Tell that to the plumber who gets told that his new day rate is decreasing to £120 because the new guy from Poland is going to do it for that price. I'm sure he'll read that study with great interest.
Honestly, it's like the Remain side are sitting atop an ivory tower sneering down at anyone who dares bring up some of the negatives of immigration, and I'm not even that bothered by it.
LOL we are feeling sorry for plumbers, now!??
Do you have any idea how much plumbers charge these days?
Well quite. The Great British plumber was a staple of 1970s comedy - uncontactable, waiting times of several months, spectacularly expensive, did a sh*t job. I don't want a return to any of that, thank you very much. My Polish chap Oleg is prompt with competitive rates, and his standards are impeccable. I'd never let some British cowboy near my sink again.
Really??
I once saw a 1970s film featuring a plumber which led me to believe that, if an attractive young lady was about to take a shower only to find it wasn't working, a trusty British plumber would be around with his plunger before she could finish unbuttoning her blouse...
Probably why you could never contact the buggers, and when you did they turned up months later.
Always enjoy a good immigration debate, the left's claim that they are concerned about the well being of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society is quickly revealed to be little more than posturing.
@VapidBilge (good name, can't think where you got it from) - Employment rates are at an all time high, job vacancy rates are touching all time highs, unemployment rates are at a ten year low. So the increase in the supply of labour is not keeping up with the increased demand for it.
In those circumstances, we can reasonably conclude that immigration isn't the main thing holding down wage rises.
Increase in low-skilled Labour leading to increase low-skilled employment as employers substitute cheaper labour for capital? The near collapse in productivity growth seems to bear this out.
I know it's not the sole cause, but the rise in tax credits from £4 billion to £31 billion is being caused by something.
If there is really such excess demand for labour, wh
It is not my business to correct Remain's mistakes. For example, the second link you post from Peterborough is the boss of a large company telling it how it is - by definition, from social group AB.
On unemployment, it's perfectly possible for official figures to fall whilst wages remain stagnant, and they experience unwanted social change in their local area with no tools to escape or take advantage of it.
I think for you immigration isn't an issue at all whereas you fear your finances might be affected if we Leave. For others, it is the precise opposite.
Static real wages for what the Americans call "the middle class" (not our definition) are a feature of almost every Western economy now. High levels of immigration are one cause (though certainly not the only one).
Real wages are static in Japan, despite close to zero immigration.
This isn't sustainable or good for the kids. £3.2 billion a year extra after surge in EU children attending British schools - more than doubled in less than a decade, from 309k in 2007 to 699k in 2015.
That would include my son though. I'm British, my wife is German. My son was born here and has always lived here. Why should he be counted as an EU child? Any reason other than a larger figure for a headline? Just imagine if my wife hadn't been paying her taxes for years - easy to forget just how significant the net contributions from EU citizens are. But I fear that the nationalism that has been unleashed drowns out rationalism - which is not a millions miles away from Mortmer's argument in the (excellent) thread header.
So, you're in the same position as Nigel Farage.
Of course, you are an EU citizen as well, so your son is 100% an EU child.
Pedantry aside, your son inherits British citizenship from yourself and is, presumably, being brought up in a presumably English-speaking household. Can't read the link, but presumably they're judging by the nationality of the mother? I agree it's inappropriate in your case.
It'd also include my son since my (late) wife was also German. He was born in Germany, but has lived here with me since the age of 4 and has British nationality.
So with all the battle bus stuff does that make a 2016 General election more likely?
Definitely not 2016. The plod have already asked for another year to look at this. Then there so many steps before this goes from questionable declaration of national vs local, to court cases, to any found guilty, to punishment severe enough that results in MPs being thrown out, to enough to make it necessary for a GE, etc etc etc.
So far Crick has been going around assigning 100% of costs of a bus to particular seats then pointing out look look they overspent. Even if it is found that battle buses should account towards some local spending, it is far from clear should it be 50 / 50 (or some other percentage), and also which constituency those fees should be assigned (some of these hotels, meals etc weren't in constituencies that activities were campaigning in).
Yes - it also looks like a lot of mudslinging over a possibly smaller technical issue. Certain similarities with SNP attempts to render the Lib Dems extinct.
Does anyone have a number for the total amount of alleged misspending involved? I have seen a figure of £38k, but can it be that small?
My understanding is that it may become a serious issue. The sums of money are quite small but the law does not allow a "come on, it's only a few quid" defence.
Surely if all the major parties are guilty of the same thing then it will be a clear misunderstanding (and it does seem to be a grey area - even if you are campaigning on behalf of "x the local MP" it still doesn't make it a local expense) by everyone and will result in better guidance going forward
I must have missed it, but I imagine there has been a torrent of abuse at Trump from the same people who were so outraged at Obama expressing a view on Brexit?
Why? Trump expressly stated it was his personal opinion that the Brits would be better off out but that it was the British people's right to decide. It was stated in response to a reporter question and not offered as a recommendation.
Furthermore, he stated that if the UK chose to leave, it would move to the front of the queue, not the back.
All in all, a much more respectful and UK-friendly position than Obama's.
Ah yes, interference on the side you support is fine, interference on the side you don't support is an outrage. Obama, of course, also said it was a decision for the British people.
The transparent mental gymnastics of Leavers is absolutely hilarious. I'm sure there are examples on the Remain side as well, but the quasi-religious zeal of somes Leavers is completely addling their brains. (A very nice example was the deranged repsonses to my point about Angela Merkel at the end of the last thread - some posters, including some normally sensible ones, were like Pavlov's dogs salivating at a point I hadn't made, and managed to argue themselves into agreeing with Jean-Claude Juncker that the solution was 'more Europe'.)
But Obama made a deliberate effort to make his views known and added a threat that was absent from Trump's.
Before accusing others of mental gymnastics, look at yourself in the mirror.
As for the quasi-religious accusation, I am an atheist in all matters. Dogma has no place in deciding truly important issues. Including the EU. Like Mortimer, I see all the warts on both sides but, on balance, I have decided on Leave and see no reason to be shy about it. So your morphing your response to me to mention of religious zeal and Pavlov's dogs is yet another example of you attacking the player, not the ball.
Tell that to the plumber who gets told that his new day rate is decreasing to £120 because the new guy from Poland is going to do it for that price. I'm sure he'll read that study with great interest.
Honestly, it's like the Remain side are sitting atop an ivory tower sneering down at anyone who dares bring up some of the negatives of immigration, and I'm not even that bothered by it.
Pointing out research that does not fit your narrative is not sneering. Sorry.
Research written by some academic type who probably has as much contact with working class people as our leaders.
LEAVE was the campaign of brainy, bracing-liberal Eurosceptics, now it's devolved into Trumpian moans about the elite.
Forgive me for not sharing in the PB comments consensus that REMAIN is the campaign in despair. LEAVE has been forced off their chosen ground of post-referendum free-choice about sovereign British policies, and is getting closer to the Ukip strategy of migrants - culture - migrants - anti-establishment - migrants with every day, you know the party that won a few per cent more than the Lib Dems. Two things are for sure: English people don't vote against the establishment and, when it comes down to it, they don't even vote out governments that increase immigration.
You do realise this isn't a General Election, don't you?
Look, I know my position isn't in line with the consensus around here. The consensus here is that an English electorate which almost never votes against the establishment or its wallet will side with a campaign that is anti-establishment and almost contemptuous of the importance of the economic case in either direction; and furthermore the consensus is that REMAIN is having an awful campaign because its average lead in the polls is just a few points instead of 65-35.
(Never mind that when you asked people this question in polls during the last parliament, they were evenly split or leaned to LEAVE. If you can mentally choose your expectations, you can always set it low so your side surpasses it and you can tell yourself that your team is doing well. This is why I think expectations are the bane of political analysis. What matters is winning.)
