No, we won't. All government economic and fiscal targets are predicated on high immigration. Most commentators - even Leave ones - expect a short term hit to growth if Leave wins. That will mean a reduction in the tax take and so more borrowing, even more cuts or tax rises, or maybe a bit of all three
As you say short term.
At a minimum. But even short term hits to government income will have long term effects.
Stop this Project Fear stuff.
We've survived a bloody great financial crash. Stop trying to portray a blip as a depression.
We will, in any case, have all our contributions to the EU and any tariffs levied in the absence of trade deals.
And the benefits of any trade deals we can negotiate on our own without the need to please vested interests in 27 other countries.
OT Someone on FB posted up a fragment of poetry which I think sums up perfectly the current argument over Brexit. This should be on a Leave poster
“There is freedom waiting for you, On the breezes of the sky, And you ask "What if I fall?" Oh but my darling, What if you fly?”
That may (or may not) accurately represent the 2015 argument over Brexit, but for the past 3/4 weeks the current argument has been:
“There is freedom waiting for you, On the breezes of the sky, And you ask "What if I fall?" Oh but my darling, MIGRANTS MIGRANTS MIGRANTS MIGRANTS LOOK LOOK LOOK MIGRANTS MIGRANTS MIGRANTS EW!”
Nope. The last 3/4 days, perhaps, but not weeks.
I'm repeating a point I made to Richard, but: * it was about 3/4 weeks ago that Gove did the "LOOK! MIGRANTS" article in the Mail, * a few days prior to that there was the article (I think in the Times, but YMMV) where a LEAVE campaigner said that mentioning Albania actually helped LEAVE * the five questions in this week's Sun was actually trailed a few weeks back - possibly earlier, but I haven't been keeping a timeline
If you want to be charitable LEAVE stumbled upon this approach by accident after the failure of their economic approach (I am somewhat more cynical), but the coverage in the Mail/Sun/Express for the last 3/4 weeks has been overwhelmingly about migration. I appreciate the Newsnight article about LEAVE going full antimigration was last week, but the ground war has been overwhelmingly antimigration for weeks prior to that, and for the Sun and respondents to campaigners in the street it's been that way for months.
He's been saying this to anyone who'll listen since Trump announced. If true all it would guarantee would be to split the Republican vote, elect the Democrat, and put liberal justices on the Supreme Court.
Hardly a result a conservative would normally want.
On the other hand, Trump has started ridiculing him over the last couple of days in his speeches.
He's been saying this to anyone who'll listen since Trump announced. If true all it would guarantee would be to split the Republican vote, elect the Democrat, and put liberal justices on the Supreme Court.
Hardly a result a conservative would normally want.
Indeed, which is why Trump tweeted what he did. Kristol does not care, he hates the Clintons and Trump equally
As well as the "race" to blackpool being all of 2 minutes...what was the staff from Chris' local curry house sitting on top of a random car all about. They were introduced at the start of the show and I presumed they were going to be involved in some segment ala the way Soccer AM* has fans come on every week and take part, but no that was it.
* now that is a show really is flogging a dead horse.
No, we won't. All government economic and fiscal targets are predicated on high immigration. Most commentators - even Leave ones - expect a short term hit to growth if Leave wins. That will mean a reduction in the tax take and so more borrowing, even more cuts or tax rises, or maybe a bit of all three
As you say short term.
At a minimum. But even short term hits to government income will have long term effects.
Stop this Project Fear stuff.
We've survived a bloody great financial crash. Stop trying to portray a blip as a depression.
We will, in any case, have all our contributions to the EU and any tariffs levied in the absence of trade deals.
And the benefits of any trade deals we can negotiate on our own without the need to please vested interests in 27 other countries.
Like for food, for instance.
Exactly.
I want my bananas free of any EU edicts and 16% cheaper.
What will Britain be like with 75 million people? 85 million? How many will be hardcore Muslim and refuse to integrate? is there no end? 90 million. 100 million. It's fucking nuts.
No more mad than perpetual economic growth that essentially all economies require to keep the plates spinning. Eventually the laws of physics will get in the way.
There's no law of physics preventing constant economic growth. It just means people get gradually better at making stuff and as a result make more of it. Making stuff consists of changing things in one shape to another shape and moving them around. Matter is conserved, so you're not going to run out of things.
