I am just wondering why you and many others are so utterly desperate to be governed by a bunch of corrupt and faceless bureaucrats in Brussels over which we have no control and even less democratic ability to remove?
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.
I wouldn't have thought that would happen, I'd expect a by-election.
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.”
It will depend on what the advice and current practice was before the election. If that is consistent with what is being said now, and it hasn't been allowed to happen unchecked for a number of elections, then the Tories are going to find themselves on a sticky wicket.
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.
But that is not what those leading REMAIN have promised. REMAIN are asked are they promising that we will fully integrate into the EZ area and the 5 Presidents Plan? The answer is that most of them say not and that we have in place measures to prevent the euro fully operating... and no EU army and no we will be outside Schengen and and ... it is against our interests...etc ... etc.
Remaining in the EU in our current form is bad for us and bad for them. They would be better off without us so that they can quickly introduce all the federalist things that most of them believe is what is required. They have the 5 Presidents Plan for the EU. Who are we to stop that? Why should we get in the way of their grand plan? Yes I may think it a foolish plan, yes Cameron may think it is not well thought through ... but that is a choice for the EZ area. They chose the route of the 5 Presidents plan, we have not. LEAVE is therefore the logical and right decision.
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.
I wouldn't have thought that would happen, I'd expect a by-election.
Surely there are enough lawyers, qualified or barrack room, on here who have detailed knowledge of the relevant law to set us straight.
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.
Bravo - Think I read somewhere that the German high command used Pevsner’s Architectural Guide, to target historic and beautiful buildings of GB. Can’t think why Bath should have been targeted otherwise, unless like Salisbury as I recently learned, Spitfires were being assembled in the oddest of places around the town centre.
ITV's decision is fair enough. I'm starting to warm to Nigel Farage. At least the man is focussed on and knowledgeable about the issue in hand - the EU and Britain's membership of it. That's in stark contrast to the 'Leavers' around here, most of whom appear to be embittered hard-right erstwhile Tories. I'm getting the impression that most of them couldn't give a fig about EU membership. It's all about venting their spleen on Dave and his works. Fine. Let them indulge. But as a proud European, I'll be miffed if a bunch of Tories playing out their frustrations in public imperils an entire continent.
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.
Nah that is oversold.
The reason he was backed into pledging a referendum was that nearly a hundred Tory MP's rebelled and voted for one. That is democracy, we have MPs and not just a PM.
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.
At what point then do we say enough? One presumes this is the point where local social well being starts to break down, infrastructure and services are so stretched that they can no longer function effectively and the costs involved in provision of social care becomes almost overwhelming.
Well in other words, basically where we are right now then......
I am just wondering why you and many others are so utterly desperate to be governed by a bunch of corrupt and faceless bureaucrats in Brussels over which we have no control and even less democratic ability to remove?
One of life's little mysteries I guess.
Cameron's dwindling fan club is fantastically corrupt.
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.
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.
But that is not what those leading REMAIN have promised. REMAIN are asked are they promising that we will fully integrate into the EZ area and the 5 Presidents Plan? The answer is that most of them say not and that we have in place measures to prevent the euro fully operating... and no EU army and no we will be outside Schengen and and ... it is against our interests...etc ... etc.
Remaining in the EU in our current form is bad for us and bad for them. They would be better off without us so that they can quickly introduce all the federalist things that most of them believe is what is required. They have the 5 Presidents Plan for the EU. Who are we to stop that? Why should we get in the way of their grand plan? Yes I may think it a foolish plan, yes Cameron may think it is not well thought through ... but that is a choice for the EZ area. They chose the route of the 5 Presidents plan, we have not. LEAVE is therefore the logical and right decision.
I have some sympathy with your post, and could, just, be tipped over to leave in such circumstances. I am though, concerned, that 5th largest economy or not Ind UK will, in years to come, be forced into some sort of subservience to both big traders or trading blocs, or worse, multinationals such as Google, Amazon or Big Pharma.
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.
At what point then do we say enough? One presumes this is the point where local social well being starts to break down, infrastructure and services are so stretched that they can no longer function effectively and the costs involved in provision of social care becomes almost overwhelming.
Well in other words, basically where we are right now then......
Times reporting record ambulance call outs - 28k a day...
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.
Recent precident from the trials of Phil Woolas and the expenses cheats suggests that if a seat is ordered vacated by a court, a by-election is called to fill the vacancy.
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.”
I would be genuinely intrigued to know how the LibDems dealt with bussing in their supporters in their expenses for the string of by-election wins they had in recent decades.
And Trade Unions bussing in their workers for Labour. How did Labour candidates file that in their expenses?
Just look at how well the IMF forecast Greece's economic performance in 2010
Greece 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 GDP growth IMF forecast -4 -2.6 1.1 2.1 2.1 2.7 GDP growth actual -5.5 -9.2 -7.3 -3.1 0.7 -0.3
Cumulative forecast error 2010-15: 24% of GDP.
Yes, that's right - they were wrong by **one quarter of the economy** over a six year window. Close, eh?
Puts some of the studies suggesting a few % difference in GDP in the UK in 15-20 years after Brexit into perspective.
And please note that 'consensus' economic opinion from 2010 onwards was that leaving the Eurozone would lead to a collapse in Greek GDP of 20-30%, and that staying in and undertaking an 'internal devaluation' plus austerity was the only approach that could prevent that disaster.
This is possibly the most damning indictment of 'consensus' opinion you could get.
It should be mentioned though that a lot of the people pushing the scare stories about what would happen to Greece in the event of euro exit didn't really believe them. The same applies now to the scare stories about Brexit.
At what point then do we say enough? One presumes this is the point where local social well being starts to break down, infrastructure and services are so stretched that they can no longer function effectively and the costs involved in provision of social care becomes almost overwhelming.
Well in other words, basically where we are right now then......
Certainly there are pressures, the question is whether they would be made any easier by leaving. Given the likely economic damage, which nearly all independent and well-informed observers agree on, leaving is likely to make things worse on balance. Being substantially poorer is hardly a recipe for better infrastructure and better public services.
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.
Recent precident from the trials of Phil Woolas and the expenses cheats suggests that if a seat is ordered vacated by a court, a by-election is called to fill the vacancy.
Point taken. Rationally, that ought to be the case.
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.
To be fair to him, he took my point.
Up to now almost 12 weeks in we have had a referendum debate mainly on the economy and partly on security and only a small part on immigration. Since LEAVE and REMAIN are virtually 50/50 with a few % either side, shifting into communication about the immigration numbers to come could have a major upside for LEAVE. A "Do you agree to REMAIN and have 5 million more migrants in next 10 years" would be a very effective message in the wwc and areas with a high % of pensioners.
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.”
I would be genuinely intrigued to know how the LibDems dealt with bussing in their supporters in their expenses for the string of by-election wins they had in recent decades.
And Trade Unions bussing in their workers for Labour. How did Labour candidates file that in their expenses?
As a one-time Lib (NOT LD) agent I don’t recall any guidance on the point.
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.”
I would be genuinely intrigued to know how the LibDems dealt with bussing in their supporters in their expenses for the string of by-election wins they had in recent decades. And Trade Unions bussing in their workers for Labour. How did Labour candidates file that in their expenses?
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.
---------------------- -------------------
It would be great to have more independent-minded thought of that sort on this site instead of all the tiresome and empty-headed party spin.
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.
Bravo - Think I read somewhere that the German high command used Pevsner’s Architectural Guide, to target historic and beautiful buildings of GB. Can’t think why Bath should have been targeted otherwise, unless like Salisbury as I recently learned, Spitfires were being assembled in the oddest of places around the town centre.