So sorry for not buying into the consensus that BORIS TALKING ABOUT HITLER MEANS EVERYTHING IS GOING WELL.
@ProfBrianCox: I'm fed up with Tory school chums plotting to remove Cameron etc. The UK is not your plaything. You want to change PM, call an election.
He has a point. I've noticed that for some 'Leavers' EU membership barely seems to enter their imaginations. It's all about Dave and a yearning to fire peashooters at the man.
So with all the battle bus stuff does that make a 2016 General election more likely?
Definitely not 2016. The plod have already asked for another year to look at this. Then there so many steps before this goes from questionable declaration of national vs local, to court cases, to any found guilty, to punishment severe enough that results in MPs being thrown out, to enough to make it necessary for a GE, etc etc etc.
So far Crick has been going around assigning 100% of costs of a bus to particular seats then pointing out look look they overspent. Even if it is found that battle buses should account towards some local spending, it is far from clear should it be 50 / 50 (or some other percentage), and also which constituency those fees should be assigned (some of these hotels, meals etc weren't in constituencies that activities were campaigning in).
Yes - it also looks like a lot of mudslinging over a possibly smaller technical issue. Certain similarities with SNP attempts to render the Lib Dems extinct.
Does anyone have a number for the total amount of alleged misspending involved? I have seen a figure of £38k, but can it be that small?
If you rob a bank of £10,000 is it any less a crime than if you rob it of £100,000 ?
Well the sentencing guidelines say yes.
No they dont . I suggest you read them .
Value of items taken
❏ Property value may be more important in planned/sophisticated robberies. ❏ The value of the property capable of being taken should be taken into account as well as the amount/value of the property actually taken.
So with all the battle bus stuff does that make a 2016 General election more likely?
Definitely not 2016. The plod have already asked for another year to look at this. Then there so many steps before this goes from questionable declaration of national vs local, to court cases, to any found guilty, to punishment severe enough that results in MPs being thrown out, to enough to make it necessary for a GE, etc etc etc.
So far Crick has been going around assigning 100% of costs of a bus to particular seats then pointing out look look they overspent. Even if it is found that battle buses should account towards some local spending, it is far from clear should it be 50 / 50 (or some other percentage), and also which constituency those fees should be assigned (some of these hotels, meals etc weren't in constituencies that activities were campaigning in).
Yes - it also looks like a lot of mudslinging over a possibly smaller technical issue. Certain similarities with SNP attempts to render the Lib Dems extinct.
Does anyone have a number for the total amount of alleged misspending involved? I have seen a figure of £38k, but can it be that small?
My understanding is that it may become a serious issue. The sums of money are quite small but the law does not allow a "come on, it's only a few quid" defence.
My understanding too. The law is very prescriptive and if MPs mis-state their expenses they are out and a new election is held. On the hand I suspect judges will be reluctant to be seen to override the democratic process and will give the individual MPs the benefit of any doubt. Their defence will be that they were working under the understanding that these were national expenses and had been told as much. It's possible other party workers may be indicted and banned from standing for office, but that's fairly irrelevant.
So with all the battle bus stuff does that make a 2016 General election more likely?
Definitely not 2016. The plod have already asked for another year to look at this. Then there so many steps before this goes from questionable declaration of national vs local, to court cases, to any found guilty, to punishment severe enough that results in MPs being thrown out, to enough to make it necessary for a GE, etc etc etc.
So far Crick has been going around assigning 100% of costs of a bus to particular seats then pointing out look look they overspent. Even if it is found that battle buses should account towards some local spending, it is far from clear should it be 50 / 50 (or some other percentage), and also which constituency those fees should be assigned (some of these hotels, meals etc weren't in constituencies that activities were campaigning in).
Yes - it also looks like a lot of mudslinging over a possibly smaller technical issue. Certain similarities with SNP attempts to render the Lib Dems extinct.
Does anyone have a number for the total amount of alleged misspending involved? I have seen a figure of £38k, but can it be that small?
If you rob a bank of £10,000 is it any less a crime than if you rob it of £100,000 ?
Well the sentencing guidelines say yes.
No they dont . I suggest you read them .
Value of items taken
❏ Property value may be more important in planned/sophisticated robberies. ❏ The value of the property capable of being taken should be taken into account as well as the amount/value of the property actually taken.
So with all the battle bus stuff does that make a 2016 General election more likely?
Definitely not 2016. The plod have already asked for another year to look at this. Then there so many steps before this goes from questionable declaration of national vs local, to court cases, to any found guilty, to punishment severe enough that results in MPs being thrown out, to enough to make it necessary for a GE, etc etc etc.
So far Crick has been going around assigning 100% of costs of a bus to particular seats then pointing out look look they overspent. Even if it is found that battle buses should account towards some local spending, it is far from clear should it be 50 / 50 (or some other percentage), and also which constituency those fees should be assigned (some of these hotels, meals etc weren't in constituencies that activities were campaigning in).
Yes - it also looks like a lot of mudslinging over a possibly smaller technical issue. Certain similarities with SNP attempts to render the Lib Dems extinct.
Does anyone have a number for the total amount of alleged misspending involved? I have seen a figure of £38k, but can it be that small?
If you rob a bank of £10,000 is it any less a crime than if you rob it of £100,000 ?
Well the sentencing guidelines say yes.
No they dont . I suggest you read them .
Value of items taken
❏ Property value may be more important in planned/sophisticated robberies. ❏ The value of the property capable of being taken should be taken into account as well as the amount/value of the property actually taken.
Those hilarious claims that Hillary would win Utah prove to have as much foundation as claims she will win Georgia.
Apart from the occasional temporary blip, the trend towards Trump over the last year is pretty consistent. Something dramatic would have to happen for him not to win.
I must have missed it, but I imagine there has been a torrent of abuse at Trump from the same people who were so outraged at Obama expressing a view on Brexit?
I expect it was drowned out by their denunciations of Dan Hannan's comments on Trump:
@ProfBrianCox: I'm fed up with Tory school chums plotting to remove Cameron etc. The UK is not your plaything. You want to change PM, call an election.
Gordon Brown was selected as PM by Labour MPs not by the electorate.
@ProfBrianCox: I'm fed up with Tory school chums plotting to remove Cameron etc. The UK is not your plaything. You want to change PM, call an election.
But Obama made a deliberate effort to make his views known and added a threat that was absent from Trump's.
Before accusing others of mental gymnastics, look at yourself in the mirror.
As for the quasi-religious accusation, I am an atheist in all matters. Dogma has no place in deciding truly important issues. Including the EU. Like Mortimer, I see all the warts on both sides but, on balance, I have decided on Leave and see no reason to be shy about it. So your morphing your response to me to mention of religious zeal and Pavlov's dogs is yet another example of you attacking the player, not the ball.
I am sorry, but neither of those points makes sense. The very fact that you call Obama's point a 'threat' shows that you are being one-sided. He was, after all, merely repeating long-standing US policy, as well as stating the obvious in terms of the likely priority which the US would give to a trade agreement with the UK.
Now, you can disagree, and surmise that perhaps priorities would change after a Leave result, but to say that the US president reiterating US policy is an 'outrage' or a 'threat' is, frankly, bonkers, especially when you don't object to Trump taking the opposite side. Sorry to be so blunt, but that is the truth of the matter.
New analysis of Ipsos MORI’s Issues Index also shows the importance of age and generation to attitudes on immigration (as shown in Figure 11). Each generation was similarly unconcerned in the mid-1990s, with concern increasing for all in the late 1990s, but at varying rates. In particular, a generation gap opened up, with the oldest cohort most likely to be concerned and the youngest least: by 2013, the pre-war generation were nearly twice as likely as generation Y to consider immigration a problem.
