surbiton - but the strikes in France and trouble in Belgium are the direct consequence of the EU demanding reduced worker's rights - you know that really. I think Labour's position is against zero hour contracts, and the EU push is for zero hour contracts to be made legal in France. Why on earth do you think the EU cares about the people, if they did in anyway at all you wouldn't see the terrible unemployment in the EU. The EU cares about German banks.
It's not the EU, it's the national governments.
The EU cannot even stop French air traffic controllers from holding Europe to ransom, as they are going to do next weekend.
Morning Southam.
How do you see the ongoing rolling French strikes influencing the referendum? Does it have any real impact or is it just noise?
Logically, it should not make any difference. But you do have to ask why the EU has not done more to prevent things like air traffic control strikes in one member state holding an entire continent to ransom. It shows that when it comes to things that have a day to day impact on people's lives, the EU is often pretty useless. I imagine British holidaymakers and business people that see their plans messed up next weekend (including me, I should add) are not going to feel much European solidarity.
If "LEAVE" have made a mistake it is regarding migration:
This has never been an issue for those 'sensible' protaganists for "BrExit". What angers people is the inability and confliction from a bunch-of-folk that impose benefit-equivilance upon use but, yet, raised stipulations from foriegn 'bishoprics' upon realms of-which they have no legitimacy.
Had 'LEAVE' made this about soveriengty, free-trade and international-cooperation then I think "BOO" would be ahead in the polls by miles: Noone wishes to see Poles , Pakistanis or Phillipinoes denied the honest chance to work in England (though they may bulk at other, Celtic, regions). Our ability to determine our own future was stolen in 1973 and 1975: Time to fight back...!
:God-Save-The-Queen:!
Completely wrong. In the end immigration is the one thing that can and might win it for LEAVE. They've lost the economic case, sovereignty is too airy-fairy for many people, but immigration is an absolute killer.
Sensible REMAINIANS know this and worry. They can always scream RACIST but too many voters don't care any more, having seen it all their lives.
Essentially, a vote for REMAIN is a vote that says: I accept that the UK will never have anything like full and proper control over migration into this country, for the rest of the foreseeable future.
Absolutely right. If Remain wins now then the British people will have actively endorsed ongoing, large-scale immigration into the UK - as per government policy - and no-one will ever be able to claim again that they were not asked. That's why I have always expected Leave to win.
Only if Remain win a landslide, if Remain scrape home it will only be because economic fears beat immigration fears, the latter fears still remain
Of course, the worries will still be there. But the voters will have had their say.
Another question (apologies, I ask you because you give sensible balanced replies from the Remain side.) Based on your comment about voters having had their say.
If Remain win but we then see the revolution in the Tory party and end up with a very Leave dominated Tory party perhaps with a few UKIP MP's after 2020. Would you say they would be justified in simply invoking Article 50 without a further referendum.
For the record I don't but I am interested in the views of others on this.
Iain Martin @iainmartin1 39m39 minutes ago Well done all involved. Brexit campaign eclipsed by Tory leadership contest and plot to remove the PM. Brilliant strategy. Genius.
Sunder Katwala @sundersays 20m20 minutes ago 'Stop Ze German advance' xenophobia on M40 from overenthusiastic Outers. unauthorised, by "dummies" say @vote_leave
Yes, I saw that Stop Ze Germans placard in a field when I drove hme the other day up the M40 from Heathrow.
Absolutely right. If Remain wins now then the British people will have actively endorsed ongoing, large-scale immigration into the UK - as per government policy - and no-one will ever be able to claim again that they were not asked. That's why I have always expected Leave to win.
Absolutely right. If RemaIN wins, we should embrace the EU. We have only been a reluctant member so far. The EU has given and protected worker's rights more than British government would have done.
Neither IN nor OUT should really be focussing on the past. After all, the question is not: has the EU worked for us; but will the EU work for us in the future.
Consider the fact that the working time directive which the post lauds in top of the "most expensive pieces of EU legislation" list as well... but apparently the EU has nothing to do with it!
And you know as well as I do that it's necessary for Leave to rebut Hattiesque nonsense about the EU being the font of all workers rights. It's simply untrue.
Correct. But Leave do need to explain if either: EU workers' rights go too far and are expensive and unnecessary; or EU worker's rights add nothing as we do it ourselves.
By comparison although Hattie's comments about the EU being the sole source of workers' rights are disingenuous, at least the worker's rights = good is consistent.
I'm genuinely puzzled here.
Why should Leave need to do anything? They aren't HMG. They're a coalition of viewpoints that believes we're better off out. I'm not expecting LabourLeave to do so, anymore than GrassrootsOut.
Well, as a voter, should I vote leave to protect worker's rights or should I vote leave to get rid of them?
"I think that a distinctive Labour position is necessary to win".
Which distinctive Labour position? The Harold Wilson position or the Jezza position? I remember in the 1960s, the hatred of Harold by the Trots. As far as they were concerned, he was a traitor.
That was a long time ago. The Labour Party may now be a London-centric, middle-class 'progressive' grouping. It used to be led by that group but their main priority was the working class. Now they are viewed with condescension at best.
If "LEAVE" have made a mistake it is regarding migration:
This has never been an issue for those 'sensible' protaganists for "BrExit". What angers people is the inability and confliction from a bunch-of-folk that impose benefit-equivilance upon use but, yet, raised stipulations from foriegn 'bishoprics' upon realms of-which they have no legitimacy.
Had 'LEAVE' made this about soveriengty, free-trade and international-cooperation then I think "BOO" would be ahead in the polls by miles: Noone wishes to see Poles , Pakistanis or Phillipinoes denied the honest chance to work in England (though they may bulk at other, Celtic, regions). Our ability to determine our own future was stolen in 1973 and 1975: Time to fight back...!
:God-Save-The-Queen:!
Completely wrong. In the end immigration is the one thing that can and might win it for LEAVE. They've lost the economic case, sovereignty is too airy-fairy for many people, but immigration is an absolute killer.
Sensible REMAINIANS know this and worry. They can always scream RACIST but too many voters don't care any more, having seen it all their lives.
Essentially, a vote for REMAIN is a vote that says: I accept that the UK will never have anything like full and proper control over migration into this country, for the rest of the foreseeable future.
Absolutely right. If Remain wins now then the British people will have actively endorsed ongoing, large-scale immigration into the UK - as per government policy - and no-one will ever be able to claim again that they were not asked. That's why I have always expected Leave to win.
Only if Remain win a landslide, if Remain scrape home it will only be because economic fears beat immigration fears, the latter fears still remain
A win for Remain means double egg and chips for those who voted Leave. It's a disaster movie in the making.
At least Yessers in Scotland had some concessions from HMG - Leavers can't be appeased as it's beyond HMG's gift. The issues around EU control will only grow.
If "LEAVE" have made a mistake it is regarding migration:
This has never been an issue for those 'sensible' protaganists for "BrExit". What angers people England (though they may bulk at other, Celtic, regions). Our ability to determine our own future was stolen in 1973 and 1975: Time to fight back...!
:God-Save-The-Queen:!
Completely wrong. In the end immigration is the one thing that can and might win it for LEAVE. They've lost the economic case, sovereignty is too airy-fairy for many people, but immigration is an absolute killer.
Sensible REMAINIANS know this and worry. They can always scream RACIST but too many voters don't care any more, having seen it all their lives.
Essentially, a vote for REMAIN is a vote that says: I accept that the UK will never have anything like full and proper control over migration into this country, for the rest of the foreseeable future.
Absolutely right. If Remain wins now then the British people will have actively endorsed ongoing, large-scale immigration into the UK - as per government policy - and no-one will ever be able to claim again that they were not asked. That's why I have always expected Leave to win.
Only if Remain win a landslide, if Remain scrape home it will only be because economic fears beat immigration fears, the latter fears still remain
Of course, the worries will still be there. But the voters will have had their say.
Another question (apologies, I ask you because you give sensible balanced replies from the Remain side.) Based on your comment about voters having had their say.
If Remain win but we then see the revolution in the Tory party and end up with a very Leave dominated Tory party perhaps with a few UKIP MP's after 2020. Would you say they would be justified in simply invoking Article 50 without a further referendum.
For the record I don't but I am interested in the views of others on this.
If that is included in a manifesto, then yes it's justified. If not, the referendum has set the precedent. I imagine that withdrawal without a specific manifesto commitment might be subject to legal challenge.
surbiton - but the strikes in France and trouble in Belgium are the direct consequence of the EU demanding reduced worker's rights - you know that really. I think Labour's position is against zero hour contracts, and the EU push is for zero hour contracts to be made legal in France. Why on earth do you think the EU cares about the people, if they did in anyway at all you wouldn't see the terrible unemployment in the EU. The EU cares about German banks.
It's not the EU, it's the national governments.
The EU cannot even stop French air traffic controllers from holding Europe to ransom, as they are going to do next weekend.
Morning Southam.
How do you see the ongoing rolling French strikes influencing the referendum? Does it have any real impact or is it just noise?
Logically, it should not make any difference. But you do have to ask why the EU has not done more to prevent things like air traffic control strikes in one member state holding an entire continent to ransom. It shows that when it comes to things that have a day to day impact on people's lives, the EU is often pretty useless. I imagine British holidaymakers and business people that see their plans messed up next weekend (including me, I should add) are not going to feel much European solidarity.
