Thanks. ComRes under Andrew Cooper IMHO has become a bit politically suspect since he returned from Govt. The man is very political for the "wet" Conservatives. Cooper is also the infamous Mr 0.5% chance of Conservatives winning.
10 million pounds has been traded on the referendum result on Betfair. It would cost a fortune to manipulate that market.
£10 million isnt a great deal in the context. £15 million was donated to the two sides in the ten weeks up to mid April and with a market of £10m you could probably skew it with under a million
The challenge would be spreading it over hundreds or thousands of bets. A few large bets would obviously raise suspicions.
Alternatively it could just be primarily a reflection that the wealthy are disproportionately in favour of remaining in and disproportionally have spare cash to invest in obscure markets at Turf Accountants
You could skew it in the (very) short term, not over months unless you had unlimited funds and complete disregard for your money. The betfair market corrects itself very fast. Good luck trying to get a million pounds on an obscure market with a fixed odds bookmaker.It just won't happen unless you are a huge losing punter on other markets.
Mr. Meeks, you don't think it's legitimate to point out that an organisation part-funded by the EU might not be the epitome of objectivity when assessing whether we should be in the EU?
I think that any suggestion that the ONS is not one of the finest statistics-gathering organisations in the world is absurd. If they can manage to issue reliable impartial statistics in the context of normal politics day in day out despite being government-funded, I struggle to see why they should automatically become a zombie army hypnotised by Jean-Claude Juncker whenever a statistic might touch on the EU. But Leaver mania is uncontrollable, I suppose.
Likewise, any suggestion that the BBC is the not the finest broadcaster in the world, committed to impartiality dày in day out. I struggle to see how Jews might see bias over Israel (the suppression of the Balen Report not withstanding) or Catholics see bias over child abuse (the laughable whitewash of the Smith report not withstanding).
Alastair, your faith in Government institutions is truly touching.
Everyone thinks the BBC is biased against them.
I doubt many metropolitan upper-middle class do so.
Yes this is important. The BBC is not biased towards a party political worldview, it is biased towards a social/class world view ie progressive metropolitan upper middle class what you might call the managerial class.
There will always be such a class and their views will always be over represented in proportion to others however recent decades have seen an increasing social and cultural disconnect and divergence between this group and others, which, together with that managerial class over valuing themselves with an increasingly obscene pay gap between them and the rest, is causing a collapse in faith in governments and institutions in the west, symptoms of which are Donald Trump being a GOP nomination, the government feeling it had to grant this referendum and it not being anything like a certain outcome that they will win it.
If only I had put a pound accumulator 18 months ago on Corbyn winning Labour, Leicester winning the premuership and trump winning the presidency lol.
John Major was still in BBC news today about his insults aimed at specific conservative people. For example "The Justice Secretary should be "embarrassed and ashamed" at his "mischief making" in warning that future expansion of the 28-member bloc is set to heap strain on schools, the NHS and housing as well as raising security concerns."
Has there been a similar level of personal attack from a senior conservative LEAVE supporter against a senior conservative REMAIN supporter?
"Sir" John can be a very silly and petty man but the key thing to always remember is that he played his role in ousting a three time election winner, presided over a repossession crisis across Middle England and ended up taking his Party down it's worst defeat since 1832!
I see that this evening's ComRes poll is another on-line: can't recall their having a referendum question before (as opposed to their telephone surveys). Am I right on this?
I see that this evening's ComRes poll is another on-line: can't recall their having a referendum question before (as opposed to their telephone surveys). Am I right on this?
Yes, they've said they won't be doing public online polls for the referendum because they think phone polls will be more accurate than the online polls.
John Major was still in BBC news today about his insults aimed at specific conservative people. For example "The Justice Secretary should be "embarrassed and ashamed" at his "mischief making" in warning that future expansion of the 28-member bloc is set to heap strain on schools, the NHS and housing as well as raising security concerns."
Has there been a similar level of personal attack from a senior conservative LEAVE supporter against a senior conservative REMAIN supporter?
"Sir" John can be a very silly and petty man but the key thing to always remember is that he played his role in ousting a three time election winner, presided over a repossession crisis across Middle England and ended up taking his Party down it's worst defeat since 1832!
And what precisely was his role in ousting Mrs Thatcher (given that she backed him as her successor)?
On immigration, it's entirely what Roger quotes at the top of his piece:
"Facts aren't important. What matters is what the public believes."
Dave is reaping what he sowed.
The fact is we have over net migration of 330,000. Not sustainable.
Probably true - which means we need to change our economic model pronto. Right now our growth is predicated on high levels of immigration. And without growth we are going to have one hell of a problem funding everything from infrastructure through to care for our growing number of old people.
What's this "our...old people" ?
If we are importing immigrants like there is no tomorrow, then what makes you think they will regard old people as "theirs" in any sense?
That's the trouble with this generational analysis, it falls down if one generation doesn't generate the next.
John Major was still in BBC news today about his insults aimed at specific conservative people. For example "The Justice Secretary should be "embarrassed and ashamed" at his "mischief making" in warning that future expansion of the 28-member bloc is set to heap strain on schools, the NHS and housing as well as raising security concerns."
Has there been a similar level of personal attack from a senior conservative LEAVE supporter against a senior conservative REMAIN supporter?
"Sir" John can be a very silly and petty man but the key thing to always remember is that he played his role in ousting a three time election winner, presided over a repossession crisis across Middle England and ended up taking his Party down it's worst defeat since 1832!
And what precisely was his role in ousting Mrs Thatcher (given that she backed him as her successor)?
I see that this evening's ComRes poll is another on-line: can't recall their having a referendum question before (as opposed to their telephone surveys). Am I right on this?
Yes, they've said they won't be doing public online polls for the referendum because they think phone polls will be more accurate than the online polls.
Mr. Meeks, you don't think it's legitimate to point out that an organisation part-funded by the EU might not be the epitome of objectivity when assessing whether we should be in the EU?
I think that any suggestion that the ONS is not one of the finest statistics-gathering organisations in the world is absurd. If they can manage to issue reliable impartial statistics in the context of normal politics day in day out despite being government-funded, I struggle to see why they should automatically become a zombie army hypnotised by Jean-Claude Juncker whenever a statistic might touch on the EU. But Leaver mania is uncontrollable, I suppose.
Likewise, any suggestion that the BBC is the not the finest broadcaster in the world, committed to impartiality dày in day out. I struggle to see how Jews might see bias over Israel (the suppression of the Balen Report not withstanding) or Catholics see bias over child abuse (the laughable whitewash of the Smith report not withstanding).
Alastair, your faith in Government institutions is truly touching.
Everyone thinks the BBC is biased against them.
I doubt many metropolitan upper-middle class do so.
Yes this is important. The BBC is not biased towards a party political worldview, it is biased towards a social/class world view ie progressive metropolitan upper middle class what you might call the managerial class.
There will always be such a class and their views will always be over represented in proportion to others however recent decades have seen an increasing social and cultural disconnect and divergence between this group and others, which, together with that managerial class over valuing themselves with an increasingly obscene pay gap between them and the rest, is causing a collapse in faith in governments and institutions in the west, symptoms of which are Donald Trump being a GOP nomination, the government feeling it had to grant this referendum and it not being anything like a certain outcome that they will win it.
If only I had put a pound accumulator 18 months ago on Corbyn winning Labour, Leicester winning the premuership and trump winning the presidency lol.
I agree to an extent, but there are liberal, upper class metropolitans on both sides of the EU debate - Boris and Gove v Cameron and Osborne is an upper class, liberal metropolitan head to head.
I see that this evening's ComRes poll is another on-line: can't recall their having a referendum question before (as opposed to their telephone surveys). Am I right on this?
Yes, they've said they won't be doing public online polls for the referendum because they think phone polls will be more accurate than the online polls.
Hmm. Pollsters not publishing polls because they think they are inaccurate worked well for Survation last year, didn't it?
I see that this evening's ComRes poll is another on-line: can't recall their having a referendum question before (as opposed to their telephone surveys). Am I right on this?
Yes, they've said they won't be doing public online polls for the referendum because they think phone polls will be more accurate than the online polls.
John Major was still in BBC news today about his insults aimed at specific conservative people. For example "The Justice Secretary should be "embarrassed and ashamed" at his "mischief making" in warning that future expansion of the 28-member bloc is set to heap strain on schools, the NHS and housing as well as raising security concerns."
Has there been a similar level of personal attack from a senior conservative LEAVE supporter against a senior conservative REMAIN supporter?
"Sir" John can be a very silly and petty man but the key thing to always remember is that he played his role in ousting a three time election winner, presided over a repossession crisis across Middle England and ended up taking his Party down it's worst defeat since 1832!
Major's brief but disastrous period as chancellor when he took us into the ERM accompanied by 15% interest rates sowed the seed for his failed premiership. THat early 90's recession was far more vicious in many ways to middle Britain than the 2008 financial meltdown
John Major was still in BBC news today about his insults aimed at specific conservative people. For example "The Justice Secretary should be "embarrassed and ashamed" at his "mischief making" in warning that future expansion of the 28-member bloc is set to heap strain on schools, the NHS and housing as well as raising security concerns."
Has there been a similar level of personal attack from a senior conservative LEAVE supporter against a senior conservative REMAIN supporter?