@ProfBrianCox: I'm fed up with Tory school chums plotting to remove Cameron etc. The UK is not your plaything. You want to change PM, call an election.
Not in the Tory party my dear Scott.
Tell him to stick to gravity waves or whatever and leave us to the politics.
@VapidBilge (good name, can't think where you got it from) - Employment rates are at an all time high, job vacancy rates are touching all time highs, unemployment rates are at a ten year low. So the increase in the supply of labour is not keeping up with the increased demand for it.
In those circumstances, we can reasonably conclude that immigration isn't the main thing holding down wage rises.
Increasing labour supply in line with labour demand would lead to stagnant wages. GDP per capita is up just 1% on the 2008 peak.
So in the case where research supports their prejudices, REMAIN's leading lights scream 'denial' if anyone questions it.
When the research doesn't support their prejudices, they simply ignore it and substitute their own bullsh*t instead.
@VapidBilge (good name, can't think where you got it from) - Employment rates are at an all time high, job vacancy rates are touching all time highs, unemployment rates are at a ten year low. So the increase in the supply of labour is not keeping up with the increased demand for it.
In those circumstances, we can reasonably conclude that immigration isn't the main thing holding down wage rises.
Increasing labour supply in line with labour demand would lead to stagnant wages. GDP per capita is up just 1% on the 2008 peak.
Paraphrasing Dickens. No migration, GDP growth 1%, result happiness. 2% (or even 1.0001%) migration, GDP growth 1%, result misery...
So with all the battle bus stuff does that make a 2016 General election more likely?
Definitely not 2016. The plod have already asked for another year to look at this. Then there so many steps before this goes from questionable declaration of national vs local, to court cases, to any found guilty, to punishment severe enough that results in MPs being thrown out, to enough to make it necessary for a GE, etc etc etc.
So far Crick has been going around assigning 100% of costs of a bus to particular seats then pointing out look look they overspent. Even if it is found that battle buses should account towards some local spending, it is far from clear should it be 50 / 50 (or some other percentage), and also which constituency those fees should be assigned (some of these hotels, meals etc weren't in constituencies that activities were campaigning in).
Yes - it also looks like a lot of mudslinging over a possibly smaller technical issue. Certain similarities with SNP attempts to render the Lib Dems extinct.
Does anyone have a number for the total amount of alleged misspending involved? I have seen a figure of £38k, but can it be that small?
My understanding is that it may become a serious issue. The sums of money are quite small but the law does not allow a "come on, it's only a few quid" defence.
Surely if all the major parties are guilty of the same thing then it will be a clear misunderstanding (and it does seem to be a grey area - even if you are campaigning on behalf of "x the local MP" it still doesn't make it a local expense) by everyone and will result in better guidance going forward
As I understand it the applicable law doesn't make an allowance for misunderstanding or honest mistakes so it is possible that people will be charged. Still, it seems inconceivable that a large number of election results will be voided.
Actually some expert legal insight on this would be a great subject for a thread header.
I must have missed it, but I imagine there has been a torrent of abuse at Trump from the same people who were so outraged at Obama expressing a view on Brexit?
You mean the bit where he said 'it's none of my business, it's up to the British to decide' [I paraphrase]. He then added [I quote]
“I mean, I’m going to treat everybody fairly but it wouldn’t make any difference to me whether they were in the EU or not. You’d certainly not be at the back of the queue, that I can tell you.”
New analysis of Ipsos MORI’s Issues Index also shows the importance of age and generation to attitudes on immigration (as shown in Figure 11). Each generation was similarly unconcerned in the mid-1990s, with concern increasing for all in the late 1990s, but at varying rates. In particular, a generation gap opened up, with the oldest cohort most likely to be concerned and the youngest least: by 2013, the pre-war generation were nearly twice as likely as generation Y to consider immigration a problem.
I think this shows who hasn't got a clue.
Yep,posters like you,I live the real life of poor mass immigration of the last few years and I can tell you that it isn't just the oldies who are concerned by immigration,its all age groups and British born immigrants.
I must have missed it, but I imagine there has been a torrent of abuse at Trump from the same people who were so outraged at Obama expressing a view on Brexit?
You mean the bit where he said 'it's none of my business, it's up to the British to decide' [I paraphrase]. He then added [I quote]
“I mean, I’m going to treat everybody fairly but it wouldn’t make any difference to me whether they were in the EU or not. You’d certainly not be at the back of the queue, that I can tell you.”
Like this, perhaps?
"This is a decision for the people of the United Kingdom to make. I’m not coming here to fix any votes. I’m not casting a vote myself. I am offering my opinion, and in democracies, everybody should want more information, not less, and you shouldn’t be afraid to hear an argument being made"
Those hilarious claims that Hillary would win Utah prove to have as much foundation as claims she will win Georgia.
Apart from the occasional temporary blip, the trend towards Trump over the last year is pretty consistent. Something dramatic would have to happen for him not to win.
Of course Trump doesn't do dramatic does he ? ....
Since his disastrous and short spell as Greek finance minister, he doesn't half spend a lot of time poking his nose into debates in Britain. You would think he would want to keep his head down given what a total f##k up he was.
New analysis of Ipsos MORI’s Issues Index also shows the importance of age and generation to attitudes on immigration (as shown in Figure 11). Each generation was similarly unconcerned in the mid-1990s, with concern increasing for all in the late 1990s, but at varying rates. In particular, a generation gap opened up, with the oldest cohort most likely to be concerned and the youngest least: by 2013, the pre-war generation were nearly twice as likely as generation Y to consider immigration a problem.
I think this shows who hasn't got a clue.
Yep,posters like you,I live the real life of poor mass immigration of the last few years and I can tell you that it isn't just the oldies who are concerned by immigration,its all age groups and British born immigrants.
You'll forgive me if I give more credence to an impartial survey than your incoherent ramblings.
Since his disastrous and short spell as Greek finance minister, he doesn't half spend a lot of time poking his nose into debates in Britain. You would think he would want to keep his head down given what a total f##k up he was.
Yes, his talent for self-promotion seems to greatly outweigh any good he did for his benighted countrymen.
At the end of the day he was all mouth, as was Tsipras.
Trump looking to pickup the antiwar vote from Sanders. A lot of Dems are terrified the neocons are going to return home to the left and make them as unelectable as they did the Republicans.
Since his disastrous and short spell as Greek finance minister, he doesn't half spend a lot of time poking his nose into debates in Britain. You would think he would want to keep his head down given what a total f##k up he was.
I'm just hoping for another Greek crisis between the 30th of May and June 20th.
Just think of the great Hellenic puns I'll be able to use.
@ProfBrianCox: I'm fed up with Tory school chums plotting to remove Cameron etc. The UK is not your plaything. You want to change PM, call an election.
Two little bytes of information on potential future Labour MPs or candidates:
Shami Chakrabarti has announced she has recently joined the party;
Dr Palmer, of this parish, has, I believe, announced on his blog that he has returned to a more active political role and is considering selections.
Shami must be one of the most overrated public figures around.
Andy Burnham once slagged her off, and had to apologise, so she must not be all that bad.
She has two big faults to my mind:-
1. Her espousal of liberal principles is not very consistent. And not particularly principled either. 2. She has not thought hard enough - or at all, were I to be unkind - about how to maintain liberal principles when they are under assault from those who don't believe in them, the paradox that too much tolerance of intolerance can allow intolerance to win and to destroy the very liberalism you are claiming to espouse.