If "LEAVE" have made a mistake it is regarding migration:
This has never been an issue for those 'sensible' protaganists for "BrExit". What angers people is the inability and confliction from a bunch-of-folk that impose benefit-equivilance upon use but, yet, raised stipulations from foriegn 'bishoprics' upon realms of-which they have no legitimacy.
Had 'LEAVE' made this about soveriengty, free-trade and international-cooperation then I think "BOO" would be ahead in the polls by miles: Noone wishes to see Poles , Pakistanis or Phillipinoes denied the honest chance to work in England (though they may bulk at other, Celtic, regions). Our ability to determine our own future was stolen in 1973 and 1975: Time to fight back...!
:God-Save-The-Queen:!
Completely wrong. In the end immigration is the one thing that can and might win it for LEAVE. They've lost the economic case, sovereignty is too airy-fairy for many people, but immigration is an absolute killer.
Sensible REMAINIANS know this and worry. They can always scream RACIST but too many voters don't care any more, having seen it all their lives.
Essentially, a vote for REMAIN is a vote that says: I accept that the UK will never have anything like full and proper control over migration into this country, for the rest of the foreseeable future.
Absolutely right. If Remain wins now then the British people will have actively endorsed ongoing, large-scale immigration into the UK - as per government policy - and no-one will ever be able to claim again that they were not asked. That's why I have always expected Leave to win.
Only if Remain win a landslide, if Remain scrape home it will only be because economic fears beat immigration fears, the latter fears still remain
Of course, the worries will still be there. But the voters will have had their say.
Their say being a very, very reluctant Remain and if immigration goes on rising with no action on it those voters will now be free to vote for UKIP and will do so without having the economic fears of Brexit!
If "LEAVE" have made a mistake it is regarding migration:
This has never been an issue for those 'sensible' protaganists for "BrExit". What angers people is the inability and confliction from a bunch-of-folk that impose benefit-equivilance upon use but, yet, raised stipulations from foriegn 'bishoprics' upon realms of-which they have no legitimacy.
Had 'LEAVE' made this about soveriengty, free-trade and international-cooperation then I think "BOO" would be ahead in the polls by miles: Noone wishes to see Poles , Pakistanis or Phillipinoes denied the honest chance to work in England (though they may bulk at other, Celtic, regions). Our ability to determine our own future was stolen in 1973 and 1975: Time to fight back...!
:God-Save-The-Queen:!
Completely wrong. In the end immigration is the one thing that can and might win it for LEAVE. They've lost the economic case, sovereignty is too airy-fairy for many people, but immigration is an absolute killer.
Sensible REMAINIANS know this and worry. They can always scream RACIST but too many voters don't care any more, having seen it all their lives.
Essentially, a vote for REMAIN is a vote that says: I accept that the UK will never have anything like full and proper control over migration into this country, for the rest of the foreseeable future.
Absolutely right. If Remain wins now then the British people will have actively endorsed ongoing, large-scale immigration into the UK - as per government policy - and no-one will ever be able to claim again that they were not asked. That's why I have always expected Leave to win.
Makes you wonder why the outers couldn't see that while agitating for a referendum that they stand a very good chance if losing.
A lot of Outers are not really that bothered about immigration - if they were, they would not have supported government economic and fiscal policy for all these years - but it is by far Leave's strongest suit. Probably the only one, in fact.
Many of these people have been major advocates for flexible labour markets, which, whatever their problems, do create opportunities for incomers in a way that more closed economies don't. However it does feel in a way that our economy is almost addicted to low wage immigration. I can't get the idea out of my head of an army that has an endless supply of soldiers to send out as cannon fodder and so never bothers itself with strategic planning or the technology it's using.
If "LEAVE" have made a mistake it is regarding migration:
This has never been an issue for those 'sensible' protaganists for "BrExit". What angers people is the inability and confliction from a bunch-of-folk that impose benefit-equivilance upon use but, yet, raised stipulations from foriegn 'bishoprics' upon realms of-which they have no legitimacy.
Had 'LEAVE' made this about soveriengty, free-trade and international-cooperation then I think "BOO" would be ahead in the polls by miles: Noone wishes to see Poles , Pakistanis or Phillipinoes denied the honest chance to work in England (though they may bulk at other, Celtic, regions). Our ability to determine our own future was stolen in 1973 and 1975: Time to fight back...!
:God-Save-The-Queen:!
Completely wrong. In the end immigration is the one thing that can and might win it for LEAVE. They've lost the economic case, sovereignty is too airy-fairy for many people, but immigration is an absolute killer.
Sensible REMAINIANS know this and worry. They can always scream RACIST but too many voters don't care any more, having seen it all their lives.
Essentially, a vote for REMAIN is a vote that says: I accept that the UK will never have anything like full and proper control over migration into this country, for the rest of the foreseeable future.
Absolutely right. If Remain wins now then the British people will have actively endorsed ongoing, large-scale immigration into the UK - as per government policy - and no-one will ever be able to claim again that they were not asked. That's why I have always expected Leave to win.
Only if Remain win a landslide, if Remain scrape home it will only be because economic fears beat immigration fears, the latter fears still remain
A win for Remain means double egg and chips for those who voted Leave. It's a disaster movie in the making.
At least Yessers in Scotland had some concessions from HMG - Leavers can't be appeased as it's beyond HMG's gift. The issues around EU control will only grow.
I think this is where Leave is missing a trick. A vote for REMAIN, is not a vote for the status quo. But the pitch at the moment is as if it is vs a big leap into the unknown. When the reality is continued meddling and law making in Brussels across a whole range of things.
surbiton - but the strikes in France and trouble in Belgium are the direct consequence of the EU demanding reduced worker's rights - you know that really. I think Labour's position is against zero hour contracts, and the EU push is for zero hour contracts to be made legal in France. Why on earth do you think the EU cares about the people, if they did in anyway at all you wouldn't see the terrible unemployment in the EU. The EU cares about German banks.
It's not the EU, it's the national governments.
The EU cannot even stop French air traffic controllers from holding Europe to ransom, as they are going to do next weekend.
Morning Southam.
How do you see the ongoing rolling French strikes influencing the referendum? Does it have any real impact or is it just noise?
Logically, it should not make any difference. But you do have to ask why the EU has not done more to prevent things like air traffic control strikes in one member state holding an entire continent to ransom. It shows that when it comes to things that have a day to day impact on people's lives, the EU is often pretty useless. I imagine British holidaymakers and business people that see their plans messed up next weekend (including me, I should add) are not going to feel much European solidarity.
I'm off to France tomorrow - no problem at all.
When are you planning on coming back? The strike is 3rd to 5th June.
If that is included in a manifesto, then yes it's justified. If not, the referendum has set the precedent. I imagine that withdrawal without a specific manifesto commitment might be subject to legal challenge.
I have no idea about how the law works on this kind of thing but I agree that morally (my word not yours) we would need another referendum. Even if it were in the manifesto my argument has always been that people vote for so many different things at a GE that to claim a GE win was acceptance of that particular issue would be pushing things.
If "LEAVE" have made a mistake it is regarding migration:
This has never been an issue for those 'sensible' protaganists for "BrExit". What angers people is the inability and confliction from a bunch-of-folk that impose benefit-equivilance upon use but, yet, raised stipulations from foriegn 'bishoprics' upon realms of-which they have no legitimacy.
Had 'LEAVE' made this about soveriengty, free-trade and international-cooperation then I think "BOO" would be ahead in the polls by miles: Noone wishes to see Poles , Pakistanis or Phillipinoes denied the honest chance to work in England (though they may bulk at other, Celtic, regions). Our ability to determine our own future was stolen in 1973 and 1975: Time to fight back...!
:God-Save-The-Queen:!
Completely wrong. In the end immigration is the one thing that can and might win it for LEAVE. They've lost the economic case, sovereignty is too airy-fairy for many people, but immigration is an absolute killer.
Sensible REMAINIANS know this and worry. They can always scream RACIST but too many voters don't care any more, having seen it all their lives.
Essentially, a vote for REMAIN is a vote that says: I accept that the UK will never have anything like full and proper control over migration into this country, for the rest of the foreseeable future.
Absolutely right. If Remain wins now then the British people will have actively endorsed ongoing, large-scale immigration into the UK - as per government policy - and no-one will ever be able to claim again that they were not asked. That's why I have always expected Leave to win.
Only if Remain win a landslide, if Remain scrape home it will only be because economic fears beat immigration fears, the latter fears still remain
It's like Scotland, it's not like the nationalist thinking has gone away, it's just that it won't be expressed as strongly and as publicly for a while.
The nationalist thinking simply transferred to votes for the SNP!
Many of these people have been major advocates for flexible labour markets, which, whatever their problems, do create opportunities for incomers in a way that more closed economies don't. However it does feel in a way that our economy is almost addicted to low wage immigration. I can't get the idea out of my head of an army that has an endless supply of soldiers to send out as cannon fodder and so never bothers itself with strategic planning or the technology it's using.
All this does (apart from damaging the Tories) is highlight the startling fact that Cameron will have to quit if he loses - and probably if he wins by a small margin, as well.
Which will make it very tempting for Tory-hating lefties to vote LEAVE.
Why would lefties risk voting to replace Cameron with a rightwing Leaver?