Close, Baedecker raids. Accounts for places like Exeter as well.
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.
His 2011 no ifs no buts speech was a huge mistake and either actively disingenuous or woefully ignorant. Plus he broke the promise. Luckily enough, the country didn't seem to care.
Perhaps that is a pointer to the EURef also as by 2015 EU immigration was already significant and rising. If people didn't care then, when it came down to it, I wonder if they'll care now.
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.
At what point then do we say enough? One presumes this is the point where local social well being starts to break down, infrastructure and services are so stretched that they can no longer function effectively and the costs involved in provision of social care becomes almost overwhelming.
Well in other words, basically where we are right now then......
Times reporting record ambulance call outs - 28k a day...
Have a think about the primary users of ambulances, their ages and their backgrounds. Then have a think about who's providing the nursing cover.
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.”
It will depend on what the advice and current practice was before the election. If that is consistent with what is being said now, and it hasn't been allowed to happen unchecked for a number of elections, then the Tories are going to find themselves on a sticky wicket.
The Electoral Commissions statement seems pretty clear. If others have done this in the past and no action has been taken then that is to be regretted. However it doesn't mean that the law can be broken with impunity in the recent election. It may be the sheer scale of the operation and the number of constituencies where spending is pushed over the limit by inclusion of the Battlebus costs that is attracting attention.
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.
To be fair to him, he took my point.
Up to now almost 12 weeks in we have had a referendum debate mainly on the economy and partly on security and only a small part on immigration. Since LEAVE and REMAIN are virtually 50/50 with a few % either side, shifting into communication about the immigration numbers to come could have a major upside for LEAVE. A "Do you agree to REMAIN and have 5 million more migrants in next 10 years" would be a very effective message in the wwc and areas with a high % of pensioners.
I have a friend, a pensioner, who has suffered a severe stroke and has 24 hour care. Most of these carers are immigrants from the EU, and as I understand it don’t stay more than a year. I suspect that pensioners, at any rate, attitudes to EU immigrants are rather similar to those their parents had with regard to West Indian immigration ..... “Don’t like them, but that XXX, he’s a smashing chap."
@RichardNabavi - I agree with you on the NI numbers and the dishonesty of those talking about cover-ups and one million extra migrants etc. It's total nonsense, of course. But Cameron has been very happy to use anti-immigration rhetoric, to make unkeepable commitments and to make dodgy claims about benefit payments in the past for electoral advantage. He has helped create the climate in which the nonsense printed in today's Leave papers can be believed. And all while knowing how important ongoing, largescale EU immigration is to the government hitting its fiscal and economic targets.
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.
But that is not what those leading REMAIN have promised. REMAIN are asked are they promising that we will fully integrate into the EZ area and the 5 Presidents Plan? The answer is that most of them say not and that we have in place measures to prevent the euro fully operating... and no EU army and no we will be outside Schengen and and ... it is against our interests...etc ... etc.
Remaining in the EU in our current form is bad for us and bad for them. They would be better off without us so that they can quickly introduce all the federalist things that most of them believe is what is required. They have the 5 Presidents Plan for the EU. Who are we to stop that? Why should we get in the way of their grand plan? Yes I may think it a foolish plan, yes Cameron may think it is not well thought through ... but that is a choice for the EZ area. They chose the route of the 5 Presidents plan, we have not. LEAVE is therefore the logical and right decision.
I have some sympathy with your post, and could, just, be tipped over to leave in such circumstances. I am though, concerned, that 5th largest economy or not Ind UK will, in years to come, be forced into some sort of subservience to both big traders or trading blocs, or worse, multinationals such as Google, Amazon or Big Pharma.
May be you should think about the lobbying interests of those large entities on the other 27 countries and their folk inside the EU? The opportunities for influence are massively greater in a dysfunctional sets of groupings that the EU represents. As to trading blocks, none of them to my knowledge have political integration, common regulatory setting bodies or free movements of people.
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.
Bravo - Think I read somewhere that the German high command used Pevsner’s Architectural Guide, to target historic and beautiful buildings of GB. Can’t think why Bath should have been targeted otherwise, unless like Salisbury as I recently learned, Spitfires were being assembled in the oddest of places around the town centre.
Bath is my home city and born and bred there.
In WW2 to avoid damage and disruption Director General ships (Royal Navy) and design and procurement we're all moved out of London and to Bath where it was considered safer. The area concerned was bombed during the war with a string of bombs that hit Lansdown hill and led across the house and church at the entrance to Julian Road. Despite this Bath though was mostly unscathed (compared to other cities of course)
It is of interest that the Royal Navy design and procurement sections never moved back to London after the war but remained in Bath. There were several sites that employed many thousands of people including both my parents. All ship designs for the Navy were created here and mainly in the largest of the facilities based at Foxhill. The Polaris nuclear submarine was designed here as well.
Just recently Foxhill site has been cleared of the buildings that remained in use since WW2 and the area is now given over to housing. One presumes the design sections and facilities have now moved to Bristol in Abbey Wood bringing 70 odd years of connection to the Royal Navy to an end. Well almost as there are a couple of smaller establishments remaining at Endsleigh Road and private ship design companies with design offices in and around the centre of Bath and I believe a establishment on the top of Lansdown hill itself ( or was)
In fairness refusal to move is more an act of stupidity rather than true grit. Why put yourself (and others) at risk needlessly . Not quite sure what has been proved here ?
His 2011 no ifs no buts speech was a huge mistake and either actively disingenuous or woefully ignorant. Plus he broke the promise. Luckily enough, the country didn't seem to care.
Perhaps that is a pointer to the EURef also as by 2015 EU immigration was already significant and rising. If people didn't care then, when it came down to it, I wonder if they'll care now.
People do care, and rightly so. They are probably sensibly cynical about whether governments can actually do much about it.
At what point then do we say enough? One presumes this is the point where local social well being starts to break down, infrastructure and services are so stretched that they can no longer function effectively and the costs involved in provision of social care becomes almost overwhelming.
Well in other words, basically where we are right now then......
Certainly there are pressures, the question is whether they would be made any easier by leaving. Given the likely economic damage, which nearly all independent and well-informed observers agree on, leaving is likely to make things worse on balance. Being substantially poorer is hardly a recipe for better infrastructure and better public services.
That is a valid question for the Leave campaign.
But the questions for the Remain campaign also needs answering: given the pressures we are currently under and that they are likely to continue, how are they going to be managed?
How are the public services going to be paid for?
How are we going to provide the housing for all these people?
How are we going to integrate them all?
How do you get the full-hearted consent of the people to this level of immigration and all its consequences for our society?
How are the costs going to be borne? And who will bear them? How will they be mitigated/ shared fairly?
Etc etc. Immigration from the EU is not like some Act of God. If it is decided that this should continue and at this level then it is incumbent on those who think it - on balance - a good thing to explain in some detail not just why it is a good thing but how it is going to be managed. And neither of these - and particularly not the latter- have been done.
It's this failure - and the rather high-handed dismissal by those who benefit most from immigration of the concerns felt by those who don't benefit from it and may be disadvantaged - which so infuriates people. The very least a government should do when it embarks on a policy which will mean significant change (both good and bad) for a country is to be open about it and get the people's consent.
This was not done over immigration and not, frankly, done over the EU and, judging by the pisspoor campaign so far, it's not being done about the EU now. I have yet to hear one positive argument for the EU by the Remain camp - for why it is a good thing. Saying we'd be worse off if we left is not a positive argument for it.
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.”
I would be genuinely intrigued to know how the LibDems dealt with bussing in their supporters in their expenses for the string of by-election wins they had in recent decades.
And Trade Unions bussing in their workers for Labour. How did Labour candidates file that in their expenses?