The need to maintain and argue vigorously for Western liberalism - a muscular confident liberalism - not the mushy "we are to blame for everything" liberal self-delusion which often masquerades as real liberalism needed a much better defender than it got in her. Who has even followed her at Liberty?
Other than that she's OK. Mind you there is stuff in her personal life which may mean she may not want the exposure of public life. Nothing shocking to my mind just private stuff but the sort of stuff that papers can turn into a something, if they were minded to.
@VapidBilge (good name, can't think where you got it from) - Employment rates are at an all time high, job vacancy rates are touching all time highs, unemployment rates are at a ten year low. So the increase in the supply of labour is not keeping up with the increased demand for it.
In those circumstances, we can reasonably conclude that immigration isn't the main thing holding down wage rises.
Increasing labour supply in line with labour demand would lead to stagnant wages. GDP per capita is up just 1% on the 2008 peak.
Paraphrasing Dickens. No migration, GDP growth 1%, result happiness. 2% (or even 1.0001%) migration, GDP growth 1%, result misery...
You have to distinguish between GDP of a country and GDP per capita . It is quite possible for one to fall and the other to rise and vice versa
@ProfBrianCox: I'm fed up with Tory school chums plotting to remove Cameron etc. The UK is not your plaything. You want to change PM, call an election.
Not in the Tory party my dear Scott.
Tell him to stick to gravity waves or whatever and leave us to the politics.
He's got a point imo.
For swing voters a party's leader is probably the single most important factor in deciding how to cast their vote. Of course, our system doesn't really acknowledge that so leaders are routinely replaced in mid-parliament. But it's not unreasonable for voters complain about it and say, essentially, "Where did this arsehole spring from?" when a new Prime Minister is spirited into office.
I must have missed it, but I imagine there has been a torrent of abuse at Trump from the same people who were so outraged at Obama expressing a view on Brexit?
You mean the bit where he said 'it's none of my business, it's up to the British to decide' [I paraphrase]. He then added [I quote]
“I mean, I’m going to treat everybody fairly but it wouldn’t make any difference to me whether they were in the EU or not. You’d certainly not be at the back of the queue, that I can tell you.”
Like this, perhaps?
"This is a decision for the people of the United Kingdom to make. I’m not coming here to fix any votes. I’m not casting a vote myself. I am offering my opinion, and in democracies, everybody should want more information, not less, and you shouldn’t be afraid to hear an argument being made"
I am going to write a thread on something arising out of this. I have thought of the title and if not too exhausted tonight or distracted by my roses I will send it in, provided it's not rubbish.
New analysis of Ipsos MORI’s Issues Index also shows the importance of age and generation to attitudes on immigration (as shown in Figure 11). Each generation was similarly unconcerned in the mid-1990s, with concern increasing for all in the late 1990s, but at varying rates. In particular, a generation gap opened up, with the oldest cohort most likely to be concerned and the youngest least: by 2013, the pre-war generation were nearly twice as likely as generation Y to consider immigration a problem.
I think this shows who hasn't got a clue.
Yep,posters like you,I live the real life of poor mass immigration of the last few years and I can tell you that it isn't just the oldies who are concerned by immigration,its all age groups and British born immigrants.
You'll forgive me if I give more credence to an impartial survey than your incoherent ramblings.
And you can shove your supposed impartial survey up your @rse,I live with the real consequences of poor mass immigration of the last few years.
Always enjoy a good immigration debate, the left's claim that they are concerned about the well being of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society is quickly revealed to be little more than posturing.
Those hilarious claims that Hillary would win Utah prove to have as much foundation as claims she will win Georgia.
Trump on course to take Utah by 17 points rather than Romney's 48 - by my reckoning that means he needs ~ 0.1% less in the popular vote for an EC win...
So with all the battle bus stuff does that make a 2016 General election more likely?
Definitely not 2016. The plod have already asked for another year to look at this. Then there so many steps before this goes from questionable declaration of national vs local, to court cases, to any found guilty, to punishment severe enough that results in MPs being thrown out, to enough to make it necessary for a GE, etc etc etc.
So far Crick has been going around assigning 100% of costs of a bus to particular seats then pointing out look look they overspent. Even if it is found that battle buses should account towards some local spending, it is far from clear should it be 50 / 50 (or some other percentage), and also which constituency those fees should be assigned (some of these hotels, meals etc weren't in constituencies that activities were campaigning in).
Yes - it also looks like a lot of mudslinging over a possibly smaller technical issue. Certain similarities with SNP attempts to render the Lib Dems extinct.
Does anyone have a number for the total amount of alleged misspending involved? I have seen a figure of £38k, but can it be that small?
My understanding is that it may become a serious issue. The sums of money are quite small but the law does not allow a "come on, it's only a few quid" defence.
Surely if all the major parties are guilty of the same thing then it will be a clear misunderstanding (and it does seem to be a grey area - even if you are campaigning on behalf of "x the local MP" it still doesn't make it a local expense) by everyone and will result in better guidance going forward
As I understand it the applicable law doesn't make an allowance for misunderstanding or honest mistakes so it is possible that people will be charged. Still, it seems inconceivable that a large number of election results will be voided.
Actually some expert legal insight on this would be a great subject for a thread header.
It doesn't normally. But I doubt that the Electoral Commission will be keen to see all 3 national parties charged for the same offence. I'd imagine that would be treated as a clear misunderstanding & the rules changed.
It's not as if it is 100% clear that they broke the rules - it's a question of judgement as to whether something organised nationally should be deemed as national or local.
I am going to write a thread on something arising out of this. I have thought of the title and if not too exhausted tonight or distracted by my roses I will send it in, provided it's not rubbish.
I look forward to it, your posts are always excellent.
I must have missed it, but I imagine there has been a torrent of abuse at Trump from the same people who were so outraged at Obama expressing a view on Brexit?
You mean the bit where he said 'it's none of my business, it's up to the British to decide' [I paraphrase]. He then added [I quote]
“I mean, I’m going to treat everybody fairly but it wouldn’t make any difference to me whether they were in the EU or not. You’d certainly not be at the back of the queue, that I can tell you.”
Like this, perhaps?
"This is a decision for the people of the United Kingdom to make. I’m not coming here to fix any votes. I’m not casting a vote myself. I am offering my opinion, and in democracies, everybody should want more information, not less, and you shouldn’t be afraid to hear an argument being made"
So it was pure coincidence he flew to the UK and, unprompted, made the comment (well actualy he had 2 go arounds) vs being asked the question live during the course of an interview?
@ProfBrianCox: I'm fed up with Tory school chums plotting to remove Cameron etc. The UK is not your plaything. You want to change PM, call an election.
Oh good, I knew I detested him for some reason.
It's probably because he's much too logical and scientific about things and has a sense of humour.
I must have missed it, but I imagine there has been a torrent of abuse at Trump from the same people who were so outraged at Obama expressing a view on Brexit?
You mean the bit where he said 'it's none of my business, it's up to the British to decide' [I paraphrase]. He then added [I quote]
“I mean, I’m going to treat everybody fairly but it wouldn’t make any difference to me whether they were in the EU or not. You’d certainly not be at the back of the queue, that I can tell you.”
Like this, perhaps?
"This is a decision for the people of the United Kingdom to make. I’m not coming here to fix any votes. I’m not casting a vote myself. I am offering my opinion, and in democracies, everybody should want more information, not less, and you shouldn’t be afraid to hear an argument being made"
I am going to write a thread on something arising out of this. I have thought of the title and if not too exhausted tonight or distracted by my roses I will send it in, provided it's not rubbish.
Your pieces are a real pleasure to publish. Send it.
Thank you Mortimer, it's good to see a LEAVE led thread by way of a change.