"Sir" John can be a very silly and petty man but the key thing to always remember is that he played his role in ousting a three time election winner, presided over a repossession crisis across Middle England and ended up taking his Party down it's worst defeat since 1832!
And what precisely was his role in ousting Mrs Thatcher (given that she backed him as her successor)?
He was part of the "wets" that got her out... And as I remember it she only backed him because he was the only one that could defeat arch enemy Hezza... She always knew he wasn't up to it and so it proved.
Clarke, Hezza, Major, Hurd... They are all very silly, dull, old (but then middle aged) men singing from the same EUPhille him-sheet from what I can see.
John Major was still in BBC news today about his insults aimed at specific conservative people. For example "The Justice Secretary should be "embarrassed and ashamed" at his "mischief making" in warning that future expansion of the 28-member bloc is set to heap strain on schools, the NHS and housing as well as raising security concerns."
Has there been a similar level of personal attack from a senior conservative LEAVE supporter against a senior conservative REMAIN supporter?
"Sir" John can be a very silly and petty man but the key thing to always remember is that he played his role in ousting a three time election winner, presided over a repossession crisis across Middle England and ended up taking his Party down it's worst defeat since 1832!
I can only assume it is senility that has led to his forgetting how he got screwed over by the EU the last time a Tory PM secured Cast Iron opt outs.
Leave will win narrowly on a turnout of about 60% aided by Labour core voter disengagement.
There will be a bit of a panic followed by another renegotiation with more substantial concessions and another referendum. Rinse and repeat.
With almost the entire political and managerial class wantjng to remain I really cant see them actually legislating to withdraw us unless a referendum voted leave by a lsrge margin on a high (75% +) turnout.
I see that this evening's ComRes poll is another on-line: can't recall their having a referendum question before (as opposed to their telephone surveys). Am I right on this?
I don't believe anyone has done polling in which they could correct for bias in the way they do for actual elections because we don't have EU in out referendums often enough.
Curiously the way Cameron is fighting this one will leave many remainers arguing for a re run whereas he could have done it in such a way as to settle the matter for good. So there may be another referendum along soon....
John Major was still in BBC news today about his insults aimed at specific conservative people. For example "The Justice Secretary should be "embarrassed and ashamed" at his "mischief making" in warning that future expansion of the 28-member bloc is set to heap strain on schools, the NHS and housing as well as raising security concerns."
Has there been a similar level of personal attack from a senior conservative LEAVE supporter against a senior conservative REMAIN supporter?
"Sir" John can be a very silly and petty man but the key thing to always remember is that he played his role in ousting a three time election winner, presided over a repossession crisis across Middle England and ended up taking his Party down it's worst defeat since 1832!
And what precisely was his role in ousting Mrs Thatcher (given that she backed him as her successor)?
He was part of the "wets" that got her out... And as I remember it she only backed him because he was the only one that could defeat arch enemy Hezza... She always knew he wasn't up to it and so it proved.
Clarke, Hezza, Major, Hurd... They are all very silly, dull, old (but then middle aged) men singing from the same EUPhille him-sheet from what I can see.
Ah, that's why he nominated her for the first ballot then. But please keep digging.
John Major was still in BBC news today about his insults aimed at specific conservative people. For example "The Justice Secretary should be "embarrassed and ashamed" at his "mischief making" in warning that future expansion of the 28-member bloc is set to heap strain on schools, the NHS and housing as well as raising security concerns."
Has there been a similar level of personal attack from a senior conservative LEAVE supporter against a senior conservative REMAIN supporter?
"Sir" John can be a very silly and petty man but the key thing to always remember is that he played his role in ousting a three time election winner, presided over a repossession crisis across Middle England and ended up taking his Party down it's worst defeat since 1832!
Major's brief but disastrous period as chancellor when he took us into the ERM accompanied by 15% interest rates sowed the seed for his failed premiership. THat early 90's recession was far more vicious in many ways to middle Britain than the 2008 financial meltdown
Indeed it was. In those days in September 1992 Major essentially threw Middle England to the wolves in an attempt this keep the euro dream alive.
As a result his Party was destroyed... And didn't lead an opinion poll for eight years (and didn't get an regular lead in the polls for 13 years)
Because of the way he accepted his defeat people feel inclined to go easy on him but the truth is he was a catastrophe for his party and the country.
On immigration, it's entirely what Roger quotes at the top of his piece:
"Facts aren't important. What matters is what the public believes."
Dave is reaping what he sowed.
The fact is we have over net migration of 330,000. Not sustainable.
Probably true - which means we need to change our economic model pronto. Right now our growth is predicated on high levels of immigration. And without growth we are going to have one hell of a problem funding everything from infrastructure through to care for our growing number of old people.
What's this "our...old people" ?
If we are importing immigrants like there is no tomorrow, then what makes you think they will regard old people as "theirs" in any sense?
That's the trouble with this generational analysis, it falls down if one generation doesn't generate the next.
We require enough people of working age to pay the taxes needed to fund government expenditure. Where they come from is not really the issue. If we want less immigrants, clearly we have to have a higher birth rate - though thanks to immigration the UK birth rate is higher than birth rates in most other European countries.
But a rising birth rate only works over the longer term. We have funding issues right here and right now, and a policy of moving to and then staying in surplus. That is not going to happen without continued high levels of immigration.
So we either continue to "import" workers, significantly decrease government spending by squeezing the services Leavers tell us they are fighting to save, substantially increase the tax burden or remodel our economic and fiscal approach. Which would you go for?
I see that this evening's ComRes poll is another on-line: can't recall their having a referendum question before (as opposed to their telephone surveys). Am I right on this?
I don't believe anyone has done polling in which they could correct for bias in the way they do for actual elections because we don't have EU in out referendums often enough.
Curiously the way Cameron is fighting this one will leave many remainers arguing for a re run whereas he could have done it in such a way as to settle the matter for good. So there may be another referendum along soon....
No. If leave win, even by a single vote, we leave. End of. And I say that as a convinced Remain supporter. A second referendum I suppose might possibly be forthcoming later on whether the UK joins the EEA/stays in the single market, or cuts all ties with the EU.
In the Eurovision Songfest there is no doubt that Graham Norton will be the perfect commentator tonight, as he follows in the footsteps of Terry Wogan in taking the piss out of the contestants and the block voting liable to occur.
*** Not a joke post ***
Weren't the British figures fiddled once to hide support for the Polish entry?
IIRC David Herdson has said the support for foreign entries is a good indicator of the extent of EU immigration to that country.
Not fiddled, exactly - the amount that the jury hated it overcame the amount the televoters loved it which pushed it right down in the overall rankings.
This was one contributing factor to the switch to the new system this year where the jury and televoters results are scored separately rather than combined as before.
So, the British jury hated the Polish entry overruled the Poles who quite liked it and democratically voted it into first position.
Explain to me why this isn't racism of the first order?
Because the jury vote was independent of (and before - IIRC the juries vote on the dress rehearsal) the public vote.
And because the jury is made up of music industry professionals and hence tend to vote on their perception of musical merit, whereas in the case of the Polish milk maids, the British public was in at least some part voting on the quality of their, um, jugs.
So, how much racial diversity was on that jury? Judging by others, I think that some will be vastly over-represented and others under-represented.
In any case, the ideas that music professionals don't judge accordingly to cultural preferences (many Chinese on X-factor?) or that sex should have nothing to do with popular music (what is rock'n'roll?) is risible.
Mr. Pong, not specific to this referendum, it's bonkers that Irishmen can vote in UK elections as a right.
Not really, we can vote in their geeral elections. British Passports are effectively Honorary Irish Passports and vice versa. Effectively because since 1922 we have been one country administered by two separate governments.
Mr. Meeks, you don't think it's legitimate to point out that an organisation part-funded by the EU might not be the epitome of objectivity when assessing whether we should be in the EU?
I think that any suggestion that the ONS is not one of the finest statistics-gathering organisations in the world is absurd. If they can manage to issue reliable impartial statistics in the context of normal politics day in day out despite being government-funded, I struggle to see why they should automatically become a zombie army hypnotised by Jean-Claude Juncker whenever a statistic might touch on the EU. But Leaver mania is uncontrollable, I suppose.
Likewise, any suggestion that the BBC is the not the finest broadcaster in the world, committed to impartiality dày in day out. I struggle to see how Jews might see bias over Israel (the suppression of the Balen Report not withstanding) or Catholics see bias over child abuse (the laughable whitewash of the Smith report not withstanding).
Alastair, your faith in Government institutions is truly touching.
Everyone thinks the BBC is biased against them.
I doubt many metropolitan upper-middle class do so.
Yes this is important. The BBC is not biased towards a party political worldview, it is biased towards a social/class world view ie progressive metropolitan upper middle class what you might call the managerial class.
There will always be such a class and their views will always be over represented in proportion to others however recent decades have seen an increasing social and cultural disconnect and divergence between this group and others, which, together with that managerial class over valuing themselves with an increasingly obscene pay gap between them and the rest, is causing a collapse in faith in governments and institutions in the west, symptoms of which are Donald Trump being a GOP nomination, the government feeling it had to grant this referendum and it not being anything like a certain outcome that they will win it.
If only I had put a pound accumulator 18 months ago on Corbyn winning Labour, Leicester winning the premuership and trump winning the presidency lol.
I agree to an extent, but there are liberal, upper class metropolitans on both sides of the EU debate - Boris and Gove v Cameron and Osborne is an upper class, liberal metropolitan head to head.
