Dier is running on empty. He needs a rest. Not taking Drinkwater will turn out to be a big mistake.
It's good to know that in addition to politics, polling, International Law, climate change, economics, engineering, mathematics and turnips, PB also has experts on International football management posting here regularly...
Also trains. Don't forget the trains, Mr. P., also history (especially the Punic Wars) and, of course cats, border collies and grammatical pedantry. PB is a unique place.
And the tips re food, drink...
And once upon a time horses, I had my best ever Goodwood and a cracking Cheltenham courtesy of some gents on this site, though sad to say those days seem to have gone.
I think PB.com is at its very best when it is discussing betting, it is jolly good fun when it is, with a light heart, discussing anything else but it is bloody dire when posters start talking about (about not to) other posters.
Mr. Eagles, a man who confuses a battle for a war in the same sentence he claims to know what happened in the war is a silly fellow.
I did no such thing. I merely gave an executive summary.
You're approach is to say Japan had a successful second world war because they bombed the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour, invaded a load of countries/territories in 1942 and ignoring what happened after that, especially in 1944 and 1945
Ah yes, the famous "Other than that Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?" argument.
You could argue Pearl Harbour led to the greatest strategic blunder of whole war.
Hitler declaring war on America.
Made FDR's job a lot easier, and selling 'Germany First' to the American public a lot easier.
You can certainly make that argument. You could also note that the Allies cancelled a plot to kill Hitler because he was such a terrible strategist that he was one of the allies best assets.
Mr. Tokyo, we didn't invade Syria. And most of the migrants aren't Syrian or Iraqi.
They're economic migrants using illegal routes to take advantage of the situation which was hugely exacerbated by Merkel's demented utterances about a year ago.
I've googled around for numbers and assuming we're talking about the same migrants (people claiming asylum in Europe in the last year or two) I don't think you're right.
@JohnRentoul: The ICM phone poll has Remain down 7 points, Leave up 7. The online poll is unchanged from two weeks ago.
That's a quite extraordinary change to the phone poll. Has there been a methodology change? Otherwise it could, I suppose, be that the last poll was an outlier in one direction and this is an outlier in the other direction. Doesn't build confidence though.
Re New x2 ICM in Guardian "Support for Ukip appeared to have picked up, perhaps aided by the prominence of the party’s leader, Nigel Farage, during the referendum campaign, and the focus on immigration in the debate. The party scored 15% in the phone poll, up 2% from last time.
Gisela Stuart, the chair of Vote Leave and a Labour MP, told the Guardian recently that the party’s backing for remaining in the EU was, “a recruiting agent for Ukip”.
"This latest result is likely to alarm the Stronger In campaign, which had previously taken comfort from the tendency for phone polls to deliver a pro-remain verdict."
@JohnRentoul: The ICM phone poll has Remain down 7 points, Leave up 7. The online poll is unchanged from two weeks ago.
That's a quite extraordinary change to the phone poll. Has there been a methodology change? Otherwise it could, I suppose, be that the last poll was an outlier in one direction and this is an outlier in the other direction. Doesn't build confidence though.
That would be two outliers in a row.
No, what is happening is that immigration has caught up with the Remain side. They have no answers and it is going to destroy them.
A very good article. I wonder where British migrants to other EU member states fit into this. We should not forget them. Post-Brexit deals will have to be done so that they can stay where they are and new ones can join them, or we are going to have to reabsorb them. What are the social and economic costs of having an older and less productive population, with more people dependent on public services? I do not know the answer but it surely has to be part of the calculation.
Mr. Observer, may I remind you once more that prior to 1973 Brits moved abroad to live and people from abroad moved here to live. Very little paper work was involved then or now. Please do stop carrying on as if the EEC/EC/EU introduced or allowed something new.
There are for more of them going both ways now. In 1973 there were not hundreds of thousands of elderly Brits living in Spain and many, many more seeking to join them. If we pull out of the EU there automatic right of to reside there will be in doubt, as will the right of others to migrate. Some kind of deal will have to be done. Before it is, surely we should understand the cost of not doing one.
I think there are about 300,000 British Expats now living in Spain, how many of those are elderly or retired criminals or both I don't know. What I am bloody certain of is that UK policy should not be decided, even in part, by consideration of the needs of a relatively small number of people who have decided to live elsewhere.
I rather suspect that the UK diaspora is rather greater in the Middle and Far East not to mention Australia and New Zealand, but nobody is suggesting we should think about keeping policy to suit the needs of them.
My parents (and me) emigrated to Spain (Canary islands) in the mid 1960s. There were many other ex-pats there at the time, mainly Brits and Krauts. Our neighbor was a ww2 German Navy officer, who had a huge crab called Pontus, with a collection of its shells around the house. He was a lovely man, and his wife was charming, but was noticeably reticent about his wartime activities.
I suppose the (impossible) ideal would be to deal with the root-problem-at-home that causes large numbers of people to want to emigrate from their country of birth.
That would go some way to reducing the 'push' factor. But it would need large-scale direction of those countries' affairs by the nations on the receiving end of the migration.
That, I think, is known as imperialism, isn't it?