Well they certainly should have done and their political opponents should have checked the election returns. Of course the Tories tend to have more money and that may have been a double-edged sword in this case.
Mr. Dancer, you might be interested in the Good Lady Wifi's latest project announced at Cannes - a documentary on the Ferrari drivers of the late fifties who gave their lives in pursuit of F1 glory.
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.
But that is not what those leading REMAIN have promised. REMAIN are asked are they promising that we will fully integrate into the EZ area and the 5 Presidents Plan? The answer is that most of them say not and that we have in place measures to prevent the euro fully operating... and no EU army and no we will be outside Schengen and and ... it is against our interests...etc ... etc.
Remaining in the EU in our current form is bad for us and bad for them. They would be better off without us so that they can quickly introduce all the federalist things that most of them believe is what is required. They have the 5 Presidents Plan for the EU. Who are we to stop that? Why should we get in the way of their grand plan? Yes I may think it a foolish plan, yes Cameron may think it is not well thought through ... but that is a choice for the EZ area. They chose the route of the 5 Presidents plan, we have not. LEAVE is therefore the logical and right decision.
I have some sympathy with your post, and could, just, be tipped over to leave in such circumstances. I am though, concerned, that 5th largest economy or not Ind UK will, in years to come, be forced into some sort of subservience to both big traders or trading blocs, or worse, multinationals such as Google, Amazon or Big Pharma.
May be you should think about the lobbying interests of those large entities on the other 27 countries and their folk inside the EU? The opportunities for influence are massively greater in a dysfunctional sets of groupings that the EU represents. As to trading blocks, none of them to my knowledge have political integration, common regulatory setting bodies or free movements of people.
Big “groupings” like the EU should be better able to deal with such companies.
F1 P1 - Ferraris lead Mercs by half a second, first time this season that M-B haven't been top of the timesheets. Caveat: the red cars were on the softer tyres that Merc didn't use.
Mr. Mark, not au fait with that period, though I am somewhat aware of the very high mortality rate that persisted for decades in F1. Sounds intriguing, and the success of Senna and Rush suggest there is a wider market for films of this nature.
I wish the leavers would get some clips of coverage around the ERM exit and show how all the pundits were wrong. I think this would be a powerful counter argument against the remainers.
Saying we'd be worse off if we left is not a positive argument for it.
Of course it is. If you prefer, you can formulate it as 'The EU is good for our economy, bringing increased prosperity and better-paid jobs'. That's the dull but sensible positive case in a nutshell. Whether it's true or not is another matter, of course.
Big “groupings” like the EU should be better able to deal with such companies.
-----------
That's precisely the reverse of what happens in practice. Which is why big firms like the EU so much. One quite small set of unaccountable bureaucrats to soften up and manipulate rather than several sets of politicians.
His 2011 no ifs no buts speech was a huge mistake and either actively disingenuous or woefully ignorant. Plus he broke the promise. Luckily enough, the country didn't seem to care.
Perhaps that is a pointer to the EURef also as by 2015 EU immigration was already significant and rising. If people didn't care then, when it came down to it, I wonder if they'll care now.
People do care, and rightly so. They are probably sensibly cynical about whether governments can actually do much about it.
So we should just take Dave's huge lie that he can control immigration with a pinch of salt?
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?
Cameron's technique seems to be to let his ministers have free reign to do Very Right-Wing Things, then pull back on the ones that run into serious opposition. There's something to be said for this as a strategy: The u-turns aren't enormously damaging, and a lot of things don't run into serious opposition so he gets a policy win. Meanwhile there's a darwinian process with the ministers where the effective ones have a chance to prove themselves and the ones who bollocks things up eventually get ditched.
At what point then do we say enough? One presumes this is the point where local social well being starts to break down, infrastructure and services are so stretched that they can no longer function effectively and the costs involved in provision of social care becomes almost overwhelming.
Well in other words, basically where we are right now then......
Certainly there are pressures, the question is whether they would be made any easier by leaving. Given the likely economic damage, which nearly all independent and well-informed observers agree on, leaving is likely to make things worse on balance. Being substantially poorer is hardly a recipe for better infrastructure and better public services.
That is a valid question for the Leave campaign.
But the questions for the Remain campaign also needs answering: given the pressures we are currently under and that they are likely to continue, how are they going to be managed?
How are the public services going to be paid for?
How are we going to provide the housing for all these people?
How are we going to integrate them all?
How do you get the full-hearted consent of the people to this level of immigration and all its consequences for our society?
How are the costs going to be borne? And who will bear them? How will they be mitigated/ shared fairly?
Etc etc. Immigration from the EU is not like some Act of God. If it is decided that this should continue and at this level then it is incumbent on those who think it - on balance - a good thing to explain in some detail not just why it is a good thing but how it is going to be managed. And neither of these - and particularly not the latter- have been done.
It's this failure - and the rather high-handed dismissal by those who benefit most from immigration of the concerns felt by those who don't benefit from it and may be disadvantaged - which so infuriates people. The very least a government should do when it embarks on a policy which will mean significant change (both good and bad) for a country is to be open about it and get the people's consent.
This was not done over immigration and not, frankly, done over the EU and, judging by the pisspoor campaign so far, it's not being done about the EU now. I have yet to hear one positive argument for the EU by the Remain camp - for why it is a good thing. Saying we'd be worse off if we left is not a positive argument for it.
There are plenty of positive arguments, it's just that you do not agree with them. I see the Single Market as hugely beneficial and positive. You don't.
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.
To be fair to him, he took my point.
Up to now almost 12 weeks in we have had a referendum debate mainly on the economy and partly on security and only a small part on immigration. Since LEAVE and REMAIN are virtually 50/50 with a few % either side, shifting into communication about the immigration numbers to come could have a major upside for LEAVE. A "Do you agree to REMAIN and have 5 million more migrants in next 10 years" would be a very effective message in the wwc and areas with a high % of pensioners.
Leave's problem with playing the immigration card is that their leaders are fully in favour of it - Boris most of all. Carwell's plan is to turn Britain into the entrepreneurial capital of the planet. Sorry, but that won't be possible without a massively open immigration policy. And Carswell knows this and is unapologetic about it. The thought is: yes, leaving will have an economic downside, but this can be ameliorated by Britain becoming the world's neo-liberal free-trade utopia. Leave are being utterly disingenuous here. Their plan is to fling the doors open to the rest of the planet, but in the interim they are telling their less enlightened supporters the opposite to bring about their ends. I'm going to feel sorry for the Leave rank and file when their leaders' vision is enacted.
Christine Lagarde of the IMF is forecasting widespread economic collapse here if we leave the EU. Pestilence to follow, of course. However, that also includes a collapse in house prices.
As I have no intention of selling my house I don’t much mind about that, although no doubt my heirs will. But, would a collapse in house-prices really be a bad thing? Might enable some young people .... eg my two 20-something grandchildren to get a house. Something which at the moment appears very difficult.
Just look at how well the IMF forecast Greece's economic performance in 2010
Greece 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 GDP growth IMF forecast -4 -2.6 1.1 2.1 2.1 2.7 GDP growth actual -5.5 -9.2 -7.3 -3.1 0.7 -0.3
Cumulative forecast error 2010-15: 24% of GDP.
Yes, that's right - they were wrong by **one quarter of the economy** over a six year window. Close, eh?
Puts some of the studies suggesting a few % difference in GDP in the UK in 15-20 years after Brexit into perspective.
And please note that 'consensus' economic opinion from 2010 onwards was that leaving the Eurozone would lead to a collapse in Greek GDP of 20-30%, and that staying in and undertaking an 'internal devaluation' plus austerity was the only approach that could prevent that disaster.