Johnson and Gove are middle class scholarship boys. Cameron and Osborne come from privileged monied families. An intellectual elite vs a social elite.
John Major was still in BBC news today about his insults aimed at specific conservative people. For example "The Justice Secretary should be "embarrassed and ashamed" at his "mischief making" in warning that future expansion of the 28-member bloc is set to heap strain on schools, the NHS and housing as well as raising security concerns."
Has there been a similar level of personal attack from a senior conservative LEAVE supporter against a senior conservative REMAIN supporter?
"Sir" John can be a very silly and petty man but the key thing to always remember is that he played his role in ousting a three time election winner, presided over a repossession crisis across Middle England and ended up taking his Party down it's worst defeat since 1832!
Major's brief but disastrous period as chancellor when he took us into the ERM accompanied by 15% interest rates sowed the seed for his failed premiership. THat early 90's recession was far more vicious in many ways to middle Britain than the 2008 financial meltdown
Indeed it was. In those days in September 1992 Major essentially threw Middle England to the wolves in an attempt this keep the euro dream alive.
As a result his Party was destroyed... And didn't lead an opinion poll for eight years (and didn't get an regular lead in the polls for 13 years)
Because of the way he accepted his defeat people feel inclined to go easy on him but the truth is he was a catastrophe for hit party and the country.
His attachment to the ERM was appalling for those directly effected [I was one], and destroyed the Tory's credibility for economics for almost two decades. No free pass from me.
Mr. Meeks, you don't think it's legitimate to point out that an organisation part-funded by the EU might not be the epitome of objectivity when assessing whether we should be in the EU?
I think that any suggestion that the ONS is not one of the finest statistics-gathering organisations in the world is absurd. If they can manage to issue reliable impartial statistics in the context of normal politics day in day out despite being government-funded, I struggle to see why they should automatically become a zombie army hypnotised by Jean-Claude Juncker whenever a statistic might touch on the EU. But Leaver mania is uncontrollable, I suppose.
Alastair, your faith in Government institutions is truly touching.
Everyone thinks the BBC is biased against them.
I doubt many metropolitan upper-middle class do so.
Yes this is important. The BBC is not biased towards a party political worldview, it is biased towards a social/class world view ie progressive metropolitan upper middle class what you might call the managerial class.
There will always be such a class and their views will always be over represented in proportion to others however recent decades have seen an increasing social and cultural disconnect and divergence between this group and others, which, together with that managerial class over valuing themselves with an increasingly obscene pay gap between them and the rest, is causing a collapse in faith in governments and institutions in the west, symptoms of which are Donald Trump being a GOP nomination, the government feeling it had to grant this referendum and it not being anything like a certain outcome that they will win it.
If only I had put a pound accumulator 18 months ago on Corbyn winning Labour, Leicester winning the premuership and trump winning the presidency lol.
I agree to an extent, but there are liberal, upper class metropolitans on both sides of the EU debate - Boris and Gove v Cameron and Osborne is an upper class, liberal metropolitan head to head.
Johnson and Gove are middle class scholarship boys. Cameron and Osborne come from privileged monied families. An intellectual elite vs a social elite.
Gove emphatically yes, pull the other one with regard to Boris (Stanley as an impecunious Eurocrat is a bit of a struggle even for as daft an old bat as your esteemed self)
The John Major retrospective on here is hilarious. I wish I'd kept the threads in which posters now lambasting him previously stated he was a very underrated Prime Minister who did an impossible job very well and left a golden legacy which Labour threw away.
My guess is that Sir John's support for continued EU membership is leading a few folk on here to reassess their previous high opinion of him. Who'd have thought it? :-)
John Major was still in BBC news today about his insults aimed at specific conservative people. For example "The Justice Secretary should be "embarrassed and ashamed" at his "mischief making" in warning that future expansion of the 28-member bloc is set to heap strain on schools, the NHS and housing as well as raising security concerns."
Has there been a similar level of personal attack from a senior conservative LEAVE supporter against a senior conservative REMAIN supporter?
"Sir" John can be a very silly and petty man but the key thing to always remember is that he played his role in ousting a three time election winner, presided over a repossession crisis across Middle England and ended up taking his Party down it's worst defeat since 1832!
And what precisely was his role in ousting Mrs Thatcher (given that she backed him as her successor)?
He was part of the "wets" that got her out... And as I remember it she only backed him because he was the only one that could defeat arch enemy Hezza... She always knew he wasn't up to it and so it proved.
Clarke, Hezza, Major, Hurd... They are all very silly, dull, old (but then middle aged) men singing from the same EUPhille him-sheet from what I can see.
Ah, that's why he nominated her for the first ballot then. But please keep digging.
He wanted her job so he couldn't do anything else than be outwardly loyal. He knew what he what he was doing...
Thanks. ComRes under Andrew Cooper IMHO has become a bit politically suspect since he returned from Govt. The man is very political for the "wet" Conservatives. Cooper is also the infamous Mr 0.5% chance of Conservatives winning.
Christ, you talk some bollocks. Andrew Cooper doesn't work for ComRes. Lord Cooper works for Populus. But apart from that, excellent post.
John Major was still in BBC news today about his insults aimed at specific conservative people. For example "The Justice Secretary should be "embarrassed and ashamed" at his "mischief making" in warning that future expansion of the 28-member bloc is set to heap strain on schools, the NHS and housing as well as raising security concerns."
Has there been a similar level of personal attack from a senior conservative LEAVE supporter against a senior conservative REMAIN supporter?
"Sir" John can be a very silly and petty man but the key thing to always remember is that he played his role in ousting a three time election winner, presided over a repossession crisis across Middle England and ended up taking his Party down it's worst defeat since 1832!
And what precisely was his role in ousting Mrs Thatcher (given that she backed him as her successor)?
He was part of the "wets" that got her out... And as I remember it she only backed him because he was the only one that could defeat arch enemy Hezza... She always knew he wasn't up to it and so it proved.
Clarke, Hezza, Major, Hurd... They are all very silly, dull, old (but then middle aged) men singing from the same EUPhille him-sheet from what I can see.
Ah, that's why he nominated her for the first ballot then. But please keep digging.
He wanted her job so he couldn't do anything else than be outwardly loyal. He knew what he what he was doing...
Ho, ho, at this rate, you'll reach Australia by the time the ComRes poll is out this evening.
On immigration, it's entirely what Roger quotes at the top of his piece:
"Facts aren't important. What matters is what the public believes."
Dave is reaping what he sowed.
The fact is we have over net migration of 330,000. Not sustainable.
Probably true - which means we need to change our economic model pronto. Right now our growth is predicated on high levels of immigration. And without growth we are going to have one hell of a problem funding everything from infrastructure through to care for our growing number of old people.
What's this "our...old people" ?
If we are importing immigrants like there is no tomorrow, then what makes you think they will regard old people as "theirs" in any sense?
That's the trouble with this generational analysis, it falls down if one generation doesn't generate the next.
We require enough people of working age to pay the taxes needed to fund government expenditure. Where they come from is not really the issue. If we want less immigrants, clearly we have to have a higher birth rate - though thanks to immigration the UK birth rate is higher than birth rates in most other European countries.
But a rising birth rate only works over the longer term. We have funding issues right here and right now, and a policy of moving to and then staying in surplus. That is not going to happen without continued high levels of immigration.
So we either continue to "import" workers, significantly decrease government spending by squeezing the services Leavers tell us they are fighting to save, substantially increase the tax burden or remodel our economic and fiscal approach. Which would you go for?
But it is a pyramid scheme. That increasing population to pay for the elderly will themselves get old and have to be paid for. So then you need more immigration or increased birth rate to pay for them. At some point you reach a point where it is unsustainable in terms of job creation, housing and services.
If your plan is based upon never ending growth in both the economy and population - as it currently is - then we are truly screwed.
I see that this evening's ComRes poll is another on-line: can't recall their having a referendum question before (as opposed to their telephone surveys). Am I right on this?
I don't believe anyone has done polling in which they could correct for bias in the way they do for actual elections because we don't have EU in out referendums often enough.
Curiously the way Cameron is fighting this one will leave many remainers arguing for a re run whereas he could have done it in such a way as to settle the matter for good. So there may be another referendum along soon....
No. If leave win, even by a single vote, we leave. End of. And I say that as a convinced Remain supporter. A second referendum I suppose might possibly be forthcoming later on whether the UK joins the EEA/stays in the single market, or cuts all ties with the EU.
My point was if remain win it doesn't settle the question amongst some because of the way the campaign has been fought in much the same way as it does not appear to have done north of the border.
I think that is an error on Cameron's part. He has taken the wrong lessons from Scotland. Granted if leave win, that's it.
The John Major retrospective on here is hilarious. I wish I'd kept the threads in which posters now lambasting him previously stated he was a very underrated Prime Minister who did an impossible job very well and left a golden legacy which Labour threw away.
My guess is that Sir John's support for continued EU membership is leading a few folk on here to reassess their previous high opinion of him. Who'd have thought it? :-)
To be fair they did leave a "golden economic legacy" to Labour but it was despite them not because of them (if they'd had their way they'd probably have kept us in the ERM with interest rates of 1000% )
The John Major retrospective on here is hilarious. I wish I'd kept the threads in which posters now lambasting him previously stated he was a very underrated Prime Minister who did an impossible job very well and left a golden legacy which Labour threw away.