Ah, but there are physical laws that govern economic growth. Ultimately they relate to the efficiency of energy usage in systems, particularly photosynthesis. For example, no matter the technological progress we make in genetically modifying organisms, there is a limit to how much food can be grown on the planet governed ultimately by how efficiently chloroplasts convert solar energy into chemical energy. We are not yet near the asymptote for that yet, but it exists. We breach the asymptote only by using up non-renewable energy, or by expanding the system.
There's a theoretical point in *population* growth where you run out of sunlight to feed everybody, if you assume space is off-limits. But even the sunlight-constrained maximum-population world could keep the economy growing by gradually increasing the efficiency with which it made things other than food.
OT Someone on FB posted up a fragment of poetry which I think sums up perfectly the current argument over Brexit. This should be on a Leave poster
“There is freedom waiting for you, On the breezes of the sky, And you ask "What if I fall?" Oh but my darling, What if you fly?”
That may (or may not) accurately represent the 2015 argument over Brexit, but for the past 3/4 weeks the current argument has been:
“There is freedom waiting for you, On the breezes of the sky, And you ask "What if I fall?" Oh but my darling, MIGRANTS MIGRANTS MIGRANTS MIGRANTS LOOK LOOK LOOK MIGRANTS MIGRANTS MIGRANTS EW!”
Nope. The last 3/4 days, perhaps, but not weeks.
I'm repeating a point I made to Richard, but: * it was about 3/4 weeks ago that Gove did the "LOOK! MIGRANTS" article in the Mail, * a few days prior to that there was the article (I think in the Times, but YMMV) where a LEAVE campaigner said that mentioning Albania actually helped LEAVE * the five questions in this week's Sun was actually trailed a few weeks back - possibly earlier, but I haven't been keeping a timeline
If you want to be charitable LEAVE stumbled upon this approach by accident after the failure of their economic approach (I am somewhat more cynical), but the coverage in the Mail/Sun/Express for the last 3/4 weeks has been overwhelmingly about migration. I appreciate the Newsnight article about LEAVE going full antimigration was last week, but the ground war has been overwhelmingly antimigration for weeks prior to that, and for the Sun and respondents to campaigners in the street it's been that way for months.
The leaflets I've been delivering for weeks mention immigration, but only amongst a raft of other issues - EU budget contributions, sovereignty, etc.
Sure, migration has been mentioned, but only has been majored on the last few days after Turkey accession and the migration figures bombshell.
I have noticed migration featuring in the economic forecasts, but that was by Remain.
The leaflets I've been delivering for weeks mention immigration, but only amongst a raft of other issues - EU budget contributions, sovereignty, etc.
Sure, migration has been mentioned, but only has been majored on the last few days after Turkey accession and the migration figures bombshell.
I have noticed migration featuring in the economic forecasts, but that was by Remain.
I can't speak for the innermost workings of LEAVE. But I can speak for the face LEAVE campaigners present in the newspapers, because that's public domain. I assume from your response that like Richard you don't read the Mail and the Sun. If you did then you would have noticed that after Obama's intervention Gove went full anti-immigration in the Mail and it's been full-on ever since. Here's some links:
He's been saying this to anyone who'll listen since Trump announced. If true all it would guarantee would be to split the Republican vote, elect the Democrat, and put liberal justices on the Supreme Court.
Hardly a result a conservative would normally want.
On the other hand, Trump has started ridiculing him over the last couple of days in his speeches.
You'd be staring at a very red betfair screen if you listened to all of Bill's crap.
What will Britain be like with 75 million people? 85 million? How many will be hardcore Muslim and refuse to integrate? is there no end? 90 million. 100 million. It's fucking nuts.
No more mad than perpetual economic growth that essentially all economies require to keep the plates spinning. Eventually the laws of physics will get in the way.
There's no law of physics preventing constant economic growth. It just means people get gradually better at making stuff and as a result make more of it. Making stuff consists of changing things in one shape to another shape and moving them around. Matter is conserved, so you're not going to run out of things.
Ah, but there are physical laws that govern economic growth. Ultimately they relate to the efficiency of energy usage in systems, particularly photosynthesis. For example, no matter the technological progress we make in genetically modifying organisms, there is a limit to how much food can be grown on the planet governed ultimately by how efficiently chloroplasts convert solar energy into chemical energy. We are not yet near the asymptote for that yet, but it exists. We breach the asymptote only by using up non-renewable energy, or by expanding the system.