Just to correct you on one point though ..... Ladbrokes' best-priced odds on a LEAVE outcome are in fact 11/4 (3.75 decimal), not 9/4 (3.25) as stated in your piece.
So it was pure coincidence he flew to the UK and, unprompted, made the comment (well actualy he had 2 go arounds) vs being asked the question live during the course of an interview?
No, he was expressing the US view, which is highly relevant to the debate. As he rightly said:
They [the Leave campaign] are voicing an opinion about what the United States is going to do, I figured you might want to hear from the president of the United States what I think the United States is going to do.
You really do have to be a bit swivel-eyed to regard that as unreasonable. After all, think of the counter-position: if the US had said nothing, and voters took that as meaning that a trade deal with the US was going to be quick and easy, then they might have been misled.
Equally, Donald Trump says he would do the opposite. Fair enough.
They are exactly symmetrical. It's completely bonkers to be outraged by one and not the other. In fact, it's pretty bonkers to be outraged by either, because the US position is important to the economic argument.
@ProfBrianCox: I'm fed up with Tory school chums plotting to remove Cameron etc. The UK is not your plaything. You want to change PM, call an election.
Oh good, I knew I detested him for some reason.
It's probably because he's much too logical and scientific about things and has a sense of humour.
Could be. I'd always thought it was because he's clearly a huge nerd yet has this rather delusional 'I'm making science cool' schtick going on. Surely you'd have to have some cool in the first place to be donating any of it to physics.
@ProfBrianCox: I'm fed up with Tory school chums plotting to remove Cameron etc. The UK is not your plaything. You want to change PM, call an election.
Oh good, I knew I detested him for some reason.
It's probably because he's much too logical and scientific about things and has a sense of humour.
Could be. I'd always thought it was because he's clearly a huge nerd yet has this rather delusional 'I'm making science cool' schtick going on. Surely you'd have to have some cool in the first place to be donating any of it to physics.
He was cool, he was in a band, D:REAM, they did a very famous song.
So it was pure coincidence he flew to the UK and, unprompted, made the comment (well actualy he had 2 go arounds) vs being asked the question live during the course of an interview?
No, he was expressing the US view, which is highly relevant to the debate. As he rightly said:
They [the Leave campaign] are voicing an opinion about what the United States is going to do, I figured you might want to hear from the president of the United States what I think the United States is going to do.
You really do have to be a bit swivel-eyed to regard that as unreasonable. After all, think of the counter-position: if the US had said nothing, and voters took that as meaning that a trade deal with the US was going to be quick and easy, then they might have been misled.
Equally, Donald Trump says he would do the opposite. Fair enough.
They are exactly symmetrical. It's bonkers to be outraged by one and not the other.
Richard, I don't understand why you repeatedly use insults like 'swivel-eyed' when someone has a different outlook / understanding to you.
Is it because you don't think your argument is strong enough, and so you add the insult?
@ProfBrianCox: I'm fed up with Tory school chums plotting to remove Cameron etc. The UK is not your plaything. You want to change PM, call an election.
Oh good, I knew I detested him for some reason.
It's probably because he's much too logical and scientific about things and has a sense of humour.
Could be. I'd always thought it was because he's clearly a huge nerd yet has this rather delusional 'I'm making science cool' schtick going on. Surely you'd have to have some cool in the first place to be donating any of it to physics.
He was cool, he was in a band, D:REAM, they did a very famous song.
I must have missed it, but I imagine there has been a torrent of abuse at Trump from the same people who were so outraged at Obama expressing a view on Brexit?
You mean the bit where he said 'it's none of my business, it's up to the British to decide' [I paraphrase]. He then added [I quote]
“I mean, I’m going to treat everybody fairly but it wouldn’t make any difference to me whether they were in the EU or not. You’d certainly not be at the back of the queue, that I can tell you.”
Like this, perhaps?
"This is a decision for the people of the United Kingdom to make. I’m not coming here to fix any votes. I’m not casting a vote myself. I am offering my opinion, and in democracies, everybody should want more information, not less, and you shouldn’t be afraid to hear an argument being made"
I am going to write a thread on something arising out of this. I have thought of the title and if not too exhausted tonight or distracted by my roses I will send it in, provided it's not rubbish.
Your pieces are a real pleasure to publish. Send it.
I was thinking of penning an utterly unbiased Donald Trump thread leader headlined :
Are All Hair Obsessed Political Men Totally Bonkers
And then for some strange and completely non OGH related reason .... honest Guv .... I thought better of it !! ....
New analysis of Ipsos MORI’s Issues Index also shows the importance of age and generation to attitudes on immigration (as shown in Figure 11). Each generation was similarly unconcerned in the mid-1990s, with concern increasing for all in the late 1990s, but at varying rates. In particular, a generation gap opened up, with the oldest cohort most likely to be concerned and the youngest least: by 2013, the pre-war generation were nearly twice as likely as generation Y to consider immigration a problem.
I think this shows who hasn't got a clue.
Yep,posters like you,I live the real life of poor mass immigration of the last few years and I can tell you that it isn't just the oldies who are concerned by immigration,its all age groups and British born immigrants.
You'll forgive me if I give more credence to an impartial survey than your incoherent ramblings.
And you can shove your supposed impartial survey up your @rse,I live with the real consequences of poor mass immigration of the last few years.
I suspect that the blame for your frustration lies with your evident cognitive deficiencies rather than immigrants.
@ProfBrianCox: I'm fed up with Tory school chums plotting to remove Cameron etc. The UK is not your plaything. You want to change PM, call an election.
Oh good, I knew I detested him for some reason.
It's probably because he's much too logical and scientific about things and has a sense of humour.
Could be. I'd always thought it was because he's clearly a huge nerd yet has this rather delusional 'I'm making science cool' schtick going on. Surely you'd have to have some cool in the first place to be donating any of it to physics.
He was cool, he was in a band, D:REAM, they did a very famous song.
He was also FRS-ified in this year's batch of new top boffins.
So it was pure coincidence he flew to the UK and, unprompted, made the comment (well actualy he had 2 go arounds) vs being asked the question live during the course of an interview?
No, he was expressing the US view, which is highly relevant to the debate. As he rightly said:
They [the Leave campaign] are voicing an opinion about what the United States is going to do, I figured you might want to hear from the president of the United States what I think the United States is going to do.
You really do have to be a bit swivel-eyed to regard that as unreasonable. After all, think of the counter-position: if the US had said nothing, and voters took that as meaning that a trade deal with the US was going to be quick and easy, then they might have been misled.
Equally, Donald Trump says he would do the opposite. Fair enough.
They are exactly symmetrical. It's completely bonkers to be outraged by one and not the other. In fact, it's pretty bonkers to be outraged by either, because the US position is important to the economic argument.
Dynamics of an exchange with Nabavi:
Nabavi - smear everyone who disagrees with him for not having done something he thinks they should have Reponder - presentation of reasons why the Obama and Trump statements are not comparable Nabavi - selectively respond to argument, smear the responder Responder - point out Nabavi's smearing Nabavi - dismiss the facts of the argument, smear the responder.
Enjoy your world, Richard. I'll leave you in it. It is not a place I want to be.
@VapidBilge (good name, can't think where you got it from) - Employment rates are at an all time high, job vacancy rates are touching all time highs, unemployment rates are at a ten year low. So the increase in the supply of labour is not keeping up with the increased demand for it.
In those circumstances, we can reasonably conclude that immigration isn't the main thing holding down wage rises.
Of course it is, if you flood the market with cheap labour you compress wages.
Its why brain surgeons get paid more than roadsweepers.