The EU is in the pocket of the military-industrial complex and tramples all over workers' rights so we will vote Leave and let John Redwood...um...er...IDS...er
Completely wrong. In the end immigration is the one thing that can and might win it for LEAVE. They've lost the economic case, sovereignty is too airy-fairy for many people, but immigration is an absolute killer.
Sensible REMAINIANS know this and worry. They can always scream RACIST but too many voters don't care any more, having seen it all their lives.
Essentially, a vote for REMAIN is a vote that says: I accept that the UK will never have anything like full and proper control over migration into this country, for the rest of the foreseeable future.
Absolutely right. If Remain wins now then the British people will have actively endorsed ongoing, large-scale immigration into the UK - as per government policy - and no-one will ever be able to claim again that they were not asked. That's why I have always expected Leave to win.
Only if Remain win a landslide, if Remain scrape home it will only be because economic fears beat immigration fears, the latter fears still remain
Of course, the worries will still be there. But the voters will have had their say.
Another question (apologies, I ask you because you give sensible balanced replies from the Remain side.) Based on your comment about voters having had their say.
If Remain win but we then see the revolution in the Tory party and end up with a very Leave dominated Tory party perhaps with a few UKIP MP's after 2020. Would you say they would be justified in simply invoking Article 50 without a further referendum.
For the record I don't but I am interested in the views of others on this.
Are you serious - No one would be able to pull that one
Immigration is the killer issue because it demonstrates to the masses in a words of one syllable simple way the consequenses of loss of sovereignty un a way a highbrow debate on sovereigny cannot
If "LEAVE" have made a mistake it is regarding migration:
This has never been an issue for those 'sensible' protaganists for "BrExit". What angers people England (though they may bulk at other, Celtic, regions). Our ability to determine our own future was stolen in 1973 and 1975: Time to fight back...!
:God-Save-The-Queen:!
Completely wrong. In the end immigration is the one thing that can and might win it for LEAVE. They've lost the economic case, sovereignty is too airy-fairy for many people, but immigration is an absolute killer.
Sensible REMAINIANS know this and worry. They can always scream RACIST but too many voters don't care any more, having seen it all their lives.
Essentially, a vote for REMAIN is a vote that says: I accept that the UK will never have anything like full and proper control over migration into this country, for the rest of the foreseeable future.
Absolutely right. If Remain wins now then the British people will have actively endorsed ongoing, large-scale immigration into the UK - as per government policy - and no-one will ever be able to claim again that they were not asked. That's why I have always expected Leave to win.
Only if Remain win a landslide, if Remain scrape home it will only be because economic fears beat immigration fears, the latter fears still remain
Of course, the worries will still be there. But the voters will have had their say.
Another question (apologies, I ask you because you give sensible balanced replies from the Remain side.) Based on your comment about voters having had their say.
If Remain win but we then see the revolution in the Tory party and end up with a very Leave dominated Tory party perhaps with a few UKIP MP's after 2020. Would you say they would be justified in simply invoking Article 50 without a further referendum.
For the record I don't but I am interested in the views of others on this.
If that is included in a manifesto, then yes it's justified. If not, the referendum has set the precedent. I imagine that withdrawal without a specific manifesto commitment might be subject to legal challenge.
It would surely require the use of the Parliament Act to get through the Lords. But if it is done then I fail to see how the courts could intervene.
indeed... clearly all is going swimmingly... Iain Martin @iainmartin1 39m39 minutes ago Well done all involved. Brexit campaign eclipsed by Tory leadership contest and plot to remove the PM. Brilliant strategy. Genius. Sunder Katwala @sundersays 20m20 minutes ago 'Stop Ze German advance' xenophobia on M40 from overenthusiastic Outers. unauthorised, by "dummies" say @vote_leave
Genuine question - if David Cameron had become PM in 1997 instead of Tony Blair - what would have been different?
That is like saying had Tony Blair become PM instead of John Major in 1990 what would have been different? It took a Labour defeat in 1992 and Tory defeats in 2001 and 2005 to make Blair and Cameron possible
All this does (apart from damaging the Tories) is highlight the startling fact that Cameron will have to quit if he loses - and probably if he wins by a small margin, as well.
Which will make it very tempting for Tory-hating lefties to vote LEAVE.
Why would lefties risk voting to replace Cameron with a rightwing Leaver?
Genuine question - if David Cameron had become PM in 1997 instead of Tony Blair - what would have been different?
Gordon Brown would never have become Chancellor. We would have never doubled our spending IN REAL TERMS prior to the 2007/8 crash. We would not have needed austerity to rescue us from Brown's disaster.
indeed... clearly all is going swimmingly... Iain Martin @iainmartin1 39m39 minutes ago Well done all involved. Brexit campaign eclipsed by Tory leadership contest and plot to remove the PM. Brilliant strategy. Genius. Sunder Katwala @sundersays 20m20 minutes ago 'Stop Ze German advance' xenophobia on M40 from overenthusiastic Outers. unauthorised, by "dummies" say @vote_leave
If "LEAVE" have made a mistake it is regarding migration:
This has never been an issue for those 'sensible' protaganists for "BrExit". What angers people is the inability and confliction from a bunch-of-folk that impose benefit-equivilance upon use but, yet, raised stipulations from foriegn 'bishoprics' upon realms of-which they have no legitimacy.
Had 'LEAVE' made this about soveriengty, free-trade and international-cooperation then I think "BOO" would be ahead in the polls by miles: Noone wishes to see Poles , Pakistanis or Phillipinoes denied the honest chance to work in England (though they may bulk at other, Celtic, regions). Our ability to determine our own future was stolen in 1973 and 1975: Time to fight back...!
:God-Save-The-Queen:!
Completely wrong. In the end immigration is the one thing that can and might win it for LEAVE. They've lost the economic case, sovereignty is too airy-fairy for many people, but immigration is an absolute killer.
Sensible REMAINIANS know this and worry. They can always scream RACIST but too many voters don't care any more, having seen it all their lives.
Essentially, a vote for REMAIN is a vote that says: I accept that the UK will never have anything like full and proper control over migration into this country, for the rest of the foreseeable future.
Absolutely right. If Remain wins now then the British people will have actively endorsed ongoing, large-scale immigration into the UK - as per government policy - and no-one will ever be able to claim again that they were not asked. That's why I have always expected Leave to win.
Only if Remain win a landslide, if Remain scrape home it will only be because economic fears beat immigration fears, the latter fears still remain
A win for Remain means double egg and chips for those who voted Leave. It's a disaster movie in the making.
At least Yessers in Scotland had some concessions from HMG - Leavers can't be appeased as it's beyond HMG's gift. The issues around EU control will only grow.
Yes, which is why ironically the best bet for UKIP is a very close Remain win rather than a Leave vote
surbiton - but the strikes in France and trouble in Belgium are the direct consequence of the EU demanding reduced worker's rights - you know that really. I think Labour's position is against zero hour contracts, and the EU push is for zero hour contracts to be made legal in France. Why on earth do you think the EU cares about the people, if they did in anyway at all you wouldn't see the terrible unemployment in the EU. The EU cares about German banks.
It's not the EU, it's the national governments.
The EU cannot even stop French air traffic controllers from holding Europe to ransom, as they are going to do next weekend.
Morning Southam.
How do you see the ongoing rolling French strikes influencing the referendum? Does it have any real impact or is it just noise?
Logically, it should not make any difference. But you do have to ask why the EU has not done more to prevent things like air traffic control strikes in one member state holding an entire continent to ransom. It shows that when it comes to things that have a day to day impact on people's lives, the EU is often pretty useless. I imagine British holidaymakers and business people that see their plans messed up next weekend (including me, I should add) are not going to feel much European solidarity.
I'm off to France tomorrow - no problem at all.
When are you planning on coming back? The strike is 3rd to 5th June.
Immigration is the killer issue because it demonstrates to the masses in a words of one syllable simple way the consequenses of loss of sovereignty un a way a highbrow debate on sovereigny cannot
Immigration is many things but it not a word of one syllable.
Another great stint from IDS on Sky - he's really grown in my estimations.
As I (perhaps too often) remind people here, IDS was actually quite a good Conservative leader when measured by performance at the ballot box. His problem was the weekly pastings by Blair at PMQs demoralised Tory backbenchers.
When the bet Ed Miliband for next Labour leader was first proposed by Alistair Meeks I thought it was daft. EM was humiliated at the last GE. But since then he has conducted himself with quiet dignity and I no longer think it’s an impossible outcome for the following reasons.
1. Firstly and most importantly he is a current MP so he’s an eligible candidate if there is a vacancy. Unlike David Miliband or Ed Balls. 2. Next there are rumours that he could be invited into the shadow cabinet. 3. After the GE he looked like a hopeless case but since then Labour have jumped out of the frying pan into the fire with Corbyn’s appointment as Labour leader. In comparison to Corbyn EM looks like a proper leader. 4. Despite his defeat at the GE, EM could be a unifying figure should Corbyn voluntarily step down. He is to the left of the party so he could be well placed to gain the support of the Corbynites - and the Unions who of course backed him originally. 5. He could play the role of a Michael Howard transitional leader and start to move the Labour party back towards a semblance of political reality. 6. If Corbyn leads Labour to GE defeat in 2020, EM could be appointed next Labour leader after that defeat while Labour undergoes a root and branch review of their situation. So the bet has the potential to deliver either side of the next GE.