There's a theoretical point in *population* growth where you run out of sunlight to feed everybody, if you assume space is off-limits. But even the sunlight-constrained maximum-population world could keep the economy growing by gradually increasing the efficiency with which it made things other than food.
In the medium term we can likely improve chloroplast efficiency. And the other reactions of photosynthesis (C4 vs C3, for example)
Governor Gary Johnson has just won the Libertarian Party Nomination for President!
www.garyjohnson2016.com
Ok this was the expected result, so no big news, but so far there have been 4 opinion poles that have included his name and all 4 have him at 10% or more. Now he has formaly won the nomination, I think there will be more poles conducted with his name on. The interest from that could feed back an put him over 15% and get him in the debates. if so he could, as a relatively unknown quantity, beat expectations, as Nick Clegg did in the 2010 debates in the UK.
On election day he does not need to win 50% of voters, he does not even need to win more voters that the over partys, all he needs to do is win sufishent number of states to, deny the other 2 of 270 Electrale Collage Votes, and then it goes to the US House of Representatives.
The House of Reps is curently Republican led, but there are 40-80 liberty minded republican reps who I think would much prefer Johnson to Trump, (maybe more?) who I think would be happy to team up with the Democrats, to stop Trump.
A lot of maybes and what ifs, Johnson remaines a long shot, but he is getting shorter!
This is an intriguing possibility BigRich.
Prior to your post I had never heard of Gary Johnson or the Libertarian Party. So I'm astounded to learn that he is polling 10%+ in POTUS match ups with Clinton and Trump BEFORE he'd managed to secure the Libertarian nomination.
The fact that he could make the debates if he scales 15% support suggests to me that this is not a wild idea. The VP nominee, Weld, is apparently up until very recently a Kasich supporter so it's quite plausible that Johnson and Weld get the support of the "Anyone But Trump" Republicans.
This is the most unusual and divisive POTUS election in a generation with two hugely unpopular and arguable unsuitable leading candidates in Clinton and Trump. If I was a US citizen I would be crying out for an alternative.
I've just had a listen to Gary Johnson making a speech at a Ron Paul rally in 2012. He comes over as sincere, fairly impressive and normal.
What will Britain be like with 75 million people? 85 million? How many will be hardcore Muslim and refuse to integrate? is there no end? 90 million. 100 million. It's fucking nuts.
No more mad than perpetual economic growth that essentially all economies require to keep the plates spinning. Eventually the laws of physics will get in the way.
There's no law of physics preventing constant economic growth. It just means people get gradually better at making stuff and as a result make more of it. Making stuff consists of changing things in one shape to another shape and moving them around. Matter is conserved, so you're not going to run out of things.
Ah, but there are physical laws that govern economic growth. Ultimately they relate to the efficiency of energy usage in systems, particularly photosynthesis. For example, no matter the technological progress we make in genetically modifying organisms, there is a limit to how much food can be grown on the planet governed ultimately by how efficiently chloroplasts convert solar energy into chemical energy. We are not yet near the asymptote for that yet, but it exists. We breach the asymptote only by using up non-renewable energy, or by expanding the system.
There's a theoretical point in *population* growth where you run out of sunlight to feed everybody, if you assume space is off-limits. But even the sunlight-constrained maximum-population world could keep the economy growing by gradually increasing the efficiency with which it made things other than food.
In the medium term we can likely improve chloroplast efficiency. And the other reactions of photosynthesis (C4 vs C3, for example)
We wil, however, probably maintain economic growth by murdering each other with increasingly expensive weapons, as seems to have been the plan to date.
Yes, they truly are like the Bourbons "Forgotten nothing and learned nothing". So not only do they think they're going to lose the referendum, they're happy to deliver the country up into the hands of a Europhile Labour government. Unlike Labour I don't believe in deselecting MPs who I disagree with - but could easily be tempted to make an exception or two..
What will Britain be like with 75 million people? 85 million? How many will be hardcore Muslim and refuse to integrate? is there no end? 90 million. 100 million. It's fucking nuts.
No more mad than perpetual economic growth that essentially all economies require to keep the plates spinning. Eventually the laws of physics will get in the way.
There's no law of physics preventing constant economic growth. It just means people get gradually better at making stuff and as a result make more of it. Making stuff consists of changing things in one shape to another shape and moving them around. Matter is conserved, so you're not going to run out of things.
