of difference? Broadly speaking they both think it has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished, no?
Vote Leave (and Carswell, Hannan, Elliot/Cummings and others) are more interested in sovereignty and democracy. They are not that bothered (at all) by immigration.
The schedule to me looks too much like the David Cameron show. The majority of support for Remain comes from outside the Conservative party.
I am not convinced that much of it will be worth watching.
I expect it'll be reasonably entertaining TV, but yes, the schedule raises more questions than it answers. The Tories are pretty polarised on this; Labour is on the whole not, but Labour voters aren't sure whether to get involved at all, so Remain needs to make sure that both Corbyn and Alan Johnson OR Sadiq Khan get into the schedule - each of them appeals to a different segment of the Labour electorate so they're both needed in there.
This looks and feels like a right wing argument that has little to do with Labour voters. That's no surprise given that the referendum is only happening because of internal Tory dynamics and the fear of vote-leak to UKIP.
Cameron is reaping what he sowed: * EU immigrant bashing and misleading stats on benefit claims were deemed helpful for short-term electoral gain, but now that genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back. * Voter registration rules were rewritten to favour the Tories; it turns out potential Remain voters are most likely to be disenfranchised. * The referendum was designed to quieten down the Tory right; that's alienated the Labour people Cameron needs to turnout in order to win.
It's a masterpiece of bad planning in which short-term gain has taken precedence over long-term strategic thought. If Remain does lose, Cameron will have no-one to blame but himself. He'll be remembered as the PM who took the UK out of Europe: scorned on all sides at home and abroad. What a legacy.
"He'll be remembered as the PM who took the UK out of Europe".
No, no - it'll be the VOTERS who took the EU out of Europe. Clearly, you don't like giving voters the choice.
Yep, I guess that must be the only explanation. The reason I think Dave is reaping what he sowed is because I am opposed to democracy. Makes complete sense.
Channel 4 have done a massive job of uncovering Tory expenses suggesting "large-scale and systematic abuse of election rules by the Conservative Party in last year's General Election and three key by-elections in 2014" It looks like 29 winning Tories may be on the slippery slope. UKIP and The Lib-Dems have a genuine grievance.
Surely they'll be able to buy lawyers good enough to spring them free....
What I find odd about the Channel 4 investigation into the hotel expenses for the BattleBus volunteers is that the Conservative Party may have block-booked rooms - and probably got a preferential rate. But nobody seems to have told Channel 4 that the hotel accommodation was paid for by the individual volunteers. Not by the Party.
I know, I was sent the invitation e-mails. Still have them somewhere, no doubt.
Crick seems desperate to make something stick here, but he's not really been clear about why his accusations are so bad. The concept of a touring battle bus is hardly new.
I'd imagine that the most likely outcome is a clarification from the electoral commission on what is and isn't allowed in time for the 2020 election. It's not going to be 20 by-elections that's for sure.
How about the BBC showing a documentaries entitled' sixty days after the vote', or maybe 'six years after the vote' showing the result of a Remain or Leave vote. Along the lines of the Ukip one they did before the GE, with all the horror stories that it showed.
I can see them doing a Leave one where inflation rockets and thousands are out of work, but they may decide a Remain one wouldn't be 'appropriate'. To their eyes, it would be balanced and they really would think so.
Yet, I retain a respect for their efforts. It's hard not to be biased when all your reasoning says that you're right.
Wasn't it Channel 4 not BBC?
HMG aren't selling off their share in C4 now either, apparently. Basically - they seem to be fannying about and u-turning on many pledges. Only a year in and we're seeing endless screwing up. I'm reaching the point where I simply don't believe anything.
The u-turns and mistakes that Cameron and Osborne are making just beggars belief. Are they taking advice from Gordon Brown?
It's all rather reminiscent of the biggest u-turner of all: Ted Heath ... another lying Europhile.
You have to admire the twisting of the ONS confirmation that the migration figures are accurate into ONE MILLION MORE IMMIGRANTS THAN WE WERE TOLD!
If voters fall for such nonsense, well, they fall for nonsense. If they want to accept the economic risk, then they can choose to the economic risk (they certainly can't complain that they weren't warned). That's democracy, and it's entirely to Cameron's credit that he has given voters the opportunity to make the decision.
The PM has spent a number of years saying how awful it is there is such high immigration from the EU into the UK. He also claimed 40% of migrants were on benefits of one kind or another. He has fanned the flames for electoral advantage and is now paying the price. That's his fault, not the fault of voters.