The most amazing fact of this war fare in the Conservative party is that those on the Brexit side believe getting rid of David Cameron and calling an early Autumn election would result in an increased mandate. I do not believe that for one moment as a post David Cameron conservative party, probably with Boris as leader, would put off a vast number of voters and probably see a minority conservative government with no one prepared to negotiate a viable government, also a left leaning House of Lords that would paralysis any legislation put forward. There are parts of the conservative party that really do not get it as this is as good as it is likely to get, irrespective of labour's present problems
Genuine question - if David Cameron had become PM in 1997 instead of Tony Blair - what would have been different?
Gordon Brown would never have become Chancellor. We would have never doubled our spending IN REAL TERMS prior to the 2007/8 crash. We would not have needed austerity to rescue us from Brown's disaster.
This is the same Cameron and Osborne that promised to match Labour's spending right?
@FrankBooth- what an interesting piece of analysis.
Many of these people have been major advocates for flexible labour markets, which, whatever their problems, do create opportunities for incomers in a way that more closed economies don't. However it does feel in a way that our economy is almost addicted to low wage immigration. I can't get the idea out of my head of an army that has an endless supply of soldiers to send out as cannon fodder and so never bothers itself with strategic planning or the technology it's using.
Yes, which is why ironically the best bet for UKIP is a very close Remain win rather than a Leave vote
I keep reading that on here but I don't think it is true. If we are talking about a future for UKIP as a political party then I think the best result would be a leave vote after which it can move on to being a party of the people Labour no longer want to represent and the Conservatives don't give a shit about. They will probably never achieve power but they will have a useful role to perform at local and national levels.
* Boris calls Dave out on immigration * 700 migrants drown trying to get into Italy * Border Force question 19 found in inflatable dinghy off Kent coast
If "LEAVE" have made a mistake it is regarding migration:
This has never been an issue for those 'sensible' protaganists for "BrExit". What angers people is the inability and confliction from a bunch-of-folk t.....
Had 'LEAVE' made this about soveriengty, free-trade and international-cooperation then I think "BOO" would be ahead in...
:God-Save-The-Queen:!
Completely wrong. In the end immigration is the one thing that can and might win it for LEAVE. They've lost the economic case, sovereignty is too airy-fairy for many people, but immigration is an absolute killer.
Sensible REMAINIANS know this and worry. They can always scream RACIST but too many voters don't care any more, having seen it all their lives.
Essentially, a vote for REMAIN is a vote that says: I accept that the UK will never have anything like full and proper control over migration into this country, for the rest of the foreseeable future.
Absolutely right. If Remain wins now then the British people will have actively endorsed ongoing, large-scale immigration into the UK - as per government policy - and no-one will ever be able to claim again that they were not asked. That's why I have always expected Leave to win.
Only if Remain win a landslide, if Remain scrape home it will only be because economic fears beat immigration fears, the latter fears still remain
A win for Remain means double egg and chips for those who voted Leave. It's a disaster movie in the making. At least Yessers in Scotland had some concessions from HMG - Leavers can't be appeased as it's beyond HMG's gift. The issues around EU control will only grow.
Good point, since Cameron delivered only tiny positives and one major negative from the renegotiation, there is no consolation for LEAVErs if they lose the referendum.
One question does arise. What if the EU agrees with Cameron a new deal in the 3 weeks remaining as part of a Vow mark 2? For example. 1. A cut of 25% in the UK contribution to the EU. 2. An immediate brake on immigration from the EU - if UK wish to use it.
We know that the EU has a team working on the referendum within the Commission an dthe risk of a LEAVE vote may panic them? Or are they only going to deploy it after a LEAVE vote?
Are you serious - No one would be able to pull that one
1. Please get your formatting sorted out as it is almost impossible to follow the argument if you don't make clear who is saying what.
2. I already said in the post you replied to that I would not agree with it but that is because of my personal views. I don't know what the legal view is or hw others would view. it.
The most amazing fact of this war fare in the Conservative party is that those on the Brexit side believe getting rid of David Cameron and calling an early Autumn election would result in an increased mandate. ....
" calling an early Autumn election " Who is saying that on the Conservative side?
@FrankBooth- what an interesting piece of analysis.
Many of these people have been major advocates for flexible labour markets, which, whatever their problems, do create opportunities for incomers in a way that more closed economies don't. However it does feel in a way that our economy is almost addicted to low wage immigration. I can't get the idea out of my head of an army that has an endless supply of soldiers to send out as cannon fodder and so never bothers itself with strategic planning or the technology it's using.
Nice to see you join the people at last, Tyson. Your Tuscan idyll has purified your once debased rentier heart. Leave is the only hope for the working man.
Yes, which is why ironically the best bet for UKIP is a very close Remain win rather than a Leave vote
I keep reading that on here but I don't think it is true. If we are talking about a future for UKIP as a political party then I think the best result would be a leave vote after which it can move on to being a party of the people Labour no longer want to represent and the Conservatives don't give a shit about. They will probably never achieve power but they will have a useful role to perform at local and national levels.
No, a Leave vote would kill UKIP's raison d'etre, no one apart from an obsessive few are going to vote for it for more grammar schools or because they are annoyed by gay marriage. It would fade into a minor pressure group at best or disappear completely at worst. A narrow Remain vote though, with Labour weak and having backed Remain, would immediately set UKIP up as effectively the principal opposition party in the UK to the pro-EU Tory government, much as opposition to the Iraq War set the LDs up as effectively the main opposition under Charles Kennedy to New Labour's pro Iraq War government when the Tories were weak and had also backed the War
I see Tony Blair is all over the telly this weekend getting his retaliation in early before Chilcot is published...
Should Cameron still be Prime Minister on 6th July I assume he'll have a lot of questions to answer as why he delayed publication of Chilcot until after the referendum... Looks very much like another establishment stitch up to protect Blair until the referendum is out of the way.
surbiton - but the strikes in France and trouble in Belgium are the direct consequence of the EU demanding reduced worker's rights - you know that really. I think Labour's position is against zero hour contracts, and the EU push is for zero hour contracts to be made legal in France. Why on earth do you think the EU cares about the people, if they did in anyway at all you wouldn't see the terrible unemployment in the EU. The EU cares about German banks.
It's not the EU, it's the national governments.
The EU cannot even stop French air traffic controllers from holding Europe to ransom, as they are going to do next weekend.
The erosion of pensions, incomes and rights in places like Greece is to some extent a consequence of signing up to european integration, surely?
Likewise, national governments find their aligned currency from european integration limiting options for economic responses.
When the bet Ed Miliband for next Labour leader was first proposed by Alistair Meeks I thought it was daft. EM was humiliated at the last GE. But since then he has conducted himself with quiet dignity and I no longer think it’s an impossible outcome for the following reasons.
1. Firstly and most importantly he is a current MP so he’s an eligible candidate if there is a vacancy. Unlike David Miliband or Ed Balls. 2. Next there are rumours that he could be invited into the shadow cabinet. 3. After the GE he looked like a hopeless case but since then Labour have jumped out of the frying pan into the fire with Corbyn’s appointment as Labour leader. In comparison to Corbyn EM looks like a proper leader. 4. Despite his defeat at the GE, EM could be a unifying figure should Corbyn voluntarily step down. He is to the left of the party so he could be well placed toEd gain the support of the Corbynites - and the Unions who of course backed him originally. 5. He could play the role of a Michael Howard transitional leader and start to move the Labour party back towards a semblance of political reality. 6. If Corbyn leads Labour to GE defeat in 2020, EM could be appointed next Labour leader after that defeat while Labour undergoes a root and branch review of their situation. So the bet has the potential to deliver either side of the next GE.
At 200/1 it's a value bet. I'm on!
Ed Miliband would be the equivalent of William Hague taking over as transitional leader in the Tory Party in 2003, not Michael Howard
I see Tony Blair is all over the telly this weekend getting his retaliation in early before Chilcot is published...
Should Cameron still be Prime Minister on 6th July I assume he'll have a lot of questions to answer as why he delayed publication of Chilcot until after the referendum... Looks very much like another establishment stitch up to protect Blair until the referendum is out of the way/
It has enabled Blair to speak out for REMAIN. Funny that. But it could be counter productive in that the "progress" vote in Labour is sewn up and the working class are not going to vote for Blair AFAIK.
STimes reporting the Border Agency has only 3 boats to patrol over 7k miles of our coastline. I've seen three stories just this week re traffickers bringing in illegal migrants/guns using dingies/cruisers into small marinas.
One of my points made frequently here is that the immigration frenzy is being used by the upper echelons of LEAVE to encourage a Brexit, without any serious plans - or intent! - to do something about it other than token gestures.
I see Tony Blair is all over the telly this weekend getting his retaliation in early before Chilcot is published...
Should Cameron still be Prime Minister on 6th July I assume he'll have a lot of questions to answer as why he delayed publication of Chilcot until after the referendum... Looks very much like another establishment stitch up to protect Blair until the referendum is out of the way.
It's a sign of health and strength that the Tory immune system is rejecting antigen Dodgy Dave and co-factor Osborne.
When the bet Ed Miliband for next Labour leader was first proposed by Alistair Meeks I thought it was daft. EM was humiliated at the last GE. But since then he has conducted himself with quiet dignity and I no longer think it’s an impossible outcome for the following reasons.