This is possibly the most damning indictment of 'consensus' opinion you could get.
It should be mentioned though that a lot of the people pushing the scare stories about what would happen to Greece in the event of euro exit didn't really believe them. The same applies now to the scare stories about Brexit.
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.
To be fair to him, he took my point.
Up to now almost 12 weeks in we have had a referendum debate mainly on the economy and partly on security and only a small part on immigration. Since LEAVE and REMAIN are virtually 50/50 with a few % either side, shifting into communication about the immigration numbers to come could have a major upside for LEAVE. A "Do you agree to REMAIN and have 5 million more migrants in next 10 years" would be a very effective message in the wwc and areas with a high % of pensioners.
I have a friend, a pensioner, who has suffered a severe stroke and has 24 hour care. Most of these carers are immigrants from the EU, and as I understand it don’t stay more than a year. I suspect that pensioners, at any rate, attitudes to EU immigrants are rather similar to those their parents had with regard to West Indian immigration ..... “Don’t like them, but that XXX, he’s a smashing chap."
Of course individual immigrants are doing their best to get on in life, doesn't mean that a system that allows unlimited immigration of the unskilled is a good thing.
Big “groupings” like the EU should be better able to deal with such companies.
-----------
That's precisely the reverse of what happens in practice. Which is why big firms like the EU so much. One quite small set of unaccountable bureaucrats to soften up and manipulate rather than several sets of politicians.
Bureaucrats from a low corruption culture are easier to deal with than easily-infuenceable politicians?
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?
You are Stuart Rose and I claim my 10 roubles.
Actually, no. What happens is that unskilled migrants tend to displace the natives from the most menial jobs, and those that are displaced tend to be shifted to slightly more senior, supervisory roles where they actually earn more money than previously.
Yes, temporary residents of the UK do need accommodation but, on the other hand, those UK citizens temporarily working abroad don't. You can't count one and not the other!
Christine Lagarde of the IMF is forecasting widespread economic collapse here is we leave the EU. Pestilence to follow, of course. However, that also includes a collapse in house prices.
As I have no intention of selling my house I don’t much mind about that, although no doubt my heirs will. But, would a collapse in house-prices really be a bad thing? Might enable some young people .... eg my two 20-something grandchildren to get a house. Something which at the moment appears very difficult.
In abstract terms, I totally agree. In reality, though, a lot of people have staked a lot of their current and future plans on high house prices - the government included. As a result, a big fall in values is likely tonprove very damaging. We've got ourselves into a real mess on this.
Leave's problem with playing the immigration card is that their leaders are fully in favour of it - Boris most of all. Carwell's plan is to turn Britain into the entrepreneurial capital of the planet. Sorry, but that won't be possible without a massively open immigration policy. And Carswell knows this and is unapologetic about it. The thought is: yes, leaving will have an economic downside, but this can be ameliorated by Britain becoming the world's neo-liberal free-trade utopia. Leave are being utterly disingenuous here. Their plan is to fling the doors open to the rest of the planet, but in the interim they are telling their less enlightened supporters the opposite to bring about their ends. I'm going to feel sorry for the Leave rank and file when their leaders' vision is enacted.
Not so and you misrepresent Carswell. His position is that we should have control of our borders so we can then attract the people we want to come to Britain. This is not a 'no migration' nor an 'open migration' policy. It is the country deciding the levels and types of migration we gave that best suits our economy and our social and infrastructure constraints.
Personally it is not a huge issue for me either way but you should at least try not to misrepresent what your opponents are saying for your own ends.
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.
To be fair to him, he took my point.
Up to now almost 12 weeks in we have had a referendum debate mainly on the economy and partly on security and only a small part on immigration. Since LEAVE and REMAIN are virtually 50/50 with a few % either side, shifting into communication about the immigration numbers to come could have a major upside for LEAVE. A "Do you agree to REMAIN and have 5 million more migrants in next 10 years" would be a very effective message in the wwc and areas with a high % of pensioners.
I have a friend, a pensioner, who has suffered a severe stroke and has 24 hour care. Most of these carers are immigrants from the EU, and as I understand it don’t stay more than a year. I suspect that pensioners, at any rate, attitudes to EU immigrants are rather similar to those their parents had with regard to West Indian immigration ..... “Don’t like them, but that XXX, he’s a smashing chap."
Of course individual immigrants are doing their best to get on in life, doesn't mean that a system that allows unlimited immigration of the unskilled is a good thing.
Many of these folk are apparently quite highly skilled.
So we should just take Dave's huge lie that he can control immigration with a pinch of salt?
We should take all predictions about the effects of policy with a pinch of salt, as the Leavers are fond of telling us.
I think that when a politician stands up and promises to do something, as opposed to "endeavours", or "intends", or "has plans" to do something then that is in a different category.
Dave promised.
Of course the silly-billy electorate didn't then turf him out for breaking the promise but I can understand why we shouldn't brush that promise under the carpet during future considerations.
@Mosses. cheers for the fascinating anecdote. Bath is a beauty we visit as often as possible.
You are welcome as you are welcome to the beautiful city of Bath.
We have a saying in Bath ...when looking at the beauty of the city look up. A lot of people tend not to do so. If you do you will be amazed at what you see that you have not seen previously.
Big “groupings” like the EU should be better able to deal with such companies.
They should but they do not. All we have done is made sure they only have to lobby one set of officials instead of 28. The EU is a lobbyists dream come true.
Christine Lagarde of the IMF is forecasting widespread economic collapse here is we leave the EU. Pestilence to follow, of course. However, that also includes a collapse in house prices.
As I have no intention of selling my house I don’t much mind about that, although no doubt my heirs will. But, would a collapse in house-prices really be a bad thing? Might enable some young people .... eg my two 20-something grandchildren to get a house. Something which at the moment appears very difficult.
In abstract terms, I totally agree. In reality, though, a lot of people have staked a lot of their current and future plans on high house prices - the government included. As a result, a big fall in values is likely tonprove very damaging. We've got ourselves into a real mess on this.
The last time house prices fell I had quite a big mortgage and my company was running into severe financial difficulties, so I’ve a lot of sympathy. I couldn’t see how I was going to cope at all. “Twill be “interesting” to see what the effect of proposed squeeze on corrupt money in the London (and country estate?) market has!
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.
To be fair to him, he took my point.
Up to now almost 12 weeks in we have had a referendum debate mainly on the economy and partly on security and only a small part on immigration. Since LEAVE and REMAIN are virtually 50/50 with a few % either side, shifting into communication about the immigration numbers to come could have a major upside for LEAVE. A "Do you agree to REMAIN and have 5 million more migrants in next 10 years" would be a very effective message in the wwc and areas with a high % of pensioners.
Leave's problem with playing the immigration card is that their leaders are fully in favour of it - Boris most of all. Carwell's plan is to turn Britain into the entrepreneurial capital of the planet. Sorry, but that won't be possible without a massively open immigration policy. And Carswell knows this and is unapologetic about it. The thought is: yes, leaving will have an economic downside, but this can be ameliorated by Britain becoming the world's neo-liberal free-trade utopia. Leave are being utterly disingenuous here. Their plan is to fling the doors open to the rest of the planet, but in the interim they are telling their less enlightened supporters the opposite to bring about their ends. I'm going to feel sorry for the Leave rank and file when their leaders' vision is enacted.
It's the Carswellites who would be disappointed imo.
Just checking with the Outers, are opinion polls valid today or not?
And 61% say it would have a negative effect on future investment decisions relating to the UK. I imagine Leave's desire to withdraw from the single market has worried a few companies.
Just checking with the Outers, are opinion polls valid today or not?