My guess is that Sir John's support for continued EU membership is leading a few folk on here to reassess their previous high opinion of him. Who'd have thought it? :-)
You won't find me amongst them. As far as I am concerned he was always a bad PM who caused his own downfall and deserved all he got.
Except of course for the post downfall adulation that he seems to receive from some Tories. Conveniently forgetting how much damage he did to the country,
I see that this evening's ComRes poll is another on-line: can't recall their having a referendum question before (as opposed to their telephone surveys). Am I right on this?
I don't believe anyone has done polling in which they could correct for bias in the way they do for actual elections because we don't have EU in out referendums often enough.
Curiously the way Cameron is fighting this one will leave many remainers arguing for a re run whereas he could have done it in such a way as to settle the matter for good. So there may be another referendum along soon....
No. If leave win, even by a single vote, we leave. End of. And I say that as a convinced Remain supporter. A second referendum I suppose might possibly be forthcoming later on whether the UK joins the EEA/stays in the single market, or cuts all ties with the EU.
My point was if remain win it doesn't settle the question amongst some because of the way the campaign has been fought in much the same way as it does not appear to have done north of the border.
I think that is an error on Cameron's part. He has taken the wrong lessons from Scotland. Granted if leave win, that's it.
Ah, I see. But again no. If Remain win, even by a single vote, we remain, and for at least 10-15 years.
I know someone with whom he's been having a boundary dispute. As far as I can judge it's almost all from Major bullying a proposed expansion. The acquaintance says Major has been a thoroughly nasty piece of work: an obnoxious, aggressive, foul-mouthed turd.
Mr. Meeks, you don't think it's legitimate to point out that an organisation part-funded by the EU might not be the epitome of objectivity when assessing whether we should be in the EU?
I think that any suggestion that the ONS is not one of the finest statistics-gathering organisations in the world is absurd. If they can manage to issue reliable impartial statistics in the context of normal politics day in day out despite being government-funded, I struggle to see why they should automatically become a zombie army hypnotised by Jean-Claude Juncker whenever a statistic might touch on the EU. But Leaver mania is uncontrollable, I suppose.
Likewise, any suggestion that the BBC is the not the finest broadcaster in the world, committed to impartiality dày in day out. I struggle to see how Jews might see bias over Israel (the suppression of the Balen Report not withstanding) or Catholics see bias over child abuse (the laughable whitewash of the Smith report not withstanding).
Alastair, your faith in Government institutions is truly touching.
Everyone thinks the BBC is biased against them.
I doubt many metropolitan upper-middle class do so.
Yes this is important. The BBC is not biased towards a party political worldview, it is biased towards a social/class world view ie progressive metropolitan upper middle class what you might call the managerial class.
There will always be such a class and their views will always be over represented in nomination, the government feeling it had to grant this referendum and it not being anything like a certain outcome that they will win it.
If only I had put a pound accumulator 18 months ago on Corbyn winning Labour, Leicester winning the premuership and trump winning the presidency lol.
I agree to an extent, but there are liberal, upper class metropolitans on both sides of the EU debate - Boris and Gove v Cameron and Osborne is an upper class, liberal metropolitan head to head.
Johnson and Gove are middle class scholarship boys. Cameron and Osborne come from privileged monied families. An intellectual elite vs a social elite.
I thought that in the UK where you come from does not matter, it's where you are at that counts. And both Gove and Boris are well and truly members of the upper class, liberal, metropolitan elite. That said, I particularly like the idea that Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is a plucky outsider who has fought his way tot he top against the odds.
The John Major retrospective on here is hilarious. I wish I'd kept the threads in which posters now lambasting him previously stated he was a very underrated Prime Minister who did an impossible job very well and left a golden legacy which Labour threw away.
My guess is that Sir John's support for continued EU membership is leading a few folk on here to reassess their previous high opinion of him. Who'd have thought it? :-)
Yes it is. Other concerns all rely upon a healthy economy. Even if you don't put the economy at number one then what you do will almost certainly require a good economy one way or another.
Besides the target is a majority not a plurality. So you need a coalition of concerns (which will include either the economy or economy dependent issues) to get to 50%+1 as opposed to 30% and losing.
The John Major retrospective on here is hilarious. I wish I'd kept the threads in which posters now lambasting him previously stated he was a very underrated Prime Minister who did an impossible job very well and left a golden legacy which Labour threw away.
My guess is that Sir John's support for continued EU membership is leading a few folk on here to reassess their previous high opinion of him. Who'd have thought it? :-)
You won't find me amongst them. As far as I am concerned he was always a bad PM who caused his own downfall and deserved all he got.
Except of course for the post downfall adulation that he seems to receive from some Tories. Conveniently forgetting how much damage he did to the country,
Agreed - I can safely say that you have not changed your mind about him.
The John Major retrospective on here is hilarious. I wish I'd kept the threads in which posters now lambasting him previously stated he was a very underrated Prime Minister who did an impossible job very well and left a golden legacy which Labour threw away.
My guess is that Sir John's support for continued EU membership is leading a few folk on here to reassess their previous high opinion of him. Who'd have thought it? :-)
We're perfectly able to differentiate between his cojones over *bastards* or soapbox campaigning, and screwing up our Party for 18yrs.
John Major was still in BBC news today about his insults aimed at specific conservative people. For example "The Justice Secretary should be "embarrassed and ashamed" at his "mischief making" in warning that future expansion of the 28-member bloc is set to heap strain on schools, the NHS and housing as well as raising security concerns."
Has there been a similar level of personal attack from a senior conservative LEAVE supporter against a senior conservative REMAIN supporter?
"Sir" John can be a very silly and petty man but the key thing to always remember is that he played his role in ousting a three time election winner, presided over a repossession crisis across Middle England and ended up taking his Party down it's worst defeat since 1832!
And what precisely was his role in ousting Mrs Thatcher (given that she backed him as her successor)?
My point was if remain win it doesn't settle the question amongst some because of the way the campaign has been fought in much the same way as it does not appear to have done north of the border.
I think that is an error on Cameron's part. He has taken the wrong lessons from Scotland. Granted if leave win, that's it.
Ah, I see. But again no. If Remain win, even by a single vote, we remain, and for at least 10-15 years.
Exactly. For ONLY 10 to 15 years.... And then another referendum. At least Wilson did it in a way that settled it for 41 years.
On immigration, it's entirely what Roger quotes at the top of his piece:
"Facts aren't important. What matters is what the public believes."
Dave is reaping what he sowed.
The fact is we have over net migration of 330,000. Not sustainable.
Probably true - which means we need to change our economic model pronto. Right now our growth is predicated on high levels of immigration. And without growth we are going to have one hell of a problem funding everything from infrastructure through to care for our growing number of old people.
What's this "our...old people" ?
If we are importing immigrants like there is no tomorrow, then what makes you think they will regard old people as "theirs" in any sense?
That's the trouble with this generational analysis, it falls down if one generation doesn't generate the next.
We require enough people of working age to pay the taxes needed to fund government expenditure. Where they come from is not really the issue. If we want less immigrants, clearly we have to have a higher birth rate - though thanks to immigration the UK birth rate is higher than birth rates in most other European countries.
But a rising birth rate only works over the longer term. We have funding issues right here and right now, and a policy of moving to and then staying in surplus. That is not going to happen without continued high levels of immigration.
So we either continue to "import" workers, significantly decrease government spending by squeezing the services Leavers tell us they are fighting to save, substantially increase the tax burden or remodel our economic and fiscal approach. Which would you go for?
You cut your clothes according to your cloth.
A falling tax base means smaller Government.
All Ponzi schemes collapse in the end and that's what we are beginning to see in private pensions and socialised medicine.
A remodelling of our economic and fiscal approach is vastly overdue.
The John Major retrospective on here is hilarious. I wish I'd kept the threads in which posters now lambasting him previously stated he was a very underrated Prime Minister who did an impossible job very well and left a golden legacy which Labour threw away.
My guess is that Sir John's support for continued EU membership is leading a few folk on here to reassess their previous high opinion of him. Who'd have thought it? :-)
You won't find me amongst them. As far as I am concerned he was always a bad PM who caused his own downfall and deserved all he got.
Except of course for the post downfall adulation that he seems to receive from some Tories. Conveniently forgetting how much damage he did to the country,
Agreed - I can safely say that you have not changed your mind about him.
On immigration, it's entirely what Roger quotes at the top of his piece:
"Facts aren't important. What matters is what the public believes."
Dave is reaping what he sowed.
The fact is we have over net migration of 330,000. Not sustainable.
Probably true - which means we need to change our economic model pronto. Right now our growth is predicated on high levels of immigration. And without growth we are going to have one hell of a problem funding everything from infrastructure through to care for our growing number of old people.
What's this "our...old people" ?
If we are importing immigrants like there is no tomorrow, then what makes you think they will regard old people as "theirs" in any sense?
That's the trouble with this generational analysis, it falls down if one generation doesn't generate the next.
We require enough people of working age to pay the taxes needed to fund government expenditure. Where they come from is not really the issue. If we want less immigrants, clearly we have to have a higher birth rate - though thanks to immigration the UK birth rate is higher than birth rates in most other European countries.
But a rising birth rate only works over the longer term. We have funding issues right here and right now, and a policy of moving to and then staying in surplus. That is not going to happen without continued high levels of immigration.