1. Firstly and most importantly he is a current MP so he’s an eligible candidate if there is a vacancy. Unlike David Miliband or Ed Balls. 2. Next there are rumours that he could be invited into the shadow cabinet. 3. After the GE he looked like a hopeless case but since then Labour have jumped out of the frying pan into the fire with Corbyn’s appointment as Labour leader. In comparison to Corbyn EM looks like a proper leader. 4. Despite his defeat at the GE, EM could be a unifying figure should Corbyn voluntarily step down. He is to the left of the party so he could be well placed toEd gain the support of the Corbynites - and the Unions who of course backed him originally. 5. He could play the role of a Michael Howard transitional leader and start to move the Labour party back towards a semblance of political reality. 6. If Corbyn leads Labour to GE defeat in 2020, EM could be appointed next Labour leader after that defeat while Labour undergoes a root and branch review of their situation. So the bet has the potential to deliver either side of the next GE.
At 200/1 it's a value bet. I'm on!
Ed Miliband would be the equivalent of William Hague taking over as transitional leader in the Tory Party in 2003, not Michael Howard
HYUFD. I don't mind which Tory leader Ed would be most analagous to - as long as the bet delivers!
Yes, which is why ironically the best bet for UKIP is a very close Remain win rather than a Leave vote
I keep reading that on here but I don't think it is true. If we are talking about a future for UKIP as a political party then I think the best result would be a leave vote after which it can move on to being a party of the people Labour no longer want to represent and the Conservatives don't give a shit about. They will probably never achieve power but they will have a useful role to perform at local and national levels.
No, a Leave vote would kill UKIP's raison d'etre, no one apart from an obsessive few are going to vote for it for more grammar schools or because they are annoyed by gay marriage. It would fade into a minor pressure group at best or disappear completely at worst. A narrow Remain vote though, with Labour weak and having backed Remain, would immediately set UKIP up as effectively the principal opposition party in the UK to the pro-EU Tory government, much as opposition to the Iraq War set the LDs up as effectively the main opposition under Charles Kennedy to New Labour's pro Iraq War government when the Tories were weak and had also backed the War
I agree that a Leave vote should kill UKIP. It would have lost is only legitimate reason for existing.
The most amazing fact of this war fare in the Conservative party is that those on the Brexit side believe getting rid of David Cameron and calling an early Autumn election would result in an increased mandate. ....
" calling an early Autumn election " Who is saying that on the Conservative side?
Genuine question - if David Cameron had become PM in 1997 instead of Tony Blair - what would have been different?
Gordon Brown would never have become Chancellor. We would have never doubled our spending IN REAL TERMS prior to the 2007/8 crash. We would not have needed austerity to rescue us from Brown's disaster.
This is the same Cameron and Osborne that promised to match Labour's spending right?
The 2007/8 crash would have been larger, thanks to the masses of bank/city regulation that Osborne and co would have cut in the years leading up to it.
Looks like it's Meltdown Sunday in the Tory Party...
If only Cameron had conducted a genuine renegotiation (as he promised he would) with genuine reforms, all of this could have been avoided.
What a disaster he's turned out to be...
One could easily sat that if Leave had learnt the lessons of the not so distant past the whole thing would have been more pleasant. Still at least you managed to avoid describing Cameron as a posh boy so well done......
Absolutely right. If Remain wins now then the British people will have actively endorsed ongoing, large-scale immigration into the UK - as per government policy - and no-one will ever be able to claim again that they were not asked. That's why I have always expected Leave to win.
Absolutely right. If RemaIN wins, we should embrace the EU. We have only been a reluctant member so far. The EU has given and protected worker's rights more than British government would have done.
Neither IN nor OUT should really be focussing on the past. After all, the question is not: has the EU worked for us; but will the EU work for us in the future.
Consider the fact that the working time directive which the post lauds in top of the "most expensive pieces of EU legislation" list as well... but apparently the EU has nothing to do with it!
And you know as well as I do that it's necessary for Leave to rebut Hattiesque nonsense about the EU being the font of all workers rights. It's simply untrue.
Correct. But Leave do need to explain if either: EU workers' rights go too far and are expensive and unnecessary; or EU worker's rights add nothing as we do it ourselves.
By comparison although Hattie's comments about the EU being the sole source of workers' rights are disingenuous, at least the worker's rights = good is consistent.
I'm genuinely puzzled here.
Why should Leave need to do anything? They aren't HMG. They're a coalition of viewpoints that believes we're better off out. I'm not expecting LabourLeave to do so, anymore than GrassrootsOut.
Well, as a voter, should I vote leave to protect worker's rights or should I vote leave to get rid of them?
The need to harmonise within the EU and compete with new entrant, cheap labour economies is likely to see eastern nations increase worker rights while those of people in the 'old money' EU economies lose them.
The oil blockade in France and the three day general strike in Greece are mainly concerned with the erosion of workers' rights within the EU.
Genuine question - if David Cameron had become PM in 1997 instead of Tony Blair - what would have been different?
Gordon Brown would never have become Chancellor. We would have never doubled our spending IN REAL TERMS prior to the 2007/8 crash. We would not have needed austerity to rescue us from Brown's disaster.
This is the same Cameron and Osborne that promised to match Labour's spending right?
The 2007/8 crash would have been larger, thanks to the masses of bank/city regulation that Osborne and co would have cut in the years leading up to it.
Actually it was Brown who cut city regulation and weakened oversight in spite of warnings from both Tory backbenchers and international organisations.
@NickPalmer - Nick, I owe you an apology. I did a search of the archive and found the quote I have been referring to. However, it is clear I misread what you wrote:
I totally disagree with your analysis of where labour should go and cannot get my head round your support for Corbyn, but I hope you accept that am not crass enough to deliberately make stuff up to make my points. I got this wrong and I am sorry.
Ed Miliband took Labour down to their worst General Election defeat since 1931, to replace Corbyn who has taken them down further. An interesting proposition, but the Tories would have to split, Labour would have to be unite and regain Scotland to make this realistic.
If The Tories did split in June 2016, I'm unsure that Miliband would seen as a PM in waiting. It begs the question why did he resign so quickly in May 2015 and let Corbyn in.
Really?In terms of parliamentary seats it was hardly as bad as 1983 - 1987 - or 1959. Moreover in terms of % vote share deficit - 6.6% - it was also a narrower defeat than 2010 - 1992 - and 1979.
Absolutely right. If Remain wins now then the British people will have actively endorsed ongoing, large-scale immigration into the UK - as per government policy - and no-one will ever be able to claim again that they were not asked. That's why I have always expected Leave to win.
Absolutely right. If RemaIN wins, we should embrace the EU. We have only been a reluctant member so far. The EU has given and protected worker's rights more than British government would have done.
Neither IN nor OUT should really be focussing on the past. After all, the question is not: has the EU worked for us; but will the EU work for us in the future.
Consider the fact that the working time directive which the post lauds in top of the "most expensive pieces of EU legislation" list as well... but apparently the EU has nothing to do with it!
And you know as well as I do that it's necessary for Leave to rebut Hattiesque nonsense about the EU being the font of all workers rights. It's simply untrue.
Correct. But Leave do need to explain if either: EU workers' rights go too far and are expensive and unnecessary; or EU worker's rights add nothing as we do it ourselves.
By comparison although Hattie's comments about the EU being the sole source of workers' rights are disingenuous, at least the worker's rights = good is consistent.
I'm genuinely puzzled here.
Why should Leave need to do anything? They aren't HMG. They're a coalition of viewpoints that believes we're better off out. I'm not expecting LabourLeave to do so, anymore than GrassrootsOut.
Well, as a voter, should I vote leave to protect worker's rights or should I vote leave to get rid of them?
You'll vote for a Party that you believe will support your own preferences, like every other election.
Leave aren't in Government and aren't a single Party.
Yes, which is why ironically the best bet for UKIP is a very close Remain win rather than a Leave vote
I keep reading that on here but I don't think it is true. If we are talking about a future for UKIP as a political party then I think the best result would be a leave vote after which it can move on to being a party of the people Labour no longer want to represent and the Conservatives don't give a shit about. They will probably never achieve power but they will have a useful role to perform at local and national levels.
No, a Leave vote would kill UKIP's raison d'etre, no one apart from an obsessive few are going to vote for it for more grammar schools or because they are annoyed by gay marriage. It would fade into a minor pressure group at best or disappear completely at worst. A narrow Remain vote though, with Labour weak and having backed Remain, would immediately set UKIP up as effectively the principal opposition party in the UK to the pro-EU Tory government, much as opposition to the Iraq War set the LDs up as effectively the main opposition under Charles Kennedy to New Labour's pro Iraq War government when the Tories were weak and had also backed the War
I agree that a Leave vote should kill UKIP. It would have lost is only legitimate reason for existing.
Yes, and something which many if not most members of UKIP would probably be happy with. However, there is currently a section of society which the main two political parties seem to want to ignore at both local and national levels. That is a niche market, if you will forgive the term, that could and, in my view for the common good, should be met. UKIP are well placed to do so. Whether they could or even would want to is another matter.
However, I maintain that for the members of UKIP a leave vote i not the worst that could happen and a narrow remain is not the best.
They've already given their verdict on Mr Miliband once - not up to it - and will be irritated to have the same proposal made again
But Gaitskell did not resign post 1959 election. Neither did Heath in 1966 . Nor Churchill in 1945.