And 61% say it would have a negative effect on future investment decisions relating to the UK. I imagine Leave's desire to withdraw from the single market has worried a few companies.
I'm sure a similar voodoo poll in 1992 would have said ERM exits would be 'bad for business' and in 1999-2003 that failure to join the euro would be 'bad for business' or 'negatively affect future investment decisions'. Indeed, there were some pretty high profile claims to that effect by notable firms in the latter case at least.
There are plenty of positive arguments, it's just that you do not agree with them. I see the Single Market as hugely beneficial and positive. You don't.
I have never said that. I do think the Single Market is a good thing. And it worries me greatly - as I've said on here - that the official view of Vote Leave is not to be in it. The sector I'm in would be damaged if the UK were not in the Single Market.
But that is the market side of the EU - the Common Market. And if that is all it was I would be happy to Remain.
What I have not heard is the positive argument for the EU as a federal politically integrated entity, which is what has always been planned and is planned now, an entity which would to all intents and purposes abolish the nation state. What is the positive argument for that from the Remain camp?
What is the positive argument for having one system of law throughout the EU - civil rather than common law? What is the positive argument for having the same criminal system with, say, the abolition of trial by jury?
This is about more than having the ability to organise conferences in Barcelona. For the Remain camp to limit the arguments thus is to miss, fundamentally, what the EU is about.
I have a friend, a pensioner, who has suffered a severe stroke and has 24 hour care. Most of these carers are immigrants from the EU, and as I understand it don’t stay more than a year. I suspect that pensioners, at any rate, attitudes to EU immigrants are rather similar to those their parents had with regard to West Indian immigration ..... “Don’t like them, but that XXX, he’s a smashing chap."
Mr. Cole, I think there is a difference between how some people feel about large scale immigration and immigrants. The first is a process that, on balance, for the reasons often repeated on here (and Mrs. Free has covered them very well up thread) I think is a very bad thing for the UK and would like to see stopped (as would David Cameron if you can believe what he says). The second are people who I am more than happy to treat as individuals in the same way I would a native Brit, and like the natives of these isles, there are some arseholes and crooks but most, in my experience, are jolly nice people.
I think there is a nasty tendency for some people to deliberately confuse the opposition of large scale immigration with a dislike or even hatred of immigrants - you can see it on here almost everyday.
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.
To be fair to him, he took my point.
Up to now almost 12 weeks in we have had a referendum debate mainly on the economy and partly on security and only a small part on immigration. Since LEAVE and REMAIN are virtually 50/50 with a few % either side, shifting into communication about the immigration numbers to come could have a major upside for LEAVE. A "Do you agree to REMAIN and have 5 million more migrants in next 10 years" would be a very effective message in the wwc and areas with a high % of pensioners.
I have a friend, a pensioner, who has suffered a severe stroke and has 24 hour care. Most of these carers are immigrants from the EU, and as I understand it don’t stay more than a year. I suspect that pensioners, at any rate, attitudes to EU immigrants are rather similar to those their parents had with regard to West Indian immigration ..... “Don’t like them, but that XXX, he’s a smashing chap."
Of course individual immigrants are doing their best to get on in life, doesn't mean that a system that allows unlimited immigration of the unskilled is a good thing.
Many of these folk are apparently quite highly skilled.
It depends how you define highly skilled. I would define it as higher rate taxpayers or specific areas with staff shortages such as nursing. We don't need to be importing car wash workers, no matter how highly skilled they may be at washing cars. We certainly don't need to be importing Big Issue sellers and their extended families from Romania.
On house prices, it's an article of faith that the root of the problem is that housing is in very short supply whilst demand from population growth, immigration and household fragmentation has grown rapidly. But there is one very big flaw in that argument which Albert Edwards of Société Générale (who is admittedly a bit of nutcase) has pointed out. You can see the flaw in this graph:
If the problem is shortage of supply, then rental prices should have risen rapidly in the way purchase prices have, right? But they haven't, they've remained more or less constant in real terms over the last ten years.
People are clearly living somewhere, yet the supply of new housing which in theory has been grossly inadequate doesn't seem to have made renting more expensive. It's rather mysterious.
Saying we'd be worse off if we left is not a positive argument for it.
Of course it is. If you prefer, you can formulate it as 'The EU is good for our economy, bringing increased prosperity and better-paid jobs'. That's the dull but sensible positive case in a nutshell. Whether it's true or not is another matter, of course.
I can see the economic argument. It is a good one. It is one for the Common Market.
It is not one for the political integration which is what the EU is about and which the EU itself and the leaders of other EU states are quite open about.
Just checking with the Outers, are opinion polls valid today or not?
You fail to point out they are international businesses from seven different countries: "Ipsos MORI conducted 667 online interviews with member businesses with UK operations belonging to the bilateral Chambers of Commerce of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade."
It is quite possible that Brexit would be inconvenient to their existing business models.
There are plenty of positive arguments, it's just that you do not agree with them. I see the Single Market as hugely beneficial and positive. You don't.
I have never said that. I do think the Single Market is a good thing. And it worries me greatly - as I've said on here - that the official view of Vote Leave is not to be in it. The sector I'm in would be damaged if the UK were not in the Single Market.
But that is the market side of the EU - the Common Market. And if that is all it was I would be happy to Remain.
What I have not heard is the positive argument for the EU as a federal politically integrated entity, which is what has always been planned and is planned now, an entity which would to all intents and purposes abolish the nation state. What is the positive argument for that from the Remain camp?
What is the positive argument for having one system of law throughout the EU - civil rather than common law? What is the positive argument for having the same criminal system with, say, the abolition of trial by jury?
This is about more than having the ability to organise conferences in Barcelona. For the Remain camp to limit the arguments thus is to miss, fundamentally, what the EU is about.
The argument is that full political integration has been abandoned by the EU, which doesn't seem remotely likely to me. The main risks from EU membership have always been political, for me, and far outweigh concerns over changes in GDP.
The Electoral Commissions statement seems pretty clear. If others have done this in the past and no action has been taken then that is to be regretted. However it doesn't mean that the law can be broken with impunity in the recent election. It may be the sheer scale of the operation and the number of constituencies where spending is pushed over the limit by inclusion of the Battlebus costs that is attracting attention.
Most elections, the major parties run their expenses right up to the wire. In this instance, if there was any uncertainty as to whether the costs of a battlebus for a day were for the constituency or central funds, then the bus would have been declined. And as I say, it was only the cost of the bus for the day - the canvassers it delivered paid for their own food and accommodation.
Big “groupings” like the EU should be better able to deal with such companies.
They should but they do not. All we have done is made sure they only have to lobby one set of officials instead of 28. The EU is a lobbyists dream come true.
And the decision-makers on the receiving end of the lobbying are not directly elected, so they are a step removed from the people they represent, the only voices they hear on policy are those of the lobbyists.
There are plenty of positive arguments, it's just that you do not agree with them. I see the Single Market as hugely beneficial and positive. You don't.
I have never said that. I do think the Single Market is a good thing. And it worries me greatly - as I've said on here - that the official view of Vote Leave is not to be in it. The sector I'm in would be damaged if the UK were not in the Single Market.
But that is the market side of the EU - the Common Market. And if that is all it was I would be happy to Remain.
What I have not heard is the positive argument for the EU as a federal politically integrated entity, which is what has always been planned and is planned now, an entity which would to all intents and purposes abolish the nation state. What is the positive argument for that from the Remain camp?
What is the positive argument for having one system of law throughout the EU - civil rather than common law? What is the positive argument for having the same criminal system with, say, the abolition of trial by jury?
This is about more than having the ability to organise conferences in Barcelona. For the Remain camp to limit the arguments thus is to miss, fundamentally, what the EU is about.