So we either continue to "import" workers, significantly decrease government spending by squeezing the services Leavers tell us they are fighting to save, substantially increase the tax burden or remodel our economic and fiscal approach. Which would you go for?
But it is a pyramid scheme. That increasing population to pay for the elderly will themselves get old and have to be paid for. So then you need more immigration or increased birth rate to pay for them. At some point you reach a point where it is unsustainable in terms of job creation, housing and services.
If your plan is based upon never ending growth in both the economy and population - as it currently is - then we are truly screwed.
This is so bleeding obvious, I can't believe it needs to be repeated every few days.
The John Major retrospective on here is hilarious. I wish I'd kept the threads in which posters now lambasting him previously stated he was a very underrated Prime Minister who did an impossible job very well and left a golden legacy which Labour threw away.
My guess is that Sir John's support for continued EU membership is leading a few folk on here to reassess their previous high opinion of him. Who'd have thought it? :-)
It is the desperation of the remain camp that is impresses me. Everything, everything must be sacrificed to stay in this club. The preservation of the Davos/Bilderberg/Summit/supranational system of running the world is priority number one, two, three and four for Dave.
The views of overseas bigwigs are far, far, far more important than what the people of Britain think.
John Major was still in BBC news today about his insults aimed at specific conservative people. For example "The Justice Secretary should be "embarrassed and ashamed" at his "mischief making" in warning that future expansion of the 28-member bloc is set to heap strain on schools, the NHS and housing as well as raising security concerns."
Has there been a similar level of personal attack from a senior conservative LEAVE supporter against a senior conservative REMAIN supporter?
"Sir" John can be a very silly and petty man but the key thing to always remember is that he played his role in ousting a three time election winner, presided over a repossession crisis across Middle England and ended up taking his Party down it's worst defeat since 1832!
Major's brief but disastrous period as chancellor when he took us into the ERM accompanied by 15% interest rates sowed the seed for his failed premiership. THat early 90's recession was far more vicious in many ways to middle Britain than the 2008 financial meltdown
Indeed it was. In those days in September 1992 Major essentially threw Middle England to the wolves in an attempt this keep the euro dream alive.
As a result his Party was destroyed... And didn't lead an opinion poll for eight years (and didn't get an regular lead in the polls for 13 years)
Because of the way he accepted his defeat people feel inclined to go easy on him but the truth is he was a catastrophe for hit party and the country.
His attachment to the ERM was appalling for those directly effected [I was one], and destroyed the Tory's credibility for economics for almost two decades. No free pass from me.
Yeah, my family was badly damaged by that recession... Fortunately we did manage to keep a roof over our heads but my (late) father had many sleepless nights thinking we'd be put out at any moment.
Thanks. ComRes under Andrew Cooper IMHO has become a bit politically suspect since he returned from Govt. The man is very political for the "wet" Conservatives. Cooper is also the infamous Mr 0.5% chance of Conservatives winning.
Christ, you talk some bollocks. Andrew Cooper doesn't work for ComRes. Lord Cooper works for Populus. But apart from that, excellent post.
ooops. My mishtakessss
Sadly not atypical behaviour from Leavers. Inaccurately smear organisations and people you don't agree with.
I think Remain will win, but it remains a hostage to fortune on immigration. They have to keep the Eurocrats quiet too, but that is controllable.
A sudden influx of boat people, a terrorist atrocity, a prominent Europhile looking forward to one country, one parliament and one army could undo all their choreographed work.
The odds must favour them, but they have to build on little steps at a time, hoping that Leave don't suddenly bound ahead with one unanticipated leap.
Thanks. ComRes under Andrew Cooper IMHO has become a bit politically suspect since he returned from Govt. The man is very political for the "wet" Conservatives. Cooper is also the infamous Mr 0.5% chance of Conservatives winning.
Christ, you talk some bollocks. Andrew Cooper doesn't work for ComRes. Lord Cooper works for Populus. But apart from that, excellent post.
ooops. My mishtakessss
Sadly not atypical behaviour from Leavers. Inaccurately smear organisations and people you don't agree with.
On immigration, it's entirely what Roger quotes at the top of his piece:
"Facts aren't important. What matters is what the public believes."
Dave is reaping what he sowed.
The fact is we have over net migration of 330,000. Not sustainable.
Probably true - which means we need to change our economic model pronto. Right now our growth is predicated on high levels of immigration. And without growth we are going to have one hell of a problem funding everything from infrastructure through to care for our growing number of old people.
What's this "our...old people" ?
If we are importing immigrants like there is no tomorrow, then what makes you think they will regard old people as "theirs" in any sense?
That's the trouble with this generational analysis, it falls down if one generation doesn't generate the next.
We require enough people of working age to pay the taxes needed to fund government countries.
But a rising birth rate only works over the longer term. We have funding issues right here and right now, and a policy of moving to and then staying in surplus. That is not going to happen without continued high levels of immigration.
So we either continue to "import" workers, significantly decrease government spending by squeezing the services Leavers tell us they are fighting to save, substantially increase the tax burden or remodel our economic and fiscal approach. Which would you go for?
But it is a pyramid scheme. That increasing population to pay for the elderly will themselves get old and have to be paid for. So then you need more immigration or increased birth rate to pay for them. At some point you reach a point where it is unsustainable in terms of job creation, housing and services.
If your plan is based upon never ending growth in both the economy and population - as it currently is - then we are truly screwed.
Hence my point that we need a new economic model if we want to curb immigration. The current one - as formulated by this government that until recently most posters on here (not you or me, Richard) were hugely supportive of - is predicated on ongoing high levels of immigration.
That said, a model in which we have a lot of mobile young people coming in for a year or so and then going away again may be a way through that. As the EU migration stats show, immigration does not have to be permanent. Most EU citizens seem to want to live in their own countries (except retired, non-productive northern Europeans, including Brits, who have a yearning for the south).
Thanks. ComRes under Andrew Cooper IMHO has become a bit politically suspect since he returned from Govt. The man is very political for the "wet" Conservatives. Cooper is also the infamous Mr 0.5% chance of Conservatives winning.
Christ, you talk some bollocks. Andrew Cooper doesn't work for ComRes. Lord Cooper works for Populus. But apart from that, excellent post.
ooops. My mishtakessss
Sadly not atypical behaviour from Leavers. Inaccurately smear organisations and people you don't agree with.
I think you missed the ironic smiley from that post TSE, sir.....
On immigration, it's entirely what Roger quotes at the top of his piece:
"Facts aren't important. What matters is what the public believes."
Dave is reaping what he sowed.
The fact is we have over net migration of 330,000. Not sustainable.
Probably true - which means we need to change our economic model pronto. Right now our growth is predicated on high levels of immigration. And without growth we are going to have one hell of a problem funding everything from infrastructure through to care for our growing number of old people.
What's this "our...old people" ?
If we are importing immigrants like there is no tomorrow, then what makes you think they will regard old people as "theirs" in any sense?
That's the trouble with this generational analysis, it falls down if one generation doesn't generate the next.
We require enough people of working age to pay the taxes needed to fund government expenditure. Where they come from is not really the issue. If we want less immigrants, clearly we have to have a higher birth rate - though thanks to immigration the UK birth rate is higher than birth rates in most other European countries.
But a rising birth rate only works over the longer term. We have funding issues right here and right now, and a policy of moving to and then staying in surplus. That is not going to happen without continued high levels of immigration.
So we either continue to "import" workers, significantly decrease government spending by squeezing the services Leavers tell us they are fighting to save, substantially increase the tax burden or remodel our economic and fiscal approach. Which would you go for?
Of course where they come from is the issue. People from some countries will have much higher wage levels and employment rates than people from other countries. That will make a big difference to how much of a net contribution they make and how many you need.
On immigration, it's entirely what Roger quotes at the top of his piece:
"Facts aren't important. What matters is what the public believes."
Dave is reaping what he sowed.
The fact is we have over net migration of 330,000. Not sustainable.
Probably true - which means we need to change our economic model pronto. Right now our growth is predicated on high levels of immigration. And without growth we are going to have one hell of a problem funding everything from infrastructure through to care for our growing number of old people.
What's this "our...old people" ?
If we are importing immigrants like there is no tomorrow, then what makes you think they will regard old people as "theirs" in any sense?
That's the trouble with this generational analysis, it falls down if one generation doesn't generate the next.
We require enough people of working age to pay the taxes needed to fund government expenditure. Where they come from is not really the issue. If we want less immigrants, clearly we have to have a higher birth rate - though thanks to immigration the UK birth rate is higher than birth rates in most other European countries.
But a rising birth rate only works over the longer term. We have funding issues right here and right now, and a policy of moving to and then staying in surplus. That is not going to happen without continued high levels of immigration.
So we either continue to "import" workers, significantly decrease government spending by squeezing the services Leavers tell us they are fighting to save, substantially increase the tax burden or remodel our economic and fiscal approach. Which would you go for?
Personally I'd go for a remodel plus investment to improve productivity. Aside from anything else improving living standards, that is to say wealth, for everyone cannot come from growth generated by constantly increasing the population.
Some immigration is undoubtedly a good thing. Large scale immigration of the size we have now - essentially the equivalent of a new city the size of Cardiff every year - isn't.
On immigration, it's entirely what Roger quotes at the top of his piece:
"Facts aren't important. What matters is what the public believes."
Dave is reaping what he sowed.
The fact is we have over net migration of 330,000. Not sustainable.