Kev's pathetically desperate to interact with anyone, including 'zoomers'. When anyone replies to his tweets
You seem very interested and well informed on everything he does...
...for someone who doesn't care
I foolishly replied to two of his more egeregious tweets that were rted to me; I could hardly beat the wee creep off with a shitty stick. Bit like the Yoon migrants on here when a Nat appears.
I have just learned, that my son, who lives in Bath, refused to be evacuated even though he lives in the danger zone of the UX German bomb discovered last night. That's true grit.
As a former LibDem member, and still a voter, I’ve a lot of sympathy with Stodge’s view. However, it seeems to me that the problem isn’t whether or not we’re members of the EU; it’s our attitude to it. As Stodge rightly says "Britain will continue to snipe and sneer from the sidelines yet get dragged along like a petulant child in time. “ It’s no good being in such a club if one doesn’t particpate! I’m sure we can all think of societies to which we as individuals belong where, for example, getting a committee together is easier than drawing hens teeth, but where there’s always a groundswell of grumbling from a few when any change is made.
And that, it appears to me, is how Britain’s relationship with the EU is conducted. My hope is that as a result of a Remain victory we abandon this childish behaviour and help to keep the thing working.
I am not an expert on the right, it is true, but I am struggling to see what differentiates Tory supporters of Brexit from UKIP ones. Where are their main areas of disagreement? What - apart from personality issues - would prevent them being one party?
Immigration.
Really? In what way?
Leading Tory Leavers think that immigration will get a base of 30-40% but the extra 15-20% will be from middle classes voting on sovereignty, so that's where we should focus. They think immigration and Farage is a huge turn off for this group. I've heard it from the horse's mouth.
In fact, I had a very mild disagreement with a leading VL figure on this. That the views of ABs on this tend to be different from the C1s and C2s most affected and the immigration point had to be taken seriously.
The PM has spent a number of years saying how awful it is there is such high immigration from the EU into the UK. He also claimed 40% of migrants were on benefits of one kind or another. He has fanned the flames for electoral advantage and is now paying the price. That's his fault, not the fault of voters.
Not really. He has said, quite rightly, that immigration from the EU is too high. I agree with him, and so do most voters; it's the biggest disadvantage of our membership of the EU (although bizarrely many Leavers represented here on seem to want to retain the disadvantage, which is eccentric of them). The problem is that, other than making the benefits system less of a pull, there's nothing that can be done about it whilst retaining the benefits of full access to the Single Market. I think he's been over-optimistic about the effect of benefits changes, but it might make a bit of a difference at the margin.
None of that has anything to do with the utter nonsense about National Insurance numbers, which the frothers are getting so excited about.
I am not an expert on the right, it is true, but I am struggling to see what differentiates Tory supporters of Brexit from UKIP ones. Where are their main areas of disagreement? What - apart from personality issues - would prevent them being one party?
Immigration.
Is that a point of difference? Broadly speaking they both think it has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished, no?
Vote Leave (and Carswell, Hannan, Elliot/Cummings and others) are more interested in sovereignty and democracy. They are not that bothered (at all) by immigration.
But Tory Brexiters (or Remainers) for that matter want to reduce net migration by an order of magnitude. It was in your manifesto, famously.
I am not an expert on the right, it is true, but I am struggling to see what differentiates Tory supporters of Brexit from UKIP ones. Where are their main areas of disagreement? What - apart from personality issues - would prevent them being one party?
Immigration.
The immigration figures are anathema to Remain - unless they do something they are going to lose (opinion polls show that the Remain vote is very soft when faced with increased immigration - which it is now shown to be the case - so what they are doing is trying to besmirch LEAVE by tying it to UKIP - to try and get voters to feel tarnished if their vote is going to be based on the overcrowding of England basically it is a pure ad hominem attack.
(Based on the new figures, in 10 years the population of England will have increased by the population of Scotland. A simple, but damming fact.)
Channel 4 have done a massive job of uncovering Tory expenses suggesting "large-scale and systematic abuse of election rules by the Conservative Party in last year's General Election and three key by-elections in 2014" It looks like 29 winning Tories may be on the slippery slope. UKIP and The Lib-Dems have a genuine grievance.
Surely they'll be able to buy lawyers good enough to spring them free....
What I find odd about the Channel 4 investigation into the hotel expenses for the BattleBus volunteers is that the Conservative Party may have block-booked rooms - and probably got a preferential rate. But nobody seems to have told Channel 4 that the hotel accommodation was paid for by the individual volunteers. Not by the Party.