So you have heard positive arguments, you just don't give them the weight pro-Remainers might.
You can't have a single market without a single set of laws governing it. For example, how can a patent or trademark be valid in one part of a single market and not in another? But that does not mean federalisation; neither does it necessiate harmonisation of all criminal law. You won't find Remainers arguing for that because they don't agree with it or believe it will happen. This referendum shows where sovereignty ultimately lies.
If it gets harder to hold conferences in Barcelona, we'll hold them elsewhere in the world. As a shareholder, I won't lose out. The company's London employees may though.
On house prices, it's an article of faith that the root of the problem is that housing is in very short supply. But there is one very big flaw in that argument which Albert Edwards of Société Générale (who is admittedly a bit of nutcase) has pointed out. You can see the flaw in this graph:
If the problem is shortage of supply, then rental prices should have risen rapidly in the way purchase prices have, right? But they haven't, they've remained more or less constant in real terms over the last ten years.
People are clearly living somewhere, yet the supply of new housing which in theory has been grossly inadequate doesn't seem to have made renting more expensive. It's rather mysterious.
With diminishing returns from pensions, equities, and other forms of savings people naturally choose to invest in bricks and mortar.
This generates a number of different issues, one of which is that unlike savings or equities it doesn't get recycled into productive economic growth. It does mean that falling house prices wipes out peoples savings, and could push banks into further problems. 2008 revisited here.
There are plenty of positive arguments, it's just that you do not agree with them. I see the Single Market as hugely beneficial and positive. You don't.
I have never said that. I do think the Single Market is a good thing. And it worries me greatly - as I've said on here - that the official view of Vote Leave is not to be in it. The sector I'm in would be damaged if the UK were not in the Single Market.
But that is the market side of the EU - the Common Market. And if that is all it was I would be happy to Remain.
What I have not heard is the positive argument for the EU as a federal politically integrated entity, which is what has always been planned and is planned now, an entity which would to all intents and purposes abolish the nation state. What is the positive argument for that from the Remain camp?
What is the positive argument for having one system of law throughout the EU - civil rather than common law? What is the positive argument for having the same criminal system with, say, the abolition of trial by jury?
This is about more than having the ability to organise conferences in Barcelona. For the Remain camp to limit the arguments thus is to miss, fundamentally, what the EU is about.
Well yes but that is of course deliberate. By concentrating on the economics, and wildly exaggerating the economic risks, they are trying a) to distract the public from the political issues and b) scare them into pushing those issues down the list in terms of their importance.
They know perfectly well that a debate focused on the political aspects of the EU will see them lose by a landslide.
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.
To be fair to him, he took my point.
Up to now almost 12 weeks in we have had a referendum debate mainly on the economy and partly on security and only a small part on immigration. Since LEAVE and REMAIN are virtually 50/50 with a few % either side, shifting into communication about the immigration numbers to come could have a major upside for LEAVE. A "Do you agree to REMAIN and have 5 million more migrants in next 10 years" would be a very effective message in the wwc and areas with a high % of pensioners.
Leave's problem with playing the immigration card is that their leaders are fully in favour of it - Boris most of all. Carwell's plan is to turn Britain into the entrepreneurial capital of the planet. Sorry, but that won't be possible without a massively open immigration policy. And Carswell knows this and is unapologetic about it. The thought is: yes, leaving will have an economic downside, but this can be ameliorated by Britain becoming the world's neo-liberal free-trade utopia. Leave are being utterly disingenuous here. Their plan is to fling the doors open to the rest of the planet, but in the interim they are telling their less enlightened supporters the opposite to bring about their ends. I'm going to feel sorry for the Leave rank and file when their leaders' vision is enacted.
It's the Carswellites who would be disappointed imo.
Yes, if Leave win on the basis of an anti-immigrant campaign, the government will be under enormous pressure to reduce immigration (and, judging by today's headlines, the number of temporary visitors) substantially, regardless of the economic damage it may wreak.
Leave's problem with playing the immigration card is that their leaders are fully in favour of it - Boris most of all. Carwell's plan is to turn Britain into the entrepreneurial capital of the planet. Sorry, but that won't be possible without a massively open immigration policy. And Carswell knows this and is unapologetic about it. The thought is: yes, leaving will have an economic downside, but this can be ameliorated by Britain becoming the world's neo-liberal free-trade utopia. Leave are being utterly disingenuous here. Their plan is to fling the doors open to the rest of the planet, but in the interim they are telling their less enlightened supporters the opposite to bring about their ends. I'm going to feel sorry for the Leave rank and file when their leaders' vision is enacted.
Not so and you misrepresent Carswell. His position is that we should have control of our borders so we can then attract the people we want to come to Britain. This is not a 'no migration' nor an 'open migration' policy. It is the country deciding the levels and types of migration we gave that best suits our economy and our social and infrastructure constraints.
Personally it is not a huge issue for me either way but you should at least try not to misrepresent what your opponents are saying for your own ends.
You're just quibbling over the word 'open'. The fact is that under Carswell's vision there'd be as much, if not more, immigration than we have now - albeit from places like India, China, Pakistan and Russia as well as Europe. There would have to be; otherwise Leave would have to admit that Brexit would necessitate an economic slump. Actually, this is an intellectually sound position. What is dubious is Leave's playing the raise-the-drawbridge card for the Little Englanders whilst suggesting the economics can all be jolly and nice.
Saying we'd be worse off if we left is not a positive argument for it.
Of course it is. If you prefer, you can formulate it as 'The EU is good for our economy, bringing increased prosperity and better-paid jobs'. That's the dull but sensible positive case in a nutshell. Whether it's true or not is another matter, of course.
I can see the economic argument. It is a good one. It is one for the Common Market.
It is not one for the political integration which is what the EU is about and which the EU itself and the leaders of other EU states are quite open about.
yebbut...Dave got his opt out didn't he. We have a two-speed Europe. Closer fiscal and hence political integration on the one hand, and plucky old us on the other.
Many Leavers ISTR wanted a two-speed Europe, well we have one. We can cite any old measure the Euro-imperialists try to impose upon the EU as being part of Ever Closer Union, then point to our Feb 2016 deal and say: uh-uh.
On house prices, it's an article of faith that the root of the problem is that housing is in very short supply whilst demand from population growth, immigration and household fragmentation has grown rapidly. But there is one very big flaw in that argument which Albert Edwards of Société Générale (who is admittedly a bit of nutcase) has pointed out. You can see the flaw in this graph:
If the problem is shortage of supply, then rental prices should have risen rapidly in the way purchase prices have, right? But they haven't, they've remained more or less constant in real terms over the last ten years.
People are clearly living somewhere, yet the supply of new housing which in theory has been grossly inadequate doesn't seem to have made renting more expensive. It's rather mysterious.
The national average hides London's problem. In wide parts of the country, rents are stable or have gone down. In London and a couple of other places they have skyrocketed.
Leave's problem with playing the immigration card is that their leaders are fully in favour of it - Boris most of all. Carwell's plan is to turn Britain into the entrepreneurial capital of the planet. Sorry, but that won't be possible without a massively open immigration policy. And Carswell knows this and is unapologetic about it. The thought is: yes, leaving will have an economic downside, but this can be ameliorated by Britain becoming the world's neo-liberal free-trade utopia. Leave are being utterly disingenuous here. Their plan is to fling the doors open to the rest of the planet, but in the interim they are telling their less enlightened supporters the opposite to bring about their ends. I'm going to feel sorry for the Leave rank and file when their leaders' vision is enacted.