Gaitskill won 43.8% of the vote in 1959, Miliband 30.7%. Heath had only been leader for 2 years when he lost in 1966, had he lost in 1970 too he would have gone. Churchill had won WW2, not quite the same as Ed!
Ed Milliband is back - well thanks heavens. I had an awful fear that we were going to lose control of both the Labour party and the Conservative party. But we will be ok now.
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorriesMP 9m9 minutes ago Drinks and lunch with @montie before train home. (Ps He put me up to it!)
I thought this troublemaker had stopped tweeting to spend more time with her books? As soon as I heard she was going to be on Peston, I knew she would be taking her BIG WOODEN SPOON with her and now it's all about the Tory Leadership. I hope the LEAVE campaign are bloody furious with her and Bridgen. It's all about their personal agendas.
When the bet Ed Miliband for next Labour leader was first proposed by Alistair Meeks I thought it was daft. EM was humiliated at the last GE. But since then he has conducted himself with quiet dignity and I no longer think it’s an impossible outcome for the following reasons.
1. Firstly and most importantly he is a current MP so he’s an eligible candidate if there is a vacancy. Unlike David Miliband or Ed Balls. 2. Next there are rumours that he could be invited into the shadow cabinet. 3. After the GE he looked like a hopeless case but since then Labour have jumped out of the frying pan into the fire with Corbyn’s appointment as Labour leader. In comparison to Corbyn EM looks like a proper leader. 4. Despite his defeat at the GE, EM could be a unifying figure should Corbyn voluntarily step down. He is to the left of the party so he could be well placed toEd gain the support of the Corbynites - and the Unions who of course backed him originally. 5. He could play the role of a Michael Howard transitional leader and start to move the Labour party back towards a semblance of political reality. 6. If Corbyn leads Labour to GE defeat in 2020, EM could be appointed next Labour leader after that defeat while Labour undergoes a root and branch review of their situation. So the bet has the potential to deliver either side of the next GE.
At 200/1 it's a value bet. I'm on!
Ed Miliband would be the equivalent of William Hague taking over as transitional leader in the Tory Party in 2003, not Michael Howard
HYUFD. I don't mind which Tory leader Ed would be most analagous to - as long as the bet delivers!
Michael Howard was the Shadow Chancellor when he took over and had not been leader before, Hague like Ed Miliband was a backbencher and like Ed had lost the last election. John McDonnell is more likely than Ed Miliband
The most amazing fact of this war fare in the Conservative party is that those on the Brexit side believe getting rid of David Cameron and calling an early Autumn election would result in an increased mandate. ....
" calling an early Autumn election " Who is saying that on the Conservative side?
Yes, which is why ironically the best bet for UKIP is a very close Remain win rather than a Leave vote
I keep reading that on here but I don't think it is true. If we are talking about a future for UKIP as a political party then I think the best result would be a leave vote after which it can move on to being a party of the people Labour no longer want to represent and the Conservatives don't give a shit about. They will probably never achieve power but they will have a useful role to perform at local and national levels.
No, a Leave vote would kill UKIP's raison d'etre, no one apart from an obsessive few are going to vote for it for more grammar schools or because they are annoyed by gay marriage. It would fade into a minor pressure group at best or disappear completely at worst. A narrow Remain vote though, with Labour weak and having backed Remain, would immediately set UKIP up as effectively the principal opposition party in the UK to the pro-EU Tory government, much as opposition to the Iraq War set the LDs up as effectively the main opposition under Charles Kennedy to New Labour's pro Iraq War government when the Tories were weak and had also backed the War
I agree that a Leave vote should kill UKIP. It would have lost is only legitimate reason for existing.
"I think that a distinctive Labour position is necessary to win".
Which distinctive Labour position? The Harold Wilson position or the Jezza position? I remember in the 1960s, the hatred of Harold by the Trots. As far as they were concerned, he was a traitor.
That was a long time ago. The Labour Party may now be a London-centric, middle-class 'progressive' grouping. It used to be led by that group but their main priority was the working class. Now they are viewed with condescension at best.
Ask Ms Thornberry.
I'm open to discussion on that - despite what you might think I'm a pragmatist, and I supported Wilson to do a few useful things like the Open University, and Blair to do some more like the minimum wage, the Northern Ireland agreement and better funding of the NHS. But I think their agendas have been implemented (including some bits I don't on reflection agree with!) so we need to move on.
I think that McDonnell is doing good work on the economic side (whatever one thinks of his past comments on other things) - the recent conference had more serious analysis and serious work that anything in 2010-15, and the call to balance the current budget while borrowing for investment is a mainstream position backed by The Economist and numerous other non-lefties.
I'm instinctively sympathetic to a leftie approach, working to get a better grip on multinationals in particular (and that does need multinational effort - one reason I'm pro-EU) and working actively to stem the trend to greater inequality and less power for individuals as both workers and consumers. But, as I said in the quote that Southam has found, I'm open to centrists bringing forward interesting ideas too, as they're starting to do. The centre ground in the Labour Party is now clearly on the left but it's not hostile to constructive proposals - you have to go right down to a few nutty individuals to find anyone talking about traitors and the like now, and I'd argue that there is more creative thinking going on now than there has been in the party for some years.
Absolutely right. If Remain wins now then the British people will have actively endorsed ongoing, large-scale immigration into the UK - as per government policy - and no-one will ever be able to claim again that they were not asked. That's why I have always expected Leave to win.
Absolutely right. If RemaIN wins, we should embrace the EU. We have only been a reluctant member so far. The EU has given and protected worker's rights more than British government would have done.
Neither IN nor OUT should really be focussing on the past. After all, the question is not: has the EU worked for us; but will the EU work for us in the future.
Consider the fact that the working time directive which the post lauds in top of the "most expensive pieces of EU legislation" list as well... but apparently the EU has nothing to do with it!
And you know as well as I do that it's necessary for Leave to rebut Hattiesque nonsense about the EU being the font of all workers rights. It's simply untrue.
Correct. But Leave do need to explain if either: EU workers' rights go too far and are expensive and unnecessary; or EU worker's rights add nothing as we do it ourselves.
By comparison although Hattie's comments about the EU being the sole source of workers' rights are disingenuous, at least the worker's rights = good is consistent.
I'm genuinely puzzled here.
Why should Leave need to do anything? They aren't HMG. They're a coalition of viewpoints that believes we're better off out. I'm not expecting LabourLeave to do so, anymore than GrassrootsOut.
Well, as a voter, should I vote leave to protect worker's rights or should I vote leave to get rid of them?
You'll vote for a Party that you believe will support your own preferences, like every other election.
Leave aren't in Government and aren't a single Party.
Yes, which is why ironically the best bet for UKIP is a very close Remain win rather than a Leave vote
I keep reading that on here but I don't think it is true. If we are talking about a future for UKIP as a political party then I think the best result would be a leave vote after which it can move on to being a party of the people Labour no longer want to represent and the Conservatives don't give a shit about. They will probably never achieve power but they will have a useful role to perform at local and national levels.
I quite agree. However, without the EU as a rallying point - it'll be a tough ask.
Another great stint from IDS on Sky - he's really grown in my estimations.
As I (perhaps too often) remind people here, IDS was actually quite a good Conservative leader when measured by performance at the ballot box. His problem was the weekly pastings by Blair at PMQs demoralised Tory backbenchers.
Agree - also Liam Fox on Marr was very good. IDS looks ten years younger. You can't beat experience when it comes to the big issues.
Yes, which is why ironically the best bet for UKIP is a very close Remain win rather than a Leave vote
I keep reading that on here but I don't think it is true. If we are talking about a future for UKIP as a political party then I think the best result would be a leave vote after which it can move on to being a party of the people Labour no longer want to represent and the Conservatives don't give a shit about. They will probably never achieve power but they will have a useful role to perform at local and national levels.
No, a Leave vote would kill UKIP's raison d'etre, no one apart from an obsessive few are going to vote for it for more grammar schools or because they are annoyed by gay marriage. It would fade into a minor pressure group at best or disappear completely at worst. A narrow Remain vote though, with Labour weak and having backed Remain, would immediately set UKIP up as effectively the principal opposition party in the UK to the pro-EU Tory government, much as opposition to the Iraq War set the LDs up as effectively the main opposition under Charles Kennedy to New Labour's pro Iraq War government when the Tories were weak and had also backed the War
I agree that a Leave vote should kill UKIP. It would have lost is only legitimate reason for existing.
Yes, and something which many if not most members of UKIP would probably be happy with. However, there is currently a section of society which the main two political parties seem to want to ignore at both local and national levels. That is a niche market, if you will forgive the term, that could and, in my view for the common good, should be met. UKIP are well placed to do so. Whether they could or even would want to is another matter.
However, I maintain that for the members of UKIP a leave vote i not the worst that could happen and a narrow remain is not the best.
If it is Leave then supposedly we get a grip on immigration and much of the reason for that disillusion amongst the working class goes with it
The most amazing fact of this war fare in the Conservative party is that those on the Brexit side believe getting rid of David Cameron and calling an early Autumn election would result in an increased mandate. I do not believe that for one moment as a post David Cameron conservative party, probably with Boris as leader, would put off a vast number of voters and probably see a minority conservative government with no one prepared to negotiate a viable government, also a left leaning House of Lords that would paralysis any legislation put forward. There are parts of the conservative party that really do not get it as this is as good as it is likely to get, irrespective of labour's present problems
Seriously, what's this Boris as leader nonsense? There's not a single Tory backing him here, and I've never met one with a party vote suggesting him either anywhere.