Probably true - which means we need to change our economic model pronto. Right now our growth is predicated on high levels of immigration. And without growth we are going to have one hell of a problem funding everything from infrastructure through to care for our growing number of old people.
What's this "our...old people" ?
If we are importing immigrants like there is no tomorrow, then what makes you think they will regard old people as "theirs" in any sense?
That's the trouble with this generational analysis, it falls down if one generation doesn't generate the next.
We require enough people of working age to pay the taxes needed to fund government That is not going to happen without continued high levels of immigration.
So we either continue to "import" workers, significantly decrease government spending by squeezing the services Leavers tell us they are fighting to save, substantially increase the tax burden or remodel our economic and fiscal approach. Which would you go for?
But it is a pyramid scheme. That increasing population to pay for the elderly will themselves get old and have to be paid for. So then you need more immigration or increased birth rate to pay for them. At some point you reach a point where it is unsustainable in terms of job creation, housing and services.
If your plan is based upon never ending growth in both the economy and population - as it currently is - then we are truly screwed.
This is so bleeding obvious, I can't believe it needs to be repeated every few days.
Then why on earth have you been supportive of this government's economic and fiscal policies?
My point was if remain win it doesn't settle the question amongst some because of the way the campaign has been fought in much the same way as it does not appear to have done north of the border.
I think that is an error on Cameron's part. He has taken the wrong lessons from Scotland. Granted if leave win, that's it.
Ah, I see. But again no. If Remain win, even by a single vote, we remain, and for at least 10-15 years.
Exactly. For ONLY 10 to 15 years.... And then another referendum. At least Wilson did it in a way that settled it for 41 years.
I think we should wait and see what happens on June 23rd, shouldn't we? My best guess is that the result will be Remain by something like 55-45 (almost identical to the Scottish result). Both Cameron and Salmond had agreed that that settled the matter of independence for a "generation" which is about 15 years or so.
So a narrow victory and a comfortable victory amount to the same thing.
Or are you contending that 55-45, or even 60-40 would mean no re-vote for 41 years?
The John Major retrospective on here is hilarious. I wish I'd kept the threads in which posters now lambasting him previously stated he was a very underrated Prime Minister who did an impossible job very well and left a golden legacy which Labour threw away.
My guess is that Sir John's support for continued EU membership is leading a few folk on here to reassess their previous high opinion of him. Who'd have thought it? :-)
You won't find me amongst them. As far as I am concerned he was always a bad PM who caused his own downfall and deserved all he got.
Except of course for the post downfall adulation that he seems to receive from some Tories. Conveniently forgetting how much damage he did to the country,
Agreed - I can safely say that you have not changed your mind about him.
That was almost damning with faint praise :-)
Major was tremendous in 1992 and remains the only Tory since Thatcher to build a broad election winning coalition for the Tories, but should have realised after the ERM withdrawal that, for the good of the party, he ought to have passed the reins over to someone like Portillo or Lilley.
Thanks. ComRes under Andrew Cooper IMHO has become a bit politically suspect since he returned from Govt. The man is very political for the "wet" Conservatives. Cooper is also the infamous Mr 0.5% chance of Conservatives winning.
Christ, you talk some bollocks. Andrew Cooper doesn't work for ComRes. Lord Cooper works for Populus. But apart from that, excellent post.
ooops. My mishtakessss
Sadly not atypical behaviour from Leavers. Inaccurately smear organisations and people you don't agree with.
The John Major retrospective on here is hilarious. I wish I'd kept the threads in which posters now lambasting him previously stated he was a very underrated Prime Minister who did an impossible job very well and left a golden legacy which Labour threw away.
My guess is that Sir John's support for continued EU membership is leading a few folk on here to reassess their previous high opinion of him. Who'd have thought it? :-)
The bastards never went away.
It is all a matter of perspective. John Major seems to have a large double standard in protesting about dishonesty, depending whether Eurosceptics or Pro-Europeans are doing it.
On immigration, it's entirely what Roger quotes at the top of his piece:
"Facts aren't important. What matters is what the public believes."
Dave is reaping what he sowed.
The fact is we have over net migration of 330,000. Not sustainable.
Probably true - which means we need to change our economic model pronto. Right now our growth is predicated on high levels of immigration. And without growth we are going to have one hell of a problem funding everything from infrastructure through to care for our growing number of old people.
We require enough people of working age to pay the taxes needed to fund government countries.
But a rising birth rate only works over the longer term. We have funding issues right here and right now, and a policy of moving to and then staying in surplus. That is not going to happen without continued high levels of immigration.
So we either continue to "import" workers, significantly decrease government spending by squeezing the services Leavers tell us they are fighting to save, substantially increase the tax burden or remodel our economic and fiscal approach. Which would you go for?
But it is a pyramid scheme. That increasing population to pay for the elderly will themselves get old and have to be paid for. So then you need more immigration or increased birth rate to pay for them. At some point you reach a point where it is unsustainable in terms of job creation, housing and services.
If your plan is based upon never ending growth in both the economy and population - as it currently is - then we are truly screwed.
Hence my point that we need a new economic model if we want to curb immigration. The current one - as formulated by this government that until recently most posters on here (not you or me, Richard) were hugely supportive of - is predicated on ongoing high levels of immigration.
That said, a model in which we have a lot of mobile young people coming in for a year or so and then going away again may be a way through that. As the EU migration stats show, immigration does not have to be permanent. Most EU citizens seem to want to live in their own countries (except retired, non-productive northern Europeans, including Brits, who have a yearning for the south).
Ageing Yanks can and do find the sun in their own land. We Brits don't have that option.
Is it becoming obvious yet that Cameron and Remain have right royally f cked up?
I think this will go down as one of the greatest screw-ups in electoral history: a total misjudgement of the country's mood coupled with patronising and breathtaking arrogance.
John Major was still in BBC news today about his insults aimed at specific conservative people. For example "The Justice Secretary should be "embarrassed and ashamed" at his "mischief making" in warning that future expansion of the 28-member bloc is set to heap strain on schools, the NHS and housing as well as raising security concerns."
Has there been a similar level of personal attack from a senior conservative LEAVE supporter against a senior conservative REMAIN supporter?
"Sir" John can be a very silly and petty man but the key thing to always remember is that he played his role in ousting a three time election winner, presided over a repossession crisis across Middle England and ended up taking his Party down it's worst defeat since 1832!
And what precisely was his role in ousting Mrs Thatcher (given that she backed him as her successor)?
He was part of the "wets" that got her out... And as I remember it she only backed him because he was the only one that could defeat arch enemy Hezza... She always knew he wasn't up to it and so it proved.
Clarke, Hezza, Major, Hurd... They are all very silly, dull, old (but then middle aged) men singing from the same EUPhille him-sheet from what I can see.
Ah, that's why he nominated her for the first ballot then. But please keep digging.
He wanted her job so he couldn't do anything else than be outwardly loyal. He knew what he what he was doing...
Hence my point that we need a new economic model if we want to curb immigration. The current one - as formulated by this government that until recently most posters on here (not you or me, Richard) were hugely supportive of - is predicated on ongoing high levels of immigration.
That said, a model in which we have a lot of mobile young people coming in for a year or so and then going away again may be a way through that. As the EU migration stats show, immigration does not have to be permanent. Most EU citizens seem to want to live in their own countries (except retired, non-productive northern Europeans, including Brits, who have a yearning for the south).
And here we roll into the territory where I am uncomfortable and have no answer. Given that my opposition to the EU is not based on migration I can find no fault in what you say. But at the same time I understand that the best chance that Leave have and I have of seeing my aims achieved is if the immigration argument wins out. It is not a position from which I can make any reasonable argument that would not be dishonest.
The John Major retrospective on here is hilarious. I wish I'd kept the threads in which posters now lambasting him previously stated he was a very underrated Prime Minister who did an impossible job very well and left a golden legacy which Labour threw away.
My guess is that Sir John's support for continued EU membership is leading a few folk on here to reassess their previous high opinion of him. Who'd have thought it? :-)
It is the desperation of the remain camp that is impresses me. Everything, everything must be sacrificed to stay in this club. The preservation of the Davos/Bilderberg/Summit/supranational system of running the world is priority number one, two, three and four for Dave.
The views of overseas bigwigs are far, far, far more important than what the people of Britain think.
No, the only thing that matters is what the British people think. They are sovereign and they decide. But the point of an election or referendum campaign is to put competing views and analyses in front of them so that they can make an informed decision. I think the best course for us as a country is to stay in the EU, you don't. One of us will be disappointed on 24th June; probably me. That's democracy for you.
Thanks. ComRes under Andrew Cooper IMHO has become a bit politically suspect since he returned from Govt. The man is very political for the "wet" Conservatives. Cooper is also the infamous Mr 0.5% chance of Conservatives winning.
Christ, you talk some bollocks. Andrew Cooper doesn't work for ComRes. Lord Cooper works for Populus. But apart from that, excellent post.
ooops. My mishtakessss
Sadly not atypical behaviour from Leavers. Inaccurately smear organisations and people you don't agree with.
They must have been taking lessons from you TPD.
Quisling please.
Nope. TPD. The attack is based on irony not anger.
But it is a pyramid scheme. That increasing population to pay for the elderly will themselves get old and have to be paid for. So then you need more immigration or increased birth rate to pay for them. At some point you reach a point where it is unsustainable in terms of job creation, housing and services.