Ah, but there are physical laws that govern economic growth. Ultimately they relate to the efficiency of energy usage in systems, particularly photosynthesis. For example, no matter the technological progress we make in genetically modifying organisms, there is a limit to how much food can be grown on the planet governed ultimately by how efficiently chloroplasts convert solar energy into chemical energy. We are not yet near the asymptote for that yet, but it exists. We breach the asymptote only by using up non-renewable energy, or by expanding the system.
There's a theoretical point in *population* growth where you run out of sunlight to feed everybody, if you assume space is off-limits. But even the sunlight-constrained maximum-population world could keep the economy growing by gradually increasing the efficiency with which it made things other than food.
In the medium term we can likely improve chloroplast efficiency. And the other reactions of photosynthesis (C4 vs C3, for example)
We wil, however, probably maintain economic growth by murdering each other with increasingly expensive weapons, as seems to have been the plan to date.
Yes, they truly are like the Bourbons "Forgotten nothing and learned nothing". So not only do they think they're going to lose the referendum, they're happy to deliver the country up into the hands of a Europhile Labour government. Unlike Labour I don't believe in deselecting MPs who I disagree with - but could easily be tempted to make an exception or two..
I wouldn't worry. As soon as the referendum is over, the labour party is going to blow itself up over chilcott. (much as I agree that blair's behaviour over iraq was disgraceful and possibly criminal, I don't think their priority should be fighting the election before last). The tories will probably look united by comparision
What will Britain be like with 75 million people? 85 million? How many will be hardcore Muslim and refuse to integrate? is there no end? 90 million. 100 million. It's fucking nuts.
No more mad than perpetual economic growth that essentially all economies require to keep the plates spinning. Eventually the laws of physics will get in the way.
There's no law of physics preventing constant economic growth. It just means people get gradually better at making stuff and as a result make more of it. Making stuff consists of changing things in one shape to another shape and moving them around. Matter is conserved, so you're not going to run out of things.
Ah, but there are physical laws that govern economic growth. Ultimately they relate to the efficiency of energy usage in systems, particularly photosynthesis. For example, no matter the technological progress we make in genetically modifying organisms, there is a limit to how much food can be grown on the planet governed ultimately by how efficiently chloroplasts convert solar energy into chemical energy. We are not yet near the asymptote for that yet, but it exists. We breach the asymptote only by using up non-renewable energy, or by expanding the system.
There's a theoretical point in *population* growth where you run out of sunlight to feed everybody, if you assume space is off-limits. But even the sunlight-constrained maximum-population world could keep the economy growing by gradually increasing the efficiency with which it made things other than food.
In the medium term we can likely improve chloroplast efficiency. And the other reactions of photosynthesis (C4 vs C3, for example)
We wil, however, probably maintain economic growth by murdering each other with increasingly expensive weapons, as seems to have been the plan to date.
Where I think Mike goes awry, and which contributed to this site's GE2015 debacle, is equating circulation with influence. The memes are set by headlines which we see online, in shopfronts and kiosks. I never buy a paper but the Sky headlines or Nick Sutton's is always one of my first ports of call. Then the next day I catch site of those papers everywhere I go. People at work don't buy a paper each, they're knocking around over coffee. We see those headlines everywhere we go.
They have MASSIVE influence still. Indeed, I cannot think of a single occasion in the last 50 years where the general public have gone against them. It's often the other way around.
The newspapers won the 1992 and 2015 General Elections.*
To add spice to this: Cameron has personally staked all on Remain winning. Now he himself is becoming toxic he risks dragging down Remain with him. Kind of ironic, don't you think?
Where I think Mike goes awry, and which contributed to this site's GE2015 debacle, is equating circulation with influence. The memes are set by headlines which we see online, in shopfronts and kiosks. I never buy a paper but the Sky headlines or Nick Sutton's is always one of my first ports of call. Then the next day I catch site of those papers everywhere I go. People at work don't buy a paper each, they're knocking around over coffee. We see those headlines everywhere we go.
They have MASSIVE influence still. Indeed, I cannot think of a single occasion in the last 50 years where the general public have gone against them. It's often the other way around.
The newspapers won the 1992 and 2015 General Elections.*
To add spice to this: Cameron has personally staked all on Remain winning. Now he himself is becoming toxic he risks dragging down Remain with him. Kind of ironic, don't you think?