New analysis of Ipsos MORI’s Issues Index also shows the importance of age and generation to attitudes on immigration (as shown in Figure 11). Each generation was similarly unconcerned in the mid-1990s, with concern increasing for all in the late 1990s, but at varying rates. In particular, a generation gap opened up, with the oldest cohort most likely to be concerned and the youngest least: by 2013, the pre-war generation were nearly twice as likely as generation Y to consider immigration a problem.
I think this shows who hasn't got a clue.
Yep,posters like you,I live the real life of poor mass immigration of the last few years and I can tell you that it isn't just the oldies who are concerned by immigration,its all age groups and British born immigrants.
You'll forgive me if I give more credence to an impartial survey than your incoherent ramblings.
And you can shove your supposed impartial survey up your @rse,I live with the real consequences of poor mass immigration of the last few years.
I suspect that the blame for your frustration lies with your evident cognitive deficiencies rather than immigrants.
The blame lies with the government of the day and people like you who thinks everything is ok when immigration comes top of most polls of people concerns.
@VapidBilge (good name, can't think where you got it from) - Employment rates are at an all time high, job vacancy rates are touching all time highs, unemployment rates are at a ten year low. So the increase in the supply of labour is not keeping up with the increased demand for it.
In those circumstances, we can reasonably conclude that immigration isn't the main thing holding down wage rises.
Of course it is, if you flood the market with cheap labour you compress wages.
Its why brain surgeons get paid more than roadsweepers.
I'd be tempted to recruit lots and lots of overseas pension lawyers
So it was pure coincidence he flew to the UK and, unprompted, made the comment (well actualy he had 2 go arounds) vs being asked the question live during the course of an interview?
No, he was expressing the US view, which is highly relevant to the debate. As he rightly said:
They [the Leave campaign] are voicing an opinion about what the United States is going to do, I figured you might want to hear from the president of the United States what I think the United States is going to do.
You really do have to be a bit swivel-eyed to regard that as unreasonable. After all, think of the counter-position: if the US had said nothing, and voters took that as meaning that a trade deal with the US was going to be quick and easy, then they might have been misled.
Equally, Donald Trump says he would do the opposite. Fair enough.
They are exactly symmetrical. It's completely bonkers to be outraged by one and not the other. In fact, it's pretty bonkers to be outraged by either, because the US position is important to the economic argument.
It is entirely unreasonable.
Obama proactively interfered. Trump responded to a question prompted by Obama's interference.
There is a clear principle that foreign countries do not interfere in domestic affairs of other nations.
You and I know both know that whatever Obama says now is bullsh1t. America will review the situation should a Brexit vote go through and make whatever decision is in their best interests given that set of facts. It is unlikely to be to cut one of their oldest and best allies loose, but it's a decision for their Senate.
ps FWIW, Cameron was completely wrong to make the comments he did about Trump. Leaders just don't do that.
Edit: for clarity, it is very possible that it is in America's best interests for the UK to remain part of the EU and Obama's comment was calculated to further that aim. But it doesn't mean that the policy will hold true after an event of Brexit.
Whenever I hear about these independent inquiries I always think about the thick of it episode where they are talking about special schools or including those with special needs in mainstream schools...
Minister - My independent expert Says...
Tucker - my independent expert Says the opposite
Minister - who is your expert
Tucker - I haven't got one yet, but when I do he will say the opposite of yours.
Immigration may or may not hold down wages (the evidence is patchy). It is unlikely to be the main driver of low wage growth in recent years.
In any case, suggesting that this is the vector for Leave's support misses the points that:
1) it is oldies (who are usually retired or shortly to retire) who get most exercised by immigration; and
2) it is people in areas with low immigration who get most exercised by it.
It's all much more explicable by the simpler explanation of xenophobia.
Your no 1 point is bull and just proves to me you haven't a clue on immigration .
Alistair I would accept that a small minority of people who are concerned about immigration are xenophobes who don't want any immigration at all but for most people this isn't the case. I would say the main concerns are:
1) We have no control over numbers from the EU. If a million more people decided to come here tomorrow there is nothing we could do 2) The perception that people who come over can claim benefits and jump the housing queue before contributing anything 3) It is nigh on impossible to kick out bad apples like Abu Qatada or people who commit crimes 4) The impact on wages and housing costs
If we had an Australian style system and a maximum limit of say 50k per year, then I think immigration would mostly disappear as an issue.
Ken is going to be let back into the party isn't he.
LOL
Shami Chakrabarti disclosed that she had joined the Labour party on 29 April, the day she was asked to head up the investigation, which could raise questions about her independence.
@ProfBrianCox: I'm fed up with Tory school chums plotting to remove Cameron etc. The UK is not your plaything. You want to change PM, call an election.
Oh good, I knew I detested him for some reason.
It's probably because he's much too logical and scientific about things and has a sense of humour.
Could be. I'd always thought it was because he's clearly a huge nerd yet has this rather delusional 'I'm making science cool' schtick going on. Surely you'd have to have some cool in the first place to be donating any of it to physics.
Given that he's a media Prof, he'd be better off spending his time trying to salvage Oxford University from the reputation they are building for moral cowardice:
Richard, I don't understand why you repeatedly use insults like 'swivel-eyed' when someone has a different outlook / understanding to you.
Is it because you don't think your argument is strong enough, and so you add the insult?
Or is there another reason?
It's because I'm genuinely gobsmacked at the inconsistency of many Leavers, in this case the palpably bonkers outrage at one US politician 'interfering' and not at another US politician 'interfering'. If I keep repeating my astonishment, it's because I'm so struck by the phenomenon; it really is the most striking thing about the whole referendum.
Although I can 100% guarantee that I'll be misrepresented, let me make clear that I'm not referring to the proposition that Obama shouldn't have commented at all. That's a perfectly reasonable position to take. What is not perfectly reasonable is to be so outraged by one and not the other.
I genuinely don't understand why so many on the Leave side are purblind on issues like this. It's hardly controversial to point out that Trump and Obama were both expressing an opinion on whether the UK should vote for Brexit, and were both expressing an opinion on how hard it would be to negotiate a trade deal with the US. It utterly baffles me that anyone can, with a straight face, argue that only one of those was outrageous.
Hillary's shenanigans in Nevada won't be doing her any favours in this crucial swing state in November. Difference between NeverHillary and NeverTrump is that the latter was just a creation of talking heads promoted in the media, pundits subsequently revealed to be Generals without an army. Sanders, like Trump, is a grassroots phenomenon that exists despite the hostility of the media and the special interests.
So it was pure coincidence he flew to the UK and, unprompted, made the comment (well actualy he had 2 go arounds) vs being asked the question live during the course of an interview?
No, he was expressing the US view, which is highly relevant to the debate. As he rightly said:
They [the Leave campaign] are voicing an opinion about what the United States is going to do, I figured you might want to hear from the president of the United States what I think the United States is going to do.
You really do have to be a bit swivel-eyed to regard that as unreasonable. After all, think of the counter-position: if the US had said nothing, and voters took that as meaning that a trade deal with the US was going to be quick and easy, then they might have been misled.
Equally, Donald Trump says he would do the opposite. Fair enough.
They are exactly symmetrical. It's completely bonkers to be outraged by one and not the other. In fact, it's pretty bonkers to be outraged by either, because the US position is important to the economic argument.
It is entirely unreasonable.
Obama proactively interfered. Trump responded to a question prompted by Obama's interference.
There is a clear principle that foreign countries do not interfere in domestic affairs of other nations.
You and I know both know that whatever Obama says now is bullsh1t. America will review the situation should a Brexit vote go through and make whatever decision is in their best interests given that set of facts. It is unlikely to be to cut one of their oldest and best allies loose, but it's a decision for their Senate.
ps FWIW, Cameron was completely wrong to make the comments he did about Trump. Leaders just don't do that.