I know, I was sent the invitation e-mails. Still have them somewhere, no doubt.
Crick seems desperate to make something stick here, but he's not really been clear about why his accusations are so bad. The concept of a touring battle bus is hardly new.
I'd imagine that the most likely outcome is a clarification from the electoral commission on what is and isn't allowed in time for the 2020 election. It's not going to be 20 by-elections that's for sure.
The the Electoral Commission has said: “If activists were being bussed in to particularly campaign for a candidate, then according to the guidance that we provide, a candidate would have had to make a fair and honest assessment of this … and include that in their spending return.”
You have to admire the twisting of the ONS confirmation that the migration figures are accurate into ONE MILLION MORE IMMIGRANTS THAN WE WERE TOLD!
If voters fall for such nonsense, well, they fall for nonsense. If they want to accept the economic risk, then they can choose to the economic risk (they certainly can't complain that they weren't warned). That's democracy, and it's entirely to Cameron's credit that he has given voters the opportunity to make the decision.
The PM has spent a number of years saying how awful it is there is such high immigration from the EU into the UK. He also claimed 40% of migrants were on benefits of one kind or another. He has fanned the flames for electoral advantage and is now paying the price. That's his fault, not the fault of voters.
He has an entirely schizophrenic attitude towards immigration too.
He knows voters are wary of it, so he fans the anti-immigration flames to get votes; but he also knows that the government's economic plans are predicated on immigration. He's not scizophrenic, he's dishonest. But he's not the only one. Gove and Johnson are pretty much the same.
Channel 4 have done a massive job of uncovering Tory expenses suggesting "large-scale and systematic abuse of election rules by the Conservative Party in last year's General Election and three key by-elections in 2014" It looks like 29 winning Tories may be on the slippery slope. UKIP and The Lib-Dems have a genuine grievance.
Surely they'll be able to buy lawyers good enough to spring them free....
What I find odd about the Channel 4 investigation into the hotel expenses for the BattleBus volunteers is that the Conservative Party may have block-booked rooms - and probably got a preferential rate. But nobody seems to have told Channel 4 that the hotel accommodation was paid for by the individual volunteers. Not by the Party.
I know, I was sent the invitation e-mails. Still have them somewhere, no doubt.
Crick seems desperate to make something stick here, but he's not really been clear about why his accusations are so bad. The concept of a touring battle bus is hardly new.
I'd imagine that the most likely outcome is a clarification from the electoral commission on what is and isn't allowed in time for the 2020 election. It's not going to be 20 by-elections that's for sure.
As I understand it if a winning candidate is disqualified, then the seat is awarded to whoever came second. Although in Bristol, the judge held that the voters knewTony Benn wasn’t eligible when they voted for him.
Comments
http://order-order.com/2016/05/13/eu-paid-e160-million-to-pro-remain-groups/
Charitable donations, money, bribe, subsidy....coincidence.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to JNN the contents of the latest ARSE4EU Referendum Projection :
Should The United Kingdom Remain A Member Of The European Union Or Leave The European Union?
Remain 55% (NC) .. Leave 45% (NC)
Turnout Projection 64% (+1)
Changes from 10th May.
......................................................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
ARSE4EU - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors For European Union
When I was changing planes in Dubai last year, I wanted to ask a random baggage handler where the loo was, but it seemed culturally sensitive etc. first to ask if he spoke English. He said, irritably, "Of course I do. Do you think that because I'm an Arab I'm an ignorant peasant?" That's the sort of trouble that Guardian readers get into... still not sure who was right!
I can see them doing a Leave one where inflation rockets and thousands are out of work, but they may decide a Remain one wouldn't be 'appropriate'. To their eyes, it would be balanced and they really would think so.
Yet, I retain a respect for their efforts. It's hard not to be biased when all your reasoning says that you're right.
https://twitter.com/EuroGuido/status/731028331467055104
Gordon's last year as CotE was 2007/8, which had a government deficit of £41bn.
In 2015/16 the deficit was £74Bn.
If one hundred thousand extra people turn up in London every year looking for somewhere to live it impacts on housing conditions, rental prices, BTL demand and so on.
Then we hear people squealing about a lack of affordable housing.
The sheer volume of people is detrimental to infrastructure and wages.