This is a claim the Greens make about economic growth, and it's mistaken.
All the things you mention, job creation, housing and services, are created by people and scale great with more people. If they didn't you'd see everyone moving from the cities to the countryside where you could get more jobs, houses and services.
Growing population continually for the forseeable future, with continually growing living standards, is actually perfectly plausible; Technology and infrastructure continually improve, people get better educated, and more people trading with each other produces more productivity so we can do more with less. The pattern may break in a few generations - for example, it may be that in a century or so more people want to leave Britain that want to come. But it's not really worth optimising for that time, as the circumstances will likely be too different to what we're used to for us to make sensible policies about it.
Is it becoming obvious yet that Cameron and Remain have right royally f cked up?
I think this will go down as one of the greatest screw-ups in electoral history: a total misjudgement of the country's mood coupled with patronising and breathtaking arrogance.
If Cameron had secured any kind of restriction on free movement he'd be walking this.
The John Major retrospective on here is hilarious. I wish I'd kept the threads in which posters now lambasting him previously stated he was a very underrated Prime Minister who did an impossible job very well and left a golden legacy which Labour threw away.
My guess is that Sir John's support for continued EU membership is leading a few folk on here to reassess their previous high opinion of him. Who'd have thought it? :-)
You won't find me amongst them. As far as I am concerned he was always a bad PM who caused his own downfall and deserved all he got.
Except of course for the post downfall adulation that he seems to receive from some Tories. Conveniently forgetting how much damage he did to the country,
Agreed - I can safely say that you have not changed your mind about him.
That was almost damning with faint praise :-)
Major was tremendous in 1992 .
Black Wednesday was 'tremendous' in the way that a large smelly turd tastes pleasant
Sorry for the graphic simile but I've scarce read such bunkum. As others have said, the 1992 ERM fiasco, for which he was co-responsible, shook this country to the foundations and put the Tories out of power for a generation.
Thanks. ComRes under Andrew Cooper IMHO has become a bit politically suspect since he returned from Govt. The man is very political for the "wet" Conservatives. Cooper is also the infamous Mr 0.5% chance of Conservatives winning.
Christ, you talk some bollocks. Andrew Cooper doesn't work for ComRes. Lord Cooper works for Populus. But apart from that, excellent post.
ooops. My mishtakessss
Sadly not atypical behaviour from Leavers. Inaccurately smear organisations and people you don't agree with.
I think you missed the ironic smiley from that post TSE, sir.....
I can't tell you how much I'm looking forward to editing PB from May 30th through to the 20th of June
The John Major retrospective on here is hilarious. I wish I'd kept the threads in which posters now lambasting him previously stated he was a very underrated Prime Minister who did an impossible job very well and left a golden legacy which Labour threw away.
My guess is that Sir John's support for continued EU membership is leading a few folk on here to reassess their previous high opinion of him. Who'd have thought it? :-)
You won't find me amongst them. As far as I am concerned he was always a bad PM who caused his own downfall and deserved all he got.
Except of course for the post downfall adulation that he seems to receive from some Tories. Conveniently forgetting how much damage he did to the country,
Agreed - I can safely say that you have not changed your mind about him.
That was almost damning with faint praise :-)
Major was tremendous in 1992 .
Black Wednesday was 'tremendous' in the way that a large smelly turd tastes pleasant
Sorry for the graphic simile but I've scarce read such bunkum. As others have said, the 1992 ERM fiasco, for which he was co-responsible, shook this country to the foundations and put the Tories out of power for a generation.
Erm, highest number of votes ever secured for the Tory party?
Hence my point that we need a new economic model if we want to curb immigration. The current one - as formulated by this government that until recently most posters on here (not you or me, Richard) were hugely supportive of - is predicated on ongoing high levels of immigration.
That said, a model in which we have a lot of mobile young people coming in for a year or so and then going away again may be a way through that. As the EU migration stats show, immigration does not have to be permanent. Most EU citizens seem to want to live in their own countries (except retired, non-productive northern Europeans, including Brits, who have a yearning for the south).
And here we roll into the territory where I am uncomfortable and have no answer. Given that my opposition to the EU is not based on migration I can find no fault in what you say. But at the same time I understand that the best chance that Leave have and I have of seeing my aims achieved is if the immigration argument wins out. It is not a position from which I can make any reasonable argument that would not be dishonest.
And that is why, though I disagree with you, I totally understand where you are coming from and respect your integrity absolutely. For you (and RCS and one or two others on here) it is about sovereignty. I am more relaxed about that as an issue, which is why I can support Remain. But of all the Leave arguments for me it is the most compelling.
The John Major retrospective on here is hilarious. I wish I'd kept the threads in which posters now lambasting him previously stated he was a very underrated Prime Minister who did an impossible job very well and left a golden legacy which Labour threw away.
My guess is that Sir John's support for continued EU membership is leading a few folk on here to reassess their previous high opinion of him. Who'd have thought it? :-)
You won't find me amongst them. As far as I am concerned he was always a bad PM who caused his own downfall and deserved all he got.
Except of course for the post downfall adulation that he seems to receive from some Tories. Conveniently forgetting how much damage he did to the country,
Agreed - I can safely say that you have not changed your mind about him.
That was almost damning with faint praise :-)
Major was tremendous in 1992 .
Black Wednesday was 'tremendous' in the way that a large smelly turd tastes pleasant
Sorry for the graphic simile but I've scarce read such bunkum. As others have said, the 1992 ERM fiasco, for which he was co-responsible, shook this country to the foundations and put the Tories out of power for a generation.
Erm, highest number of votes ever secured for the Tory party?
But it is a pyramid scheme. That increasing population to pay for the elderly will themselves get old and have to be paid for. So then you need more immigration or increased birth rate to pay for them. At some point you reach a point where it is unsustainable in terms of job creation, housing and services.
This is a claim the Greens make about economic growth, and it's mistaken.
All the things you mention, job creation, housing and services, are created by people and scale great with more people. If they didn't you'd see everyone moving from the cities to the countryside where you could get more jobs, houses and services.
Growing population continually for the forseeable future, with continually growing living standards, is actually perfectly plausible; Technology and infrastructure continually improve, people get better educated, and more people trading with each other produces more productivity so we can do more with less. The pattern may break in a few generations - for example, it may be that in a century or so more people want to leave Britain that want to come. But it's not really worth optimising for that time, as the circumstances will likely be too different to what we're used to for us to make sensible policies about it.
OTOH it is possible for a scientist to be wrong. In fact that fallibility is a part and parcel of science, as is a healthy skepticism.
Although where a bias can creep in is in what topics are studied.
To the extent that funding comes from organisations that are committed to a specific view, then you are likely to get scientists applying for grants for projects that will appeal to the funders. That's just human nature* - but if you get 99 articles on "the impact of global warming on ocean temperatures/arctic ice/Himalayan mountains" and 1 on "is global warming happening" then it will tend to distort the scientific discussions / media reporting of that discussion**
* It's why - deliberately - we have no criteria for funding applications made to my foundation. The form is deceptively simple, but designed to require senior management input rather than to enable a junior fundraiser to fill in boxes.
** NB I am not opining one way or the other on global warming. Don't want the thread sidetracked. Just commenting on funding flows as I see it from reviewing the funding applications the academics at the School make
Hence my point that we need a new economic model if we want to curb immigration. The current one - as formulated by this government that until recently most posters on here (not you or me, Richard) were hugely supportive of - is predicated on ongoing high levels of immigration.
That said, a model in which we have a lot of mobile young people coming in for a year or so and then going away again may be a way through that. As the EU migration stats show, immigration does not have to be permanent. Most EU citizens seem to want to live in their own countries (except retired, non-productive northern Europeans, including Brits, who have a yearning for the south).
And here we roll into the territory where I am uncomfortable and have no answer. Given that my opposition to the EU is not based on migration I can find no fault in what you say. But at the same time I understand that the best chance that Leave have and I have of seeing my aims achieved is if the immigration argument wins out. It is not a position from which I can make any reasonable argument that would not be dishonest.
If there's an argument then it is a more qualified one about the type of immigration we have, the controls under which it operates, and the future direction of travel of the ECJ regarding it.
For an instance - Unemployment is 1.7 million, yet we need to import unskilled labour. Is that labour simply being imported because the wages that local workers would require simply to beat the level of benefits available to them while unemployed are more than what is on offer?
Then you have to assess whether that is simply what the job is worth, or whether its just the ability to source this cheaper labour that's driving the movement, and whether therefore restricting that movement would remove the jobs completely, or simply raise the wage at which they were offered.
But it is a pyramid scheme. That increasing population to pay for the elderly will themselves get old and have to be paid for. So then you need more immigration or increased birth rate to pay for them. At some point you reach a point where it is unsustainable in terms of job creation, housing and services.
This is a claim the Greens make about economic growth, and it's mistaken.
All the things you mention, job creation, housing and services, are created by people and scale great with more people. If they didn't you'd see everyone moving from the cities to the countryside where you could get more jobs, houses and services.
Growing population continually for the forseeable future, with continually growing living standards, is actually perfectly plausible; Technology and infrastructure continually improve, people get better educated, and more people trading with each other produces more productivity so we can do more with less. The pattern may break in a few generations - for example, it may be that in a century or so more people want to leave Britain that want to come. But it's not really worth optimising for that time, as the circumstances will likely be too different to what we're used to for us to make sensible policies about it.