Edit: for clarity, it is very possible that it is in America's best interests for the UK to remain part of the EU and Obama's comment was calculated to further that aim. But it doesn't mean that the policy will hold true after an event of Brexit.
Charles, agreed on all points. A loudly pre-announced intention proactively to opine on a very public stage on the matter and couple it with an implicit and simply not credible threat is not at all equivalent to a response to a journalist's direct question. Nabavi ignores that Obama simply did not need to address the issue of the queue but chose to. That in itself speaks volumes.
Now I can accept that someone else might wish to interpret this set of facts in a different manner than myself, but don't need to call them a religious zealot, swiveled-eyed or one of Pavolv's dogs in disagreeing with them.
@VapidBilge (good name, can't think where you got it from) - Employment rates are at an all time high, job vacancy rates are touching all time highs, unemployment rates are at a ten year low. So the increase in the supply of labour is not keeping up with the increased demand for it.
In those circumstances, we can reasonably conclude that immigration isn't the main thing holding down wage rises.
Of course it is, if you flood the market with cheap labour you compress wages.
Its why brain surgeons get paid more than roadsweepers.
I'd be tempted to recruit lots and lots of overseas pension lawyers
Let them eat cake, says Meeks.
@:tykejohnnie
I haven't been affected by immigration one way or another directly, but I've had hundreds of conversations along the lines of your posts, and I've spent time in Bradford. Don't be dissuaded (not that you will) by the poncy effete elite who call you a racist xenophobe, their time will come.
Amazing how Crick missed out these three Labour examples of the same "wrongdoing".
I was reading a leftist blog about Trump's pisstaking of Warren's fake Native American background, the writer had to explain and sticky a post over why Trump has gone after her on this. Pretty much all of them were in the dark about her faking being Native American to get a job at Harvard because no media outlet wants to report these stories about Dems in the US when it is much easier to go after the GOP. It's getting like that over here as well with the BBC and C4 only going after Tory MPs or UKIP councillors with this sort of thing, it is only because of Paul Staines that Labour's antisemitism problem got any kind of reporting before Ken went and defended Hitler.
The Nazis drew up the “basic plan” for the European Union decades before it was actually established, a Ukip MEP has claimed.
Gerard Batten on Monday stepped up to defend Boris Johnson, who on Sunday attracted criticism for likening the EU’s aims to those of Adolf Hitler.
Mr Batten however suggested Mr Johnson had actually underplayed the connections between the EU and the Nazis, and that the bloc had “closer links” with the fascists than many realized.
The Nazis drew up the “basic plan” for the European Union decades before it was actually established, a Ukip MEP has claimed.
Gerard Batten on Monday stepped up to defend Boris Johnson, who on Sunday attracted criticism for likening the EU’s aims to those of Adolf Hitler.
Mr Batten however suggested Mr Johnson had actually underplayed the connections between the EU and the Nazis, and that the bloc had “closer links” with the fascists than many realized.
So it was pure coincidence he flew to the UK and, unprompted, made the comment (well actualy he had 2 go arounds) vs being asked the question live during the course of an interview?
No, he was expressing the US view, which is highly relevant to the debate. As he rightly said:
They [the Leave campaign] are voicing an opinion about what the United States is going to do, I figured you might want to hear from the president of the United States what I think the United States is going to do.
You really do have to be a bit swivel-eyed to regard that as unreasonable. After all, think of the counter-position: if the US had said nothing, and voters took that as meaning that a trade deal with the US was going to be quick and easy, then they might have been misled.
Equally, Donald Trump says he would do the opposite. Fair enough.
They are exactly symmetrical. It's completely bonkers to be outraged by one and not the other. In fact, it's pretty bonkers to be outraged by either, because the US position is important to the economic argument.
It is entirely unreasonable.
Obama proactively interfered. Trump responded to a question prompted by Obama's interference.
There is a clear principle that foreign countries do not interfere in domestic affairs of other nations
Or not.
I seem to recall a number of BREXITEERS proactively indicating a US trade deal would be easy-peasy lemon squeezy and then that Obama chappie indicating perhaps not.
There is a clear principle that foreign countries or individuals do not unilaterally afford themselves trade deals unless Boris invokes Hitler as a model for EU trade deals once Angela Merkel has subsumed London NW8 as a Turkish refugee centre.
Comments
http://utahpolicy.com/index.php/features/today-at-utah-policy/9518-
Those hilarious claims that Hillary would win Utah prove to have as much foundation as claims she will win Georgia.
And the working population peaked in 1995.
Before accusing others of mental gymnastics, look at yourself in the mirror.
As for the quasi-religious accusation, I am an atheist in all matters. Dogma has no place in deciding truly important issues. Including the EU. Like Mortimer, I see all the warts on both sides but, on balance, I have decided on Leave and see no reason to be shy about it. So your morphing your response to me to mention of religious zeal and Pavlov's dogs is yet another example of you attacking the player, not the ball.
(Never mind that when you asked people this question in polls during the last parliament, they were evenly split or leaned to LEAVE. If you can mentally choose your expectations, you can always set it low so your side surpasses it and you can tell yourself that your team is doing well. This is why I think expectations are the bane of political analysis. What matters is winning.)
So sorry for not buying into the consensus that BORIS TALKING ABOUT HITLER MEANS EVERYTHING IS GOING WELL.
Shami Chakrabarti has announced she has recently joined the party;
Dr Palmer, of this parish, has, I believe, announced on his blog that he has returned to a more active political role and is considering selections.
High level of profit from the offence
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-real-reason-donald-trump-is-unfit-to-be-president/article/2591147
Gordon Brown was selected as PM by Labour MPs not by the electorate.
Now, you can disagree, and surmise that perhaps priorities would change after a Leave result, but to say that the US president reiterating US policy is an 'outrage' or a 'threat' is, frankly, bonkers, especially when you don't object to Trump taking the opposite side. Sorry to be so blunt, but that is the truth of the matter.
OBFA, APD and Named Person....
New analysis of Ipsos MORI’s Issues Index also shows the importance of age and
generation to attitudes on immigration (as shown in Figure 11). Each generation was similarly
unconcerned in the mid-1990s, with concern increasing for all in the late 1990s, but at
varying rates. In particular, a generation gap opened up, with the oldest cohort most likely to
be concerned and the youngest least: by 2013, the pre-war generation were nearly twice as
likely as generation Y to consider immigration a problem.
I think this shows who hasn't got a clue.
Shami Chakrabarti joining the party of ID cards and 42 day detention without trial.
Perhaps her inquiry into Labour party anti-semitism will condone it.
When the research doesn't support their prejudices, they simply ignore it and substitute their own bullsh*t instead.
ARSE4US excepted naturally ....
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0515-mcmanus-election-forecasts-20160515-column.html
Actually some expert legal insight on this would be a great subject for a thread header.
“I mean, I’m going to treat everybody fairly but it wouldn’t make any difference to me whether they were in the EU or not. You’d certainly not be at the back of the queue, that I can tell you.”
"This is a decision for the people of the United Kingdom to make. I’m not coming here to fix any votes. I’m not casting a vote myself. I am offering my opinion, and in democracies, everybody should want more information, not less, and you shouldn’t be afraid to hear an argument being made"
Yanis Varoufakis to join tour urging leftwingers to vote to stay in EU
Ex-Greek finance minister will help launch nationwide campaign alongside John McDonnell and Caroline Lucas
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/16/yanis-varoufakis-tour-urging-leftwingers-vote-stay-eu
I just hope my Manchester Central MP, Lucy Powell doesn't stand, she's too valuable in the House of Commons.
At the end of the day he was all mouth, as was Tsipras.