It's great for business trying to suppress wages and BTL landlords cramming six to eight adults into terraced houses in places like Wood Green, East Ham and Hornsey.
Pairs of couples is becoming quite normal in BTL terraced houses. The family home is becoming the two-family-sharer home.
The convenience of it is, it's essentially unprovable one way or the other - especially as the UK economy and the global economy have already been slowing for a few quarters.
How to disentangle what would have happened in any case from any 'referendum' effects - you can't really.
It's an interesting place for culture, as 90% of the population are expatriate. The locals try hard to maintain their culture but with people from every country in the world here, it's becoming increasing difficult for them. Business is all done in English outside the public sector here, where 2/3 of Emiratis work.
I understand that you have some influence in the Conservative Party. I am someone now pretty certain to vote Remain. Could you suggest that your Party follows Ruth Davidson's tactic and keeps UK Government Ministers out of Scotland for the course of this referendum campaign.
I listened to a particularly bad example in the Financial Secretary this morning while last night David Mumdell came across as simply ridiculous on QT. None of this nonsence will help the Remain cause. If there is any talent at all in the new intake of the 22% at Holyrood then get them on TV and keep the Westminster gang off.
Thanks, that has cheered my day.
Major deserves no credit whatsoever for 'recognising the game was up' re. the ERM. That is 100% at variance with what actually happened - he had to be forced out of it, kicking and screaming, by the markets. Anyone who thinks differently I can only assume was not sentient at the time.
And on the euro, the Maastricht opt-out was forced on him too, by the eurosceptics in his government. Even after it, he still continued to leave the door open to eventual membership.
His record in this area is one of being consistently on the wrong side of the argument.
The market dislikes uncertainty.
"Wasn't it Channel 4 not BBC."
It probably was.
My point was that bias can be shown in omission as much as in activity, and that's where the BBC can fail occasionally. Not by rubbishing a viewpoint, which they do occasionally, so much as not assuming something deserves a hearing.
I think the BBC, despite it's Guardinista viewpoint does do its best, but there are bound to be the odd mote.
I think your analysis is half right. I think this is another example of Cameron throwing Conservative interests under the bus to win the referendum (abandoning trade union legislation on the political levy is the glaring example).
@Charles has pointed just how many favours Cameron has traded for personal, not national, advantage.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/05/12/1305-MATT-GALLERY-WEB-P1-large_trans++qVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8.png
In particular, what we now see is a massive loss of authority within his own party and among the public.
Really, he can't go soon enough. But I'm sure he has a comfortable future ahead of him, outside politics.
...for someone who doesn't care
I rather think they were disappointed that Britain didn't suffer the 3 million job losses, hyperinflation, car factories shutting down, City moving to Frankfurt and sterling becoming 'as worthless as the Ukrainian Coupon' that they all promised would happen if Britain left the ERM.
I was once in a conference/course in Denmark where most of the participants were Scandinavian. The lectures were all in English and during a Norwegian's talk, the person next to me, a Finnish doctor, leaned over to check on the finer points of his grammar. I waffled a little but I was impressed by her perfect English.
"How many languages do you speak?" I asked.
"Seventeen," she replied. "But only eight fluently."
The lesson is clear: exiting from EU integration does cause 1-3 years of short-term discomfort. And then it gets better. Much much better.
I know, I was sent the invitation e-mails. Still have them somewhere, no doubt.
If their wages are low, they are depressing wages of native workers, forcing them onto tax credits.
Also, they've got to be living somewhere, thus pushing the price of housing up.
So, the lowest in British society are further downtrodden so employers and landlords can benefit?
You are Stuart Rose and I claim my 10 roubles.
https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/731028114483056640
I am however deeply conflicted at this time. While it is claimed the Conservative Party is officially neutral in the EU Referendum (and there's an element of truth in that even as senior members of that party take opposing positions and tear lumps out of each other), the same cannot be said of my party, the Liberal Democrats.
Tim Farron has unambiguously nailed his colours to REMAIN, the party is running stalls supporting REMAIN and the information within the party is almost wholly one-sided in its support for REMAIN.
Yet, we know a significant minority of the insignificant Lib Dem voting population and a minority within the party are for LEAVE and I'm one of them. Having been a Party member for more than 30 years, I find myself in profound disagreement with the Party on a key matter of principle and I wonder if I can remain a member of the Party going forward.
I'm an internationalist and strongly believe in nations working together, collaborating and co-operating to solve the issues that are bigger than any one of them but which affect all of them. I've no problem with pooling sovereignty - NATO has been a stunning success, I have known a lifetime (so far) of relative peace not free of fear or terror admittedly but not the experience of war my parents faced.