They've already given their verdict on Mr Miliband once - not up to it - and will be irritated to have the same proposal made again
But Gaitskell did not resign post 1959 election. Neither did Heath in 1966 . Nor Churchill in 1945.
And Churchill won in 1951. Wilson didn't resign in 1970 and won in 1974
Wilson had won the 1964 and 1966 elections before he lost in 1970
True. Well Kinnock didn't resign after the 1983 defeat and was winning in the polls before the 1987 election.
Foot was leader after the 1983 election and resigned. In 1987 Kinnock increased the Labour share of the vote by 3% and won 20 extra Labour MPs. In 2015 Ed Miliband lost 26 Labour MPs and increased its share of the vote by only a little over 1%
"I think that McDonnell is doing good work on the economic side (whatever one thinks of his past comments on other things)"
I read some of what he has been saying about the economy and the way forward the other day and found myself agreeing with rather a lot of it. He carries far too much baggage for me to ever vote for the bloke or a party that tolerates his views on "other matters" and it maybe those views which stop him getting a proper hearing. Nonetheless he is coming out with some interesting stuff that deserves to be heard.
Absolutely right. If RemaIN wins, we should embrace the EU. We have only been a reluctant member so far. The EU has given and protected worker's rights more than British government would have done.
Neither IN nor OUT should really be focussing on the past. After all, the question is not: has the EU worked for us; but will the EU work for us in the future.
Consider the fact that the working time directive which the post lauds in top of the "most expensive pieces of EU legislation" list as well... but apparently the EU has nothing to do with it!
And you know as well as I do that it's necessary for Leave to rebut Hattiesque nonsense about the EU being the font of all workers rights. It's simply untrue.
Correct. But Leave do need to explain if either: EU workers' rights go too far and are expensive and unnecessary; or EU worker's rights add nothing as we do it ourselves.
By comparison although Hattie's comments about the EU being the sole source of workers' rights are disingenuous, at least the worker's rights = good is consistent.
I'm genuinely puzzled here.
Why should Leave need to do anything? They aren't HMG. They're a coalition of viewpoints that believes we're better off out. I'm not expecting LabourLeave to do so, anymore than GrassrootsOut.
Well, as a voter, should I vote leave to protect worker's rights or should I vote leave to get rid of them?
You'll vote for a Party that you believe will support your own preferences, like every other election.
Leave aren't in Government and aren't a single Party.
At the GE, I vote for a party that puts forward a single, united view of how Britain would be different if I voted for them and I vote on the basis of that.
I have difficulty voting for Leave because they aren't putting forward a single view, as you accept.
If "LEAVE" have made a mistake it is regarding migration:
This has never been an issue for those 'sensible' protaganists for "BrExit". What angers people is the inability and confliction from a bunch-of-folk t.....
Had 'LEAVE' made this about soveriengty, free-trade and international-cooperation then I think "BOO" would be ahead in...
:God-Save-The-Queen:!
Completely wrong. In the end immigration is the one thing that can and might win it for LEAVE. They've lost the economic case, sovereignty is too airy-fairy for many people, but immigration is an absolute killer.
Sensible REMAINIANS know this and worry. They can always scream RACIST but too many voters don't care any more, having seen it all their lives.
Essentially, a vote for REMAIN is a vote that says: I accept that the UK will never have anything like full and proper control over migration into this country, for the rest of the foreseeable future.
Absolutely right. If Remain wins now then the British people will have actively endorsed ongoing, large-scale immigration into the UK - as per government policy - and no-one will ever be able to claim again that they were not asked. That's why I have always expected Leave to win.
Only if Remain win a landslide, if Remain scrape home it will only be because economic fears beat immigration fears, the latter fears still remain
A win for Remain means double egg and chips for those who voted Leave. It's a disaster movie in the making. At least Yessers in Scotland had some concessions from HMG - Leavers can't be appeased as it's beyond HMG's gift. The issues around EU control will only grow.
Good point, since Cameron delivered only tiny positives and one major negative from the renegotiation, there is no consolation for LEAVErs if they lose the referendum.
One question does arise. What if the EU agrees with Cameron a new deal in the 3 weeks remaining as part of a Vow mark 2? For example. 1. A cut of 25% in the UK contribution to the EU. 2. An immediate brake on immigration from the EU - if UK wish to use it.
We know that the EU has a team working on the referendum within the Commission an dthe risk of a LEAVE vote may panic them? Or are they only going to deploy it after a LEAVE vote?
I'd be totally unsurprised by a last gasp offer from the EU to queer the pitch.
Yes, which is why ironically the best bet for UKIP is a very close Remain win rather than a Leave vote
I keep reading that on here but I don't think it is true. If we are talking about a future for UKIP as a political party then I think the best result would be a leave vote after which it can move on to being a party of the people Labour no longer want to represent and the Conservatives don't give a shit about. They will probably never achieve power but they will have a useful role to perform at local and national levels.
No, a Leave vote would kill UKIP's raison d'etre, no one apart from an obsessive few are going to vote for it for more grammar schools or because they are annoyed by gay marriage. It would fade into a minor pressure group at best or disappear completely at worst. A narrow Remain vote though, with Labour weak and having backed Remain, would immediately set UKIP up as effectively the principal opposition party in the UK to the pro-EU Tory government, much as opposition to the Iraq War set the LDs up as effectively the main opposition under Charles Kennedy to New Labour's pro Iraq War government when the Tories were weak and had also backed the War
I agree that a Leave vote should kill UKIP. It would have lost is only legitimate reason for existing.
Yes, and something which many if not most members of UKIP would probably be happy with. However, there is currently a section of society which the main two political parties seem to want to ignore at both local and national levels. That is a niche market, if you will forgive the term, that could and, in my view for the common good, should be met. UKIP are well placed to do so. Whether they could or even would want to is another matter.
However, I maintain that for the members of UKIP a leave vote i not the worst that could happen and a narrow remain is not the best.
If it is Leave then supposedly we get a grip on immigration and much of the reason for that disillusion amongst the working class goes with it
Mr. Hyfud, There are a lot more issues than just immigration that exercise the minds of the people the main parties want to ignore.
They've already given their verdict on Mr Miliband once - not up to it - and will be irritated to have the same proposal made again
But Gaitskell did not resign post 1959 election. Neither did Heath in 1966 . Nor Churchill in 1945.
And Churchill won in 1951. Wilson didn't resign in 1970 and won in 1974
Wilson had won the 1964 and 1966 elections before he lost in 1970
True. Well Kinnock didn't resign after the 1983 defeat and was winning in the polls before the 1987 election.
Foot was leader after the 1983 election and resigned. In 1987 Kinnock increased the Labour share of the vote by 3% and won 20 extra Labour MPs. In 2015 Ed Miliband lost 26 Labour MPs and increased its share of the vote by only a little over 1%
"Perhaps because I was born into the Establishment, I find its arrogance and presumption especially unattractive – and its failings obvious.
Over the past 100 years alone, the Establishment has consistently picked the wrong side; favouring appeasement, supporting European integration – including membership of the disastrous Exchange Rate Mechanism – loathing Margaret Thatcher, and, for many years, adoring Tony Blair, even when he invaded Iraq.
Now it assumes a nation yellower than a Lib Dem leaflet will be frightened into remaining in the European Union. Virgil's 'Monstrum Horrendum' has been conjured up to cow a people.
If "LEAVE" have made a mistake it is regarding migration:
This has never been an issue for those 'sensible' protaganists for "BrExit". What angers people is the inability and confliction from a bunch-of-folk that impose benefit-equivilance upon use but, yet, raised stipulations from foriegn 'bishoprics' upon realms of-which they have no legitimacy.
Had 'LEAVE' made this about soveriengty, free-trade and international-cooperation then I think "BOO" would be ahead in the polls by miles: Noone wishes to see Poles , Pakistanis or Phillipinoes denied the honest chance to work in England (though they may bulk at other, Celtic, regions). Our ability to determine our own future was stolen in 1973 and 1975: Time to fight back...!
:God-Save-The-Queen:!
Completely wrong. In the end immigration is the one thing that can and might win it for LEAVE. They've lost the economic case, sovereignty is too airy-fairy for many people, but immigration is an absolute killer.
Sensible REMAINIANS know this and worry. They can always scream RACIST but too many voters don't care any more, having seen it all their lives.
Essentially, a vote for REMAIN is a vote that says: I accept that the UK will never have anything like full and proper control over migration into this country, for the rest of the foreseeable future.
Absolutely right. If Remain wins now then the British people will have actively endorsed ongoing, large-scale immigration into the UK - as per government policy - and no-one will ever be able to claim again that they were not asked. That's why I have always expected Leave to win.
Only if Remain win a landslide, if Remain scrape home it will only be because economic fears beat immigration fears, the latter fears still remain
Of course, the worries will still be there. But the voters will have had their say.
Out of interest you called the 2015 GE right what did you predict for 2010? A Tory minority?
"Perhaps because I was born into the Establishment, I find its arrogance and presumption especially unattractive – and its failings obvious.