Trump looking to pickup the antiwar vote from Sanders. A lot of Dems are terrified the neocons are going to return home to the left and make them as unelectable as they did the Republicans.
https://twitter.com/CBlackTexas/status/730510462593310720
Just think of the great Hellenic puns I'll be able to use.
1. Her espousal of liberal principles is not very consistent. And not particularly principled either.
2. She has not thought hard enough - or at all, were I to be unkind - about how to maintain liberal principles when they are under assault from those who don't believe in them, the paradox that too much tolerance of intolerance can allow intolerance to win and to destroy the very liberalism you are claiming to espouse.
The need to maintain and argue vigorously for Western liberalism - a muscular confident liberalism - not the mushy "we are to blame for everything" liberal self-delusion which often masquerades as real liberalism needed a much better defender than it got in her. Who has even followed her at Liberty?
Other than that she's OK. Mind you there is stuff in her personal life which may mean she may not want the exposure of public life. Nothing shocking to my mind just private stuff but the sort of stuff that papers can turn into a something, if they were minded to.
For swing voters a party's leader is probably the single most important factor in deciding how to cast their vote. Of course, our system doesn't really acknowledge that so leaders are routinely replaced in mid-parliament. But it's not unreasonable for voters complain about it and say, essentially, "Where did this arsehole spring from?" when a new Prime Minister is spirited into office.
No point piling up votes in Utah at all !
It's not as if it is 100% clear that they broke the rules - it's a question of judgement as to whether something organised nationally should be deemed as national or local.
Even when you are wrong
Just to correct you on one point though ..... Ladbrokes' best-priced odds on a LEAVE outcome are in fact 11/4 (3.75 decimal), not 9/4 (3.25) as stated in your piece.
They [the Leave campaign] are voicing an opinion about what the United States is going to do, I figured you might want to hear from the president of the United States what I think the United States is going to do.
You really do have to be a bit swivel-eyed to regard that as unreasonable. After all, think of the counter-position: if the US had said nothing, and voters took that as meaning that a trade deal with the US was going to be quick and easy, then they might have been misled.
Equally, Donald Trump says he would do the opposite. Fair enough.
They are exactly symmetrical. It's completely bonkers to be outraged by one and not the other. In fact, it's pretty bonkers to be outraged by either, because the US position is important to the economic argument.
Richard, I don't understand why you repeatedly use insults like 'swivel-eyed' when someone has a different outlook / understanding to you.
Is it because you don't think your argument is strong enough, and so you add the insult?
Or is there another reason?
Are All Hair Obsessed Political Men Totally Bonkers
And then for some strange and completely non OGH related reason .... honest Guv .... I thought better of it !! ....
Nabavi - smear everyone who disagrees with him for not having done something he thinks they should have
Reponder - presentation of reasons why the Obama and Trump statements are not comparable
Nabavi - selectively respond to argument, smear the responder
Responder - point out Nabavi's smearing
Nabavi - dismiss the facts of the argument, smear the responder.
Enjoy your world, Richard. I'll leave you in it. It is not a place I want to be.
Labour antisemitism inquiry will not seek evidence from Ken Livingstone
Chair Shami Chakrabarti says she will not ‘positively solicit’ a submission and that she joined party on day she was appointed
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/16/labour-antisemitism-inquiry-shami-chakrabarti-not-seek-evidence-from-ken-livingstone
Its why brain surgeons get paid more than roadsweepers.
Obama proactively interfered. Trump responded to a question prompted by Obama's interference.
There is a clear principle that foreign countries do not interfere in domestic affairs of other nations.
You and I know both know that whatever Obama says now is bullsh1t. America will review the situation should a Brexit vote go through and make whatever decision is in their best interests given that set of facts. It is unlikely to be to cut one of their oldest and best allies loose, but it's a decision for their Senate.
ps FWIW, Cameron was completely wrong to make the comments he did about Trump. Leaders just don't do that.
Edit: for clarity, it is very possible that it is in America's best interests for the UK to remain part of the EU and Obama's comment was calculated to further that aim. But it doesn't mean that the policy will hold true after an event of Brexit.
Minister - My independent expert Says...
Tucker - my independent expert Says the opposite
Minister - who is your expert
Tucker - I haven't got one yet, but when I do he will say the opposite of yours.
1) We have no control over numbers from the EU. If a million more people decided to come here tomorrow there is nothing we could do
2) The perception that people who come over can claim benefits and jump the housing queue before contributing anything
3) It is nigh on impossible to kick out bad apples like Abu Qatada or people who commit crimes
4) The impact on wages and housing costs
If we had an Australian style system and a maximum limit of say 50k per year, then I think immigration would mostly disappear as an issue.
https://www.change.org/p/oxford-oxford-university-to-revoke-ntokozo-qwabe-s-scholarship-with-immediate-effect/u/16474811
PS Still trying to find out who these BSE celebrities are..
Two more examples crick missed.
Although I can 100% guarantee that I'll be misrepresented, let me make clear that I'm not referring to the proposition that Obama shouldn't have commented at all. That's a perfectly reasonable position to take. What is not perfectly reasonable is to be so outraged by one and not the other.
I genuinely don't understand why so many on the Leave side are purblind on issues like this. It's hardly controversial to point out that Trump and Obama were both expressing an opinion on whether the UK should vote for Brexit, and were both expressing an opinion on how hard it would be to negotiate a trade deal with the US. It utterly baffles me that anyone can, with a straight face, argue that only one of those was outrageous.
Hillary's shenanigans in Nevada won't be doing her any favours in this crucial swing state in November. Difference between NeverHillary and NeverTrump is that the latter was just a creation of talking heads promoted in the media, pundits subsequently revealed to be Generals without an army. Sanders, like Trump, is a grassroots phenomenon that exists despite the hostility of the media and the special interests.
Now I can accept that someone else might wish to interpret this set of facts in a different manner than myself, but don't need to call them a religious zealot, swiveled-eyed or one of Pavolv's dogs in disagreeing with them.
@:tykejohnnie
I haven't been affected by immigration one way or another directly, but I've had hundreds of conversations along the lines of your posts, and I've spent time in Bradford. Don't be dissuaded (not that you will) by the poncy effete elite who call you a racist xenophobe, their time will come.
I was reading a leftist blog about Trump's pisstaking of Warren's fake Native American background, the writer had to explain and sticky a post over why Trump has gone after her on this. Pretty much all of them were in the dark about her faking being Native American to get a job at Harvard because no media outlet wants to report these stories about Dems in the US when it is much easier to go after the GOP. It's getting like that over here as well with the BBC and C4 only going after Tory MPs or UKIP councillors with this sort of thing, it is only because of Paul Staines that Labour's antisemitism problem got any kind of reporting before Ken went and defended Hitler.
BJWNBPM.
Gerard Batten on Monday stepped up to defend Boris Johnson, who on Sunday attracted criticism for likening the EU’s aims to those of Adolf Hitler.
Mr Batten however suggested Mr Johnson had actually underplayed the connections between the EU and the Nazis, and that the bloc had “closer links” with the fascists than many realized.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-nazis-created-basic-plan-for-the-european-union-ukip-mep-gerard-batten-says-a7032221.html
Though on betting, he's really quite savvy
Has political views,
So Cameron-enthused,
We file them all straight in the lavvy
I seem to recall a number of BREXITEERS proactively indicating a US trade deal would be easy-peasy lemon squeezy and then that Obama chappie indicating perhaps not.
There is a clear principle that foreign countries or individuals do not unilaterally afford themselves trade deals unless Boris invokes Hitler as a model for EU trade deals once Angela Merkel has subsumed London NW8 as a Turkish refugee centre.
I hope that's clear ....