Yet to me it seems blindingly obvious the EU is failing and has failed. Set up with the best of intentions and conceived in the aftermath of a terrible war, it should be a huge positive force. Britain needs to shoulder its share of the blame for its failure - we failed to engage in the 1950s when we were still in our superpower Imperial mind-set pre-Suez and having been denied entry by de Gaulle, we've never been enthusiastic or supportive members.
It is an economic and political structure that no longer works for us nor the Greeks nor, I would argue, for many other EU members. As leaders of a reformed and relaunched EFTA, Britain outside the EU can develop a new economic and political model of co-operation recognising the benefits of collaboration and free trade while retaining and respecting the individuality of nations.
Tim Farron and David Cameron believe, as I once did, the EU can be reformed from within - I seen little or no evidence that can happen. Britain will continue to snipe and sneer from the sidelines yet get dragged along like a petulant child in time. We'll have a periodic flounce from a Conservative Prime Minister for domestic or Party consumption but Cameron's biggest mistake is to believe the Referendum will solve the issue within the Conservative Party and beyond - it won't.
However other names came up yesterday when I used the term Arse Licker to describe a PB personality. I also wrote other titles such as "Tuchus Lacher" (Yiddish, same meaning) or Brown Noser, a term used frequently when I was in the Army in the 1950's.
Why has no newcomer taken up one of those names?
It's a very interesting parallel to now, though. There was no ERMexit referendum. It happened because we were forced out. It caused some short-term pain (house price falls and some job losses) but was absolutely the right thing to do for Britain's long term economic and political health. Outside the ERM we diverged from the path to the euro, had a booming economy by 1997 and (despite 1999-2003 being a rather risky time for Sterling, politically, at the whims of Blair) staying out has been absolutely vindicated by events.
The lesson is clear: exiting from EU integration does cause 1-3 years of short-term discomfort. And then it gets better. Much much better.
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
No that is also wrong as well.
This is the quarterly pattern of UK GDP growth around the ERM exit in 1992
Q1 92 0.0
Q2 92 -0.1
Q3 92 0.7
Q4 92 0.7
Q1 93 0.8
Far from creating 'short-term pain', the economy leapt forward after the ERM exit, from a period of recession to a period of very strong growth. Employment started grow again by Q1 93, as did house prices.
It's important to get this right because a lot of what is masquerading as 'analysis' of the economic impact of Brexit is based on the same flawed assumptions that many of the analyses of a post-ERM UK were in 1992.
In particular, many analyses are assuming (and note, these are often pure assumptions)
a) a big 'confidence' shock
b) a collapse in FDI
c) some kind of uncontrolled devaluation
d) higher inflation and a hike in interest rates
e) a deterioration inn trade performance
All these assumptions were made about what would happen after an ERM exit as well. One well-known commentator's take on things immediately after ERM exit ran along the lines 'a year from now, inflation will be 8-10% and the current account deficit will explode'.
If voters fall for such nonsense, well, they fall for nonsense. If they want to accept the economic risk, then they can choose to the economic risk (they certainly can't complain that they weren't warned). That's democracy, and it's entirely to Cameron's credit that he has given voters the opportunity to make the decision.
No, no - it'll be the VOTERS who took the EU out of Europe. Clearly, you don't like giving voters the choice.
The only exception of course is interest on savings
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36271074
I'd imagine that the most likely outcome is a clarification from the electoral commission on what is and isn't allowed in time for the 2020 election. It's not going to be 20 by-elections that's for sure.
Bit like the Yoon migrants on here when a Nat appears.
And that, it appears to me, is how Britain’s relationship with the EU is conducted. My hope is that as a result of a Remain victory we abandon this childish behaviour and help to keep the thing working.
In fact, I had a very mild disagreement with a leading VL figure on this. That the views of ABs on this tend to be different from the C1s and C2s most affected and the immigration point had to be taken seriously.
To be fair to him, he took my point.
None of that has anything to do with the utter nonsense about National Insurance numbers, which the frothers are getting so excited about.
(Based on the new figures, in 10 years the population of England will have increased by the population of Scotland. A simple, but damming fact.)
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/news/74948/brexit-mp-liam-fox-line-cabinet-post-after-eu-referendum
His general election performances were crap, though. It may be the subject matter but it's probably also the number of people involved.