(* The maulings of the Welsh Windbag and EdM)
No they did not and of course the Tories failed to win the 2010 election despite the backing of most of the newspapers. Newspapers follow opinion they do not lead it otherwise why in 2015 did the Scottish Sun back the SNP and the English Sun the Tories
Comments
https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/737025756488978432
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/737056428452630528
* it was about 3/4 weeks ago that Gove did the "LOOK! MIGRANTS" article in the Mail,
* a few days prior to that there was the article (I think in the Times, but YMMV) where a LEAVE campaigner said that mentioning Albania actually helped LEAVE
* the five questions in this week's Sun was actually trailed a few weeks back - possibly earlier, but I haven't been keeping a timeline
If you want to be charitable LEAVE stumbled upon this approach by accident after the failure of their economic approach (I am somewhat more cynical), but the coverage in the Mail/Sun/Express for the last 3/4 weeks has been overwhelmingly about migration. I appreciate the Newsnight article about LEAVE going full antimigration was last week, but the ground war has been overwhelmingly antimigration for weeks prior to that, and for the Sun and respondents to campaigners in the street it's been that way for months.
Hardly a result a conservative would normally want.
On the other hand, Trump has started ridiculing him over the last couple of days in his speeches.
https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/735602064202551296
* now that is a show really is flogging a dead horse.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/7182239/Top-Gear-host-Chris-ranted-at-cast-and-crew-for-20-minutes-before-filming-an-episode-of-show.html
Sure, migration has been mentioned, but only has been majored on the last few days after Turkey accession and the migration figures bombshell.
I have noticed migration featuring in the economic forecasts, but that was by Remain.
* 30 April: EU wants to open the door to another 88million migrants, says Gove
* 7 May:
The leading Leave campaigner [Gove] also warns that the NHS and schools will not be able to cope with the further influx of immigrants that will come to the UK if the country stays in the EU.
* 20 May: Another five million migrants from the EU could come to the UK by 2030
* 21 May: A migrant influx equivalent to the population of Scotland will put "unsustainable" pressure on the NHS by 2030 unless Britain quits the EU, Justice Secretary Michael Gove has warned.
No they are not.
Prior to your post I had never heard of Gary Johnson or the Libertarian Party. So I'm astounded to learn that he is polling 10%+ in POTUS match ups with Clinton and Trump BEFORE he'd managed to secure the Libertarian nomination.
The fact that he could make the debates if he scales 15% support suggests to me that this is not a wild idea. The VP nominee, Weld, is apparently up until very recently a Kasich supporter so it's quite plausible that Johnson and Weld get the support of the "Anyone But Trump" Republicans.
This is the most unusual and divisive POTUS election in a generation with two hugely unpopular and arguable unsuitable leading candidates in Clinton and Trump. If I was a US citizen I would be crying out for an alternative.
I've just had a listen to Gary Johnson making a speech at a Ron Paul rally in 2012. He comes over as sincere, fairly impressive and normal.
This link outlines how he might be successful, confirming some of BigRich's arguments. http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/gary-johnson-polls-chances-can-win-general-election-get-in-debate/
At 1000 on Betfair - until I hoovered up what was available at this price, now 810 - he looks a great value long shot.
I'm on!
Send them back!
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/14/solar-ian-mcewan
an enjoyable read, i thought.
nuclear energy is all right. not especially dangerous compared with other sources (and I probably live close to Fukushima than most posters on here).
Where I think Mike goes awry, and which contributed to this site's GE2015 debacle, is equating circulation with influence. The memes are set by headlines which we see online, in shopfronts and kiosks. I never buy a paper but the Sky headlines or Nick Sutton's is always one of my first ports of call. Then the next day I catch site of those papers everywhere I go. People at work don't buy a paper each, they're knocking around over coffee. We see those headlines everywhere we go.
They have MASSIVE influence still. Indeed, I cannot think of a single occasion in the last 50 years where the general public have gone against them. It's often the other way around.
The newspapers won the 1992 and 2015 General Elections.*
To add spice to this: Cameron has personally staked all on Remain winning. Now he himself is becoming toxic he risks dragging down Remain with him. Kind of ironic, don't you think?
(* The maulings of the Welsh Windbag and EdM)
nothing to do with chilcott, really, but interesting nonetheless