Not so and you misrepresent Carswell. His position is that we should have control of our borders so we can then attract the people we want to come to Britain. This is not a 'no migration' nor an 'open migration' policy. It is the country deciding the levels and types of migration we gave that best suits our economy and our social and infrastructure constraints.
Personally it is not a huge issue for me either way but you should at least try not to misrepresent what your opponents are saying for your own ends.
You're just quibbling over the word 'open'. The fact is that under Carswell's vision there'd be as much, if not more, immigration than we have now - albeit from places like India, China, Pakistan and Russia as well as Europe. There would have to be; otherwise Leave would have to admit that Brexit would necessitate an economic slump. Actually, this is an intellectually sound position. What is dubious is Leave's playing the raise-the-drawbridge card for the Little Englanders whilst suggesting the economics can all be jolly and nice.
How did the economy grow so much faster from 1970 - 2000 than it has since 2000, when levels of immigration were much lower?
Just look at how well the IMF forecast Greece's economic performance in 2010
Greece 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 GDP growth IMF forecast -4 -2.6 1.1 2.1 2.1 2.7 GDP growth actual -5.5 -9.2 -7.3 -3.1 0.7 -0.3
Cumulative forecast error 2010-15: 24% of GDP.
Yes, that's right - they were wrong by **one quarter of the economy** over a six year window. Close, eh?
I am not sure voters will see Greece doing even worse* than the IMF projected as a reason for ignoring their warnings this time. Rightly or wrongly IMF will carry considerable weight. In the minds of those that were around in the seventies, the IMF is something of a bogeyman as Britain had to go cap in hand. They will want to stay well away from the IMF, even if it is a conflated thought.
In truth, none of the "OK names" are coming out for Brexit on the economics. The nearest probably is fund manager Peter Hargreaves who gets a listen simply because he made lots of money. He touts Brexit as being like Dunkirk and talks of the "fantastic insecurity" that comes from leaving the EU. Voters will be conscious that there are degrees of insecurity and the insecurity of a billionaire who can tap into his vast financial resources is different from the insecurity of the masses that are struggling to make ends meet.
* To be fair the perennial optimists at IMF did revise the near term figures downwards as the Greek reality hit. It was always "jam tomorrow"
Saying we'd be worse off if we left is not a positive argument for it.
Of course it is. If you prefer, you can formulate it as 'The EU is good for our economy, bringing increased prosperity and better-paid jobs'. That's the dull but sensible positive case in a nutshell. Whether it's true or not is another matter, of course.
I can see the economic argument. It is a good one. It is one for the Common Market.
It is not one for the political integration which is what the EU is about and which the EU itself and the leaders of other EU states are quite open about.
yebbut...Dave got his opt out didn't he. We have a two-speed Europe. Closer fiscal and hence political integration on the one hand, and plucky old us on the other.
Many Leavers ISTR wanted a two-speed Europe, well we have one. We can cite any old measure as being part of Ever Closer Union, point to our Feb 2016 deal and say uh-uh.
Saying we'd be worse off if we left is not a positive argument for it.
Of course it is. If you prefer, you can formulate it as 'The EU is good for our economy, bringing increased prosperity and better-paid jobs'. That's the dull but sensible positive case in a nutshell. Whether it's true or not is another matter, of course.
I think the argument seems to be more the EU is neither fantastic or awful for our economy but the world will end if we Leave, so what do you prefer?
FWIW I think there is an argument for Remain (which is deepening and completing the single market in services, energy, capital markets, digital and tech - I don't believe it to be a positive economic argument at all but HMG and the suite of internationals clearly do) but HMG and BSE don't want to make it because it concedes that there will be even more integration.
So they will triple egg and chips it for the next 41 days. If that doesn't work, quintuple eggs and chips with a coronary.
Saying we'd be worse off if we left is not a positive argument for it.
Of course it is. If you prefer, you can formulate it as 'The EU is good for our economy, bringing increased prosperity and better-paid jobs'. That's the dull but sensible positive case in a nutshell. Whether it's true or not is another matter, of course.
I think the argument seems to be more the EU is neither fantastic or awful for our economy but the world will end if we Leave, so what do you prefer?
FWIW I think there is an argument for Remain (which is deepening and completing the single market in services, energy, capital markets, digital and tech - I don't believe it to be a positive economic argument at all but HMG and the suite of internationals clearly do) but HMG and BSE don't want to make it because it concedes that there will be even more integration.
So they will triple egg and chips it for the next 41 days. If that doesn't work, quintuple eggs and chips with a coronary.
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that the Treasury is correct, and that outside the EU, GDP would be 31% higher than it is now, by 2030, whereas inside the EU it would be 37% higher.
Saying we'd be worse off if we left is not a positive argument for it.
Of course it is. If you prefer, you can formulate it as 'The EU is good for our economy, bringing increased prosperity and better-paid jobs'. That's the dull but sensible positive case in a nutshell. Whether it's true or not is another matter, of course.
I can see the economic argument. It is a good one. It is one for the Common Market.
It is not one for the political integration which is what the EU is about and which the EU itself and the leaders of other EU states are quite open about.
Comments
One of life's little mysteries I guess.
Remaining in the EU in our current form is bad for us and bad for them. They would be better off without us so that they can quickly introduce all the federalist things that most of them believe is what is required. They have the 5 Presidents Plan for the EU. Who are we to stop that? Why should we get in the way of their grand plan? Yes I may think it a foolish plan, yes Cameron may think it is not well thought through ... but that is a choice for the EZ area. They chose the route of the 5 Presidents plan, we have not. LEAVE is therefore the logical and right decision.
The reason he was backed into pledging a referendum was that nearly a hundred Tory MP's rebelled and voted for one. That is democracy, we have MPs and not just a PM.
Well in other words, basically where we are right now then......
And Trade Unions bussing in their workers for Labour. How did Labour candidates file that in their expenses?
Just look at how well the IMF forecast Greece's economic performance in 2010
Greece
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
GDP growth IMF forecast -4 -2.6 1.1 2.1 2.1 2.7
GDP growth actual -5.5 -9.2 -7.3 -3.1 0.7 -0.3
Cumulative forecast error 2010-15: 24% of GDP.
Yes, that's right - they were wrong by **one quarter of the economy** over a six year window. Close, eh?
Puts some of the studies suggesting a few % difference in GDP in the UK in 15-20 years after Brexit into perspective.
And please note that 'consensus' economic opinion from 2010 onwards was that leaving the Eurozone would lead to a collapse in Greek GDP of 20-30%, and that staying in and undertaking an 'internal devaluation' plus austerity was the only approach that could prevent that disaster.
This is possibly the most damning indictment of 'consensus' opinion you could get.
It should be mentioned though that a lot of the people pushing the scare stories about what would happen to Greece in the event of euro exit didn't really believe them. The same applies now to the scare stories about Brexit.
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2010/cr10110.pdf
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.
----------------------
-------------------
It would be great to have more independent-minded thought of that sort on this site instead of all the tiresome and empty-headed party spin.
Perhaps that is a pointer to the EURef also as by 2015 EU immigration was already significant and rising. If people didn't care then, when it came down to it, I wonder if they'll care now.
If others have done this in the past and no action has been taken then that is to be regretted. However it doesn't mean that the law can be broken with impunity in the recent election. It may be the sheer scale of the operation and the number of constituencies where spending is pushed over the limit by inclusion of the Battlebus costs that is attracting attention.
In WW2 to avoid damage and disruption Director General ships (Royal Navy) and design and procurement we're all moved out of London and to Bath where it was considered safer. The area concerned was bombed during the war with a string of bombs that hit Lansdown hill and led across the house and church at the entrance to Julian Road. Despite this Bath though was mostly unscathed (compared to other cities of course)
It is of interest that the Royal Navy design and procurement sections never moved back to London after the war but remained in Bath. There were several sites that employed many thousands of people including both my parents. All ship designs for the Navy were created here and mainly in the largest of the facilities based at Foxhill. The Polaris nuclear submarine was designed here as well.