I disagree. On a world wide scale with technological advances, a general level of equality in living standards and life expectancy and absolute freedom of movement you may well be right. But as an economic model for an island with limited space, a rapidly increasing population and a dwindling resource base it is not a sustainable position to argue.
Hence the reason I agree with SO that we need a new model - though he and I might disagree on what that model should be.
The John Major retrospective on here is hilarious. I wish I'd kept the threads in which posters now lambasting him previously stated he was a very underrated Prime Minister who did an impossible job very well and left a golden legacy which Labour threw away.
My guess is that Sir John's support for continued EU membership is leading a few folk on here to reassess their previous high opinion of him. Who'd have thought it? :-)
You won't find me amongst them. As far as I am concerned he was always a bad PM who caused his own downfall and deserved all he got.
Except of course for the post downfall adulation that he seems to receive from some Tories. Conveniently forgetting how much damage he did to the country,
Agreed - I can safely say that you have not changed your mind about him.
That was almost damning with faint praise :-)
Major was tremendous in 1992 .
Black Wednesday was 'tremendous' in the way that a large smelly turd tastes pleasant
Sorry for the graphic simile but I've scarce read such bunkum. As others have said, the 1992 ERM fiasco, for which he was co-responsible, shook this country to the foundations and put the Tories out of power for a generation.
Erm, highest number of votes ever secured for the Tory party?
To it's worst defeat since 1832....
And Neil "we're alriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttt" Kinnock (another failed politician now urging us to vote REMAIN) helped a lot in Major's election success.
The John Major retrospective on here is hilarious. I wish I'd kept the threads in which posters now lambasting him previously stated he was a very underrated Prime Minister who did an impossible job very well and left a golden legacy which Labour threw away.
My guess is that Sir John's support for continued EU membership is leading a few folk on here to reassess their previous high opinion of him. Who'd have thought it? :-)
You won't find me amongst them. As far as I am concerned he was always a bad PM who caused his own downfall and deserved all he got.
Except of course for the post downfall adulation that he seems to receive from some Tories. Conveniently forgetting how much damage he did to the country,
Agreed - I can safely say that you have not changed your mind about him.
That was almost damning with faint praise :-)
Major was tremendous in 1992 .
Black Wednesday was 'tremendous' in the way that a large smelly turd tastes pleasant
Sorry for the graphic simile but I've scarce read such bunkum. As others have said, the 1992 ERM fiasco, for which he was co-responsible, shook this country to the foundations and put the Tories out of power for a generation.
Black Wednesday was the amputation of a gangrenous foot. It was a necessary surgery (left almost too late) to correct an injury done by Major to the country when he was Chancellor. It was painful and should have been unnecessary but it saved the patient's life.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syMhJMmGEIc
The Polish entry. A superb musical extravaganza with nice scenery. Beaten in the interests of diversity by an Austrian bloke in a dress.
The EU in a nutshell.
The plebs are wrong. We experts need to decide.
Andrew Cooper doesn't work for ComRes.
Lord Cooper works for Populus.
But apart from that, excellent post.
I
From last December
http://www.comres.co.uk/eu-referendum-all-still-to-play-for-by-not-neck-and-neck/
Except I never vote in Eurovision.
This year I would vote for Ukraine to wind up my Russo-Estonian wife...
If we are importing immigrants like there is no tomorrow, then what makes you think they will regard old people as "theirs" in any sense?
That's the trouble with this generational analysis, it falls down if one generation doesn't generate the next.
Clarke, Hezza, Major, Hurd... They are all very silly, dull, old (but then middle aged) men singing from the same EUPhille him-sheet from what I can see.
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/taoiseach-and-government-to-lobby-the-1m-irish-living-in-uk-for-antibrexit-34711750.html
Leave will win narrowly on a turnout of about 60% aided by Labour core voter disengagement.
There will be a bit of a panic followed by another renegotiation with more substantial concessions and another referendum. Rinse and repeat.
With almost the entire political and managerial class wantjng to remain I really cant see them actually legislating to withdraw us unless a referendum voted leave by a lsrge margin on a high (75% +) turnout.
Curiously the way Cameron is fighting this one will leave many remainers arguing for a re run whereas he could have done it in such a way as to settle the matter for good. So there may be another referendum along soon....
As a result his Party was destroyed... And didn't lead an opinion poll for eight years (and didn't get an regular lead in the polls for 13 years)
Because of the way he accepted his defeat people feel inclined to go easy on him but the truth is he was a catastrophe for his party and the country.
But a rising birth rate only works over the longer term. We have funding issues right here and right now, and a policy of moving to and then staying in surplus. That is not going to happen without continued high levels of immigration.
So we either continue to "import" workers, significantly decrease government spending by squeezing the services Leavers tell us they are fighting to save, substantially increase the tax burden or remodel our economic and fiscal approach. Which would you go for?
In any case, the ideas that music professionals don't judge accordingly to cultural preferences (many Chinese on X-factor?) or that sex should have nothing to do with popular music (what is rock'n'roll?) is risible.
Neatly debunking the meme of this site
My guess is that Sir John's support for continued EU membership is leading a few folk on here to reassess their previous high opinion of him. Who'd have thought it? :-)
If your plan is based upon never ending growth in both the economy and population - as it currently is - then we are truly screwed.
I think that is an error on Cameron's part. He has taken the wrong lessons from Scotland. Granted if leave win, that's it.
Except of course for the post downfall adulation that he seems to receive from some Tories. Conveniently forgetting how much damage he did to the country,
Besides the target is a majority not a plurality. So you need a coalition of concerns (which will include either the economy or economy dependent issues) to get to 50%+1 as opposed to 30% and losing.
Still think it's crackers.
Working on the pre-qualifying piece.
A falling tax base means smaller Government.
All Ponzi schemes collapse in the end and that's what we are beginning to see in private pensions and socialised medicine.
A remodelling of our economic and fiscal approach is vastly overdue.
The views of overseas bigwigs are far, far, far more important than what the people of Britain think.
It was brutal.
A sudden influx of boat people, a terrorist atrocity, a prominent Europhile looking forward to one country, one parliament and one army could undo all their choreographed work.
The odds must favour them, but they have to build on little steps at a time, hoping that Leave don't suddenly bound ahead with one unanticipated leap.
From this weeks email:
Q/ How do you cut up the Roman Empire?
A/ With a pair of Caesars
That said, a model in which we have a lot of mobile young people coming in for a year or so and then going away again may be a way through that. As the EU migration stats show, immigration does not have to be permanent. Most EU citizens seem to want to live in their own countries (except retired, non-productive northern Europeans, including Brits, who have a yearning for the south).
Some immigration is undoubtedly a good thing. Large scale immigration of the size we have now - essentially the equivalent of a new city the size of Cardiff every year - isn't.
So a narrow victory and a comfortable victory amount to the same thing.
Or are you contending that 55-45, or even 60-40 would mean no re-vote for 41 years?
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/spain-pre-qualifying-2016.html
Edited extra bit: Mr. Quidder, that's bonkers too.
Welcome to pb.com, Mr. Ibi.
'Reckless Gossip Fiends'
Cameron would do well to learn this lesson.
I think this will go down as one of the greatest screw-ups in electoral history: a total misjudgement of the country's mood coupled with patronising and breathtaking arrogance.
All the things you mention, job creation, housing and services, are created by people and scale great with more people. If they didn't you'd see everyone moving from the cities to the countryside where you could get more jobs, houses and services.
Growing population continually for the forseeable future, with continually growing living standards, is actually perfectly plausible; Technology and infrastructure continually improve, people get better educated, and more people trading with each other produces more productivity so we can do more with less. The pattern may break in a few generations - for example, it may be that in a century or so more people want to leave Britain that want to come. But it's not really worth optimising for that time, as the circumstances will likely be too different to what we're used to for us to make sensible policies about it.
Sorry for the graphic simile but I've scarce read such bunkum. As others have said, the 1992 ERM fiasco, for which he was co-responsible, shook this country to the foundations and put the Tories out of power for a generation.
Oh, wait...
To the extent that funding comes from organisations that are committed to a specific view, then you are likely to get scientists applying for grants for projects that will appeal to the funders. That's just human nature* - but if you get 99 articles on "the impact of global warming on ocean temperatures/arctic ice/Himalayan mountains" and 1 on "is global warming happening" then it will tend to distort the scientific discussions / media reporting of that discussion**
* It's why - deliberately - we have no criteria for funding applications made to my foundation. The form is deceptively simple, but designed to require senior management input rather than to enable a junior fundraiser to fill in boxes.
** NB I am not opining one way or the other on global warming. Don't want the thread sidetracked. Just commenting on funding flows as I see it from reviewing the funding applications the academics at the School make
For an instance - Unemployment is 1.7 million, yet we need to import unskilled labour. Is that labour simply being imported because the wages that local workers would require simply to beat the level of benefits available to them while unemployed are more than what is on offer?
Then you have to assess whether that is simply what the job is worth, or whether its just the ability to source this cheaper labour that's driving the movement, and whether therefore restricting that movement would remove the jobs completely, or simply raise the wage at which they were offered.
Hence the reason I agree with SO that we need a new model - though he and I might disagree on what that model should be.
And Neil "we're alriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttt" Kinnock (another failed politician now urging us to vote REMAIN) helped a lot in Major's election success.