Over the past 100 years alone, the Establishment has consistently picked the wrong side; favouring appeasement, supporting European integration – including membership of the disastrous Exchange Rate Mechanism – loathing Margaret Thatcher, and, for many years, adoring Tony Blair, even when he invaded Iraq.
Now it assumes a nation yellower than a Lib Dem leaflet will be frightened into remaining in the European Union. Virgil's 'Monstrum Horrendum' has been conjured up to cow a people.
The most amazing fact of this war fare in the Conservative party is that those on the Brexit side believe getting rid of David Cameron and calling an early Autumn election would result in an increased mandate. I do not believe that for one moment as a post David Cameron conservative party, probably with Boris as leader, would put off a vast number of voters and probably see a minority conservative government with no one prepared to negotiate a viable government, also a left leaning House of Lords that would paralysis any legislation put forward. There are parts of the conservative party that really do not get it as this is as good as it is likely to get, irrespective of labour's present problems
Seriously, what's this Boris as leader nonsense? There's not a single Tory backing him here, and I've never met one with a party vote suggesting him either anywhere.
Comments
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorriesMP 9m9 minutes ago
Drinks and lunch with @montie before train home. (Ps He put me up to it!)
If Remain win but we then see the revolution in the Tory party and end up with a very Leave dominated Tory party perhaps with a few UKIP MP's after 2020. Would you say they would be justified in simply invoking Article 50 without a further referendum.
For the record I don't but I am interested in the views of others on this.
"I think that a distinctive Labour position is necessary to win".
Which distinctive Labour position? The Harold Wilson position or the Jezza position? I remember in the 1960s, the hatred of Harold by the Trots. As far as they were concerned, he was a traitor.
That was a long time ago. The Labour Party may now be a London-centric, middle-class 'progressive' grouping. It used to be led by that group but their main priority was the working class. Now they are viewed with condescension at best.
Ask Ms Thornberry.
At least Yessers in Scotland had some concessions from HMG - Leavers can't be appeased as it's beyond HMG's gift. The issues around EU control will only grow.
Completely wrong. In the end immigration is the one thing that can and might win it for LEAVE. They've lost the economic case, sovereignty is too airy-fairy for many people, but immigration is an absolute killer.
Sensible REMAINIANS know this and worry. They can always scream RACIST but too many voters don't care any more, having seen it all their lives.
Essentially, a vote for REMAIN is a vote that says: I accept that the UK will never have anything like full and proper control over migration into this country, for the rest of the foreseeable future.
Put like that a LEAVE vote is a cert.
See this REMAINAIC musing here:
https://medium.com/@leftoutside/how-leave-weaponise-migration-and-win-the-referendum-e4b11d25be35#.suqr178xh
Absolutely right. If Remain wins now then the British people will have actively endorsed ongoing, large-scale immigration into the UK - as per government policy - and no-one will ever be able to claim again that they were not asked. That's why I have always expected Leave to win.
Only if Remain win a landslide, if Remain scrape home it will only be because economic fears beat immigration fears, the latter fears still remain
Of course, the worries will still be there. But the voters will have had their say.
Another question (apologies, I ask you because you give sensible balanced replies from the Remain side.) Based on your comment about voters having had their say.
If Remain win but we then see the revolution in the Tory party and end up with a very Leave dominated Tory party perhaps with a few UKIP MP's after 2020. Would you say they would be justified in simply invoking Article 50 without a further referendum.
For the record I don't but I am interested in the views of others on this.
Are you serious - No one would be able to pull that one
We would have never doubled our spending IN REAL TERMS prior to the 2007/8 crash.
We would not have needed austerity to rescue us from Brown's disaster.
1. Firstly and most importantly he is a current MP so he’s an eligible candidate if there is a vacancy. Unlike David Miliband or Ed Balls.
2. Next there are rumours that he could be invited into the shadow cabinet.
3. After the GE he looked like a hopeless case but since then Labour have jumped out of the frying pan into the fire with Corbyn’s appointment as Labour leader. In comparison to Corbyn EM looks like a proper leader.
4. Despite his defeat at the GE, EM could be a unifying figure should Corbyn voluntarily step down. He is to the left of the party so he could be well placed to gain the support of the Corbynites - and the Unions who of course backed him originally.
5. He could play the role of a Michael Howard transitional leader and start to move the Labour party back towards a semblance of political reality.
6. If Corbyn leads Labour to GE defeat in 2020, EM could be appointed next Labour leader after that defeat while Labour undergoes a root and branch review of their situation. So the bet has the potential to deliver either side of the next GE.
At 200/1 it's a value bet. I'm on!
Many of these people have been major advocates for flexible labour markets, which, whatever their problems, do create opportunities for incomers in a way that more closed economies don't. However it does feel in a way that our economy is almost addicted to low wage immigration. I can't get the idea out of my head of an army that has an endless supply of soldiers to send out as cannon fodder and so never bothers itself with strategic planning or the technology it's using.
* Boris calls Dave out on immigration
* 700 migrants drown trying to get into Italy
* Border Force question 19 found in inflatable dinghy off Kent coast
One question does arise. What if the EU agrees with Cameron a new deal in the 3 weeks remaining as part of a Vow mark 2? For example.
1. A cut of 25% in the UK contribution to the EU.
2. An immediate brake on immigration from the EU - if UK wish to use it.
We know that the EU has a team working on the referendum within the Commission an dthe risk of a LEAVE vote may panic them? Or are they only going to deploy it after a LEAVE vote?
2. I already said in the post you replied to that I would not agree with it but that is because of my personal views. I don't know what the legal view is or hw others would view. it.
If only Cameron had conducted a genuine renegotiation (as he promised he would) with genuine reforms, all of this could have been avoided.
What a disaster he's turned out to be...
Nice to see you join the people at last, Tyson. Your Tuscan idyll has purified your once debased rentier heart. Leave is the only hope for the working man.
Should Cameron still be Prime Minister on 6th July I assume he'll have a lot of questions to answer as why he delayed publication of Chilcot until after the referendum... Looks very much like another establishment stitch up to protect Blair until the referendum is out of the way.
Likewise, national governments find their aligned currency from european integration limiting options for economic responses.
Last night, prior to the publication of this thread, with Ladbrokes Ed Miliband was 200/1 to be next Labour leader, now he's 80/1
One of my points made frequently here is that the immigration frenzy is being used by the upper echelons of LEAVE to encourage a Brexit, without any serious plans - or intent! - to do something about it other than token gestures.
Remain are 1/6
Still at least you managed to avoid describing Cameron as a posh boy so well done......
The oil blockade in France and the three day general strike in Greece are mainly concerned with the erosion of workers' rights within the EU.
You're a market mover
Leave aren't in Government and aren't a single Party.
However, I maintain that for the members of UKIP a leave vote i not the worst that could happen and a narrow remain is not the best.
I think that McDonnell is doing good work on the economic side (whatever one thinks of his past comments on other things) - the recent conference had more serious analysis and serious work that anything in 2010-15, and the call to balance the current budget while borrowing for investment is a mainstream position backed by The Economist and numerous other non-lefties.
I'm instinctively sympathetic to a leftie approach, working to get a better grip on multinationals in particular (and that does need multinational effort - one reason I'm pro-EU) and working actively to stem the trend to greater inequality and less power for individuals as both workers and consumers. But, as I said in the quote that Southam has found, I'm open to centrists bringing forward interesting ideas too, as they're starting to do. The centre ground in the Labour Party is now clearly on the left but it's not hostile to constructive proposals - you have to go right down to a few nutty individuals to find anyone talking about traitors and the like now, and I'd argue that there is more creative thinking going on now than there has been in the party for some years.
Very straightforward £350m a week message.
"I think that McDonnell is doing good work on the economic side (whatever one thinks of his past comments on other things)"
I read some of what he has been saying about the economy and the way forward the other day and found myself agreeing with rather a lot of it. He carries far too much baggage for me to ever vote for the bloke or a party that tolerates his views on "other matters" and it maybe those views which stop him getting a proper hearing. Nonetheless he is coming out with some interesting stuff that deserves to be heard.
I have difficulty voting for Leave because they aren't putting forward a single view, as you accept.
"Perhaps because I was born into the Establishment, I find its arrogance and presumption especially unattractive – and its failings obvious.
Over the past 100 years alone, the Establishment has consistently picked the wrong side; favouring appeasement, supporting European integration – including membership of the disastrous Exchange Rate Mechanism – loathing Margaret Thatcher, and, for many years, adoring Tony Blair, even when he invaded Iraq.
Now it assumes a nation yellower than a Lib Dem leaflet will be frightened into remaining in the European Union. Virgil's 'Monstrum Horrendum' has been conjured up to cow a people.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3614626/JACOB-REES-MOGG-Yes-victory-bloody-final.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
"Perhaps because I was born into the Establishment, I find its arrogance and presumption especially unattractive – and its failings obvious.
Over the past 100 years alone, the Establishment has consistently picked the wrong side; favouring appeasement, supporting European integration – including membership of the disastrous Exchange Rate Mechanism – loathing Margaret Thatcher, and, for many years, adoring Tony Blair, even when he invaded Iraq.
Now it assumes a nation yellower than a Lib Dem leaflet will be frightened into remaining in the European Union. Virgil's 'Monstrum Horrendum' has been conjured up to cow a people.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3614626/JACOB-REES-MOGG-Yes-victory-bloody-final.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490