Just recently Foxhill site has been cleared of the buildings that remained in use since WW2 and the area is now given over to housing. One presumes the design sections and facilities have now moved to Bristol in Abbey Wood bringing 70 odd years of connection to the Royal Navy to an end. Well almost as there are a couple of smaller establishments remaining at Endsleigh Road and private ship design companies with design offices in and around the centre of Bath and I believe a establishment on the top of Lansdown hill itself ( or was)
In fairness refusal to move is more an act of stupidity rather than true grit. Why put yourself (and others) at risk needlessly . Not quite sure what has been proved here ?
But the questions for the Remain campaign also needs answering: given the pressures we are currently under and that they are likely to continue, how are they going to be managed?
How are the public services going to be paid for?
How are we going to provide the housing for all these people?
How are we going to integrate them all?
How do you get the full-hearted consent of the people to this level of immigration and all its consequences for our society?
How are the costs going to be borne? And who will bear them? How will they be mitigated/ shared fairly?
Etc etc. Immigration from the EU is not like some Act of God. If it is decided that this should continue and at this level then it is incumbent on those who think it - on balance - a good thing to explain in some detail not just why it is a good thing but how it is going to be managed. And neither of these - and particularly not the latter- have been done.
It's this failure - and the rather high-handed dismissal by those who benefit most from immigration of the concerns felt by those who don't benefit from it and may be disadvantaged - which so infuriates people. The very least a government should do when it embarks on a policy which will mean significant change (both good and bad) for a country is to be open about it and get the people's consent.
This was not done over immigration and not, frankly, done over the EU and, judging by the pisspoor campaign so far, it's not being done about the EU now. I have yet to hear one positive argument for the EU by the Remain camp - for why it is a good thing. Saying we'd be worse off if we left is not a positive argument for it.
http://www.screendaily.com/festivals/cannes/embankment-kevin-loader-team-for-ferarri-racing-documentary/5103715.article
Big “groupings” like the EU should be better able to deal with such companies.
-----------
That's precisely the reverse of what happens in practice. Which is why big firms like the EU so much. One quite small set of unaccountable bureaucrats to soften up and manipulate rather than several sets of politicians.
I hope Verstappen wins.
However, that also includes a collapse in house prices.
As I have no intention of selling my house I don’t much mind about that, although no doubt my heirs will. But, would a collapse in house-prices really be a bad thing? Might enable some young people .... eg my two 20-something grandchildren to get a house. Something which at the moment appears very difficult.
Next up is Italy. Except its death spiral inside the euro is a far big catastrophe waiting to happen.
Staying in Europe entails huge risks. If we come out, we might save something.
I'm minded to ask "and would there be any negative effects?"
Yes, temporary residents of the UK do need accommodation but, on the other hand, those UK citizens temporarily working abroad don't. You can't count one and not the other!
Personally it is not a huge issue for me either way but you should at least try not to misrepresent what your opponents are saying for your own ends.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-server
Dave promised.
Of course the silly-billy electorate didn't then turf him out for breaking the promise but I can understand why we shouldn't brush that promise under the carpet during future considerations.
What actually happened? In the two quarters after ERM exit, the UK stock market rose almost 20%.
We have a saying in Bath ...when looking at the beauty of the city look up. A lot of people tend not to do so. If you do you will be amazed at what you see that you have not seen previously.
Just checking with the Outers, are opinion polls valid today or not?
“Twill be “interesting” to see what the effect of proposed squeeze on corrupt money in the London (and country estate?) market has!
Shares are worth a third of their value five years go.
Contingent capital bonds (ie riskiest 'shock absorber' debt) trade at eighty cents on the dollar.
"International companies" say that.
Of course they would have concerns.
Doesn't mean they are right. Doesn't mean that Brexit isn't still the right choice for the country.
And Elizabeth Warren as VPOTUS??????
It's not what happened in either case though.
But that is the market side of the EU - the Common Market. And if that is all it was I would be happy to Remain.
What I have not heard is the positive argument for the EU as a federal politically integrated entity, which is what has always been planned and is planned now, an entity which would to all intents and purposes abolish the nation state. What is the positive argument for that from the Remain camp?
What is the positive argument for having one system of law throughout the EU - civil rather than common law? What is the positive argument for having the same criminal system with, say, the abolition of trial by jury?
This is about more than having the ability to organise conferences in Barcelona. For the Remain camp to limit the arguments thus is to miss, fundamentally, what the EU is about.
I think there is a nasty tendency for some people to deliberately confuse the opposition of large scale immigration with a dislike or even hatred of immigrants - you can see it on here almost everyday.
http://static4.uk.businessinsider.com/image/571b427852bcd0210c8be782-1119-560/screen shot 2016-04-23 at 10.35.57.png
If the problem is shortage of supply, then rental prices should have risen rapidly in the way purchase prices have, right? But they haven't, they've remained more or less constant in real terms over the last ten years.
People are clearly living somewhere, yet the supply of new housing which in theory has been grossly inadequate doesn't seem to have made renting more expensive. It's rather mysterious.
It is not one for the political integration which is what the EU is about and which the EU itself and the leaders of other EU states are quite open about.
It is quite possible that Brexit would be inconvenient to their existing business models.
Oooh... scary.
You can't have a single market without a single set of laws governing it. For example, how can a patent or trademark be valid in one part of a single market and not in another? But that does not mean federalisation; neither does it necessiate harmonisation of all criminal law. You won't find Remainers arguing for that because they don't agree with it or believe it will happen. This referendum shows where sovereignty ultimately lies.
If it gets harder to hold conferences in Barcelona, we'll hold them elsewhere in the world. As a shareholder, I won't lose out. The company's London employees may though.
This generates a number of different issues, one of which is that unlike savings or equities it doesn't get recycled into productive economic growth. It does mean that falling house prices wipes out peoples savings, and could push banks into further problems. 2008 revisited here.
They know perfectly well that a debate focused on the political aspects of the EU will see them lose by a landslide.
Many Leavers ISTR wanted a two-speed Europe, well we have one. We can cite any old measure the Euro-imperialists try to impose upon the EU as being part of Ever Closer Union, then point to our Feb 2016 deal and say: uh-uh.
I am not sure voters will see Greece doing even worse* than the IMF projected as a reason for ignoring their warnings this time. Rightly or wrongly IMF will carry considerable weight. In the minds of those that were around in the seventies, the IMF is something of a bogeyman as Britain had to go cap in hand. They will want to stay well away from the IMF, even if it is a conflated thought.
In truth, none of the "OK names" are coming out for Brexit on the economics. The nearest probably is fund manager Peter Hargreaves who gets a listen simply because he made lots of money. He touts Brexit as being like Dunkirk and talks of the "fantastic insecurity" that comes from leaving the EU. Voters will be conscious that there are degrees of insecurity and the insecurity of a billionaire who can tap into his vast financial resources is different from the insecurity of the masses that are struggling to make ends meet.
* To be fair the perennial optimists at IMF did revise the near term figures downwards as the Greek reality hit. It was always "jam tomorrow"
FWIW I think there is an argument for Remain (which is deepening and completing the single market in services, energy, capital markets, digital and tech - I don't believe it to be a positive economic argument at all but HMG and the suite of internationals clearly do) but HMG and BSE don't want to make it because it concedes that there will be even more integration.
So they will triple egg and chips it for the next 41 days. If that doesn't work, quintuple eggs and chips with a coronary.
Does that, honestly, matter very much?