Looking at the current refugee situation it would be known as not invading middle eastern countries or funding the overthrow of their governments.
That aside, there's an interesting techno-utopian version of imperialism people have been floating recently where rich countries (or in the libertarian version, individuals or companies) would sponsor/govern/police new cities where people could get away from bad governments, which it's hoped would have successful economies like Hong Kong. Assuming you can make a voluntary deal with some government to get some land to build the city on, that makes imperialism opt-in by the imperial subjects.
Cities of refuge: what an interesting idea; thank you. Sounds as though they would need to be very easily & rapidly scaled up.
Mr. Eagles, a man who confuses a battle for a war in the same sentence he claims to know what happened in the war is a silly fellow.
I did no such thing. I merely gave an executive summary.
You're approach is to say Japan had a successful second world war because they bombed the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour, invaded a load of countries/territories in 1942 and ignoring what happened after that, especially in 1944 and 1945
Ah yes, the famous "Other than that Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?" argument.
You could argue Pearl Harbour led to the greatest strategic blunder of whole war.
Hitler declaring war on America.
Made FDR's job a lot easier, and selling 'Germany First' to the American public a lot easier.
I have heard it argued that the US severely upset the Japanese in the 20’ & 30’s, by, among other things, squeezing the British out of being ‘interested" in the Mid and North Pacific.
Mr. Tokyo, people aren't asylum seekers if they're shopping for the nicest, most generous country rather than stopping in the first safe haven,
This makes no sense. If you had to leave your home, of course you'd go wherever you thought you had the best chances of getting on with your life. You can argue that the richer countries should send then back to poorer countries if you like, but that doesn't mean they're not asylum seekers.
Immigration has benefited the UK in all aspects of life. business, public services, the NHS, the arts, sport, you name it, there are many many immigrants making the UK a better place.
But if you add >300K immigrants per year net, no matter where they are from, no matter how fabulous they are, then before too long there will be problems, even if the "native" (FWOABW) population is wholly welcoming. Infrastructure, roads, the NHS, school places, power supply to name but a few (and NOT to name anything harder to define but no less real around the issues of "integration")
If we Remain i can't see anything other than 300K+ being the norm, and hence the problems above will slowly mount up.
If we Leave, we might at least have a chance of getting it right?? People will still want to come, and come they will, by dinghy from Northern France if not by Easybus from Warsaw :-(
If non-British but EU citizens getting polling cards gets widespread media coverage, that won't help Remain.
Mr. Observer, tiny leads more than three weeks from polling day. Stiff upper lip, man.
I have been reconciled to a Leave win for a while. I think it will prove to be very bad news for the country, but you cannot argue with democracy. On a personal level it will make little difference to me, except that I will win a tasty amount of money.
Intercepted from a diplomatic communique from our Norwegian correspondent allegedly.....
“David Cameron can you hear me? David Cameron, I have a message for you in the middle of the project fear campaign. I have a message for you: We have knocked REMAIN out of the referendum.
“David Cameron, as they say in your language in the tapas bars around Notting Hill on London: Your boys took a hell of a beating! Your boys took a hell of a beating!”
Mr. Tokyo, that's the convention. It's Merkel's stupidity that threw it away. Her kind but foolish words didn't decrease the flow of migrants into Greece, Austria, Italy etc.
Economic migration is a valid reason to move but it is not the same as being a refugee.
I suppose the (impossible) ideal would be to deal with the root-problem-at-home that causes large numbers of people to want to emigrate from their country of birth.
That would go some way to reducing the 'push' factor. But it would need large-scale direction of those countries' affairs by the nations on the receiving end of the migration.
That, I think, is known as imperialism, isn't it?
Looking at the current refugee situation it would be known as not invading middle eastern countries or funding the overthrow of their governments.
That aside, there's an interesting techno-utopian version of imperialism people have been floating recently where rich countries (or in the libertarian version, individuals or companies) would sponsor/govern/police new cities where people could get away from bad governments, which it's hoped would have successful economies like Hong Kong. Assuming you can make a voluntary deal with some government to get some land to build the city on, that makes imperialism opt-in by the imperial subjects.
Cities of refuge: what an interesting idea; thank you. Sounds as though they would need to be very easily & rapidly scaled up.
The interesting thing about this is how far across the political spectrum it stretches.
I guess the big practical problem is how to persuade somebody to let you put your Free Imperial City in their country, but maybe that one can be solved with cash.
Just wondering, were these polls taken over the Bank Holiday weekend? Haven't we seen strange VI polls before over similar time, with the theory that rich educated types go away to their second homes, city breaks, etc.
Mr. Tokyo, people aren't asylum seekers if they're shopping for the nicest, most generous country rather than stopping in the first safe haven,
This makes no sense. If you had to leave your home, of course you'd go wherever you thought you had the best chances of getting on with your life. You can argue that the richer countries should send then back to poorer countries if you like, but that doesn't mean they're not asylum seekers.
One thing in the UK that I'd expect to put most migrants off is the weather. If you're used to extremes of heat, I can see you'd be glad of somewhere cooler, but surely somewhere warmer than here would be more attractive?
Just wondering, were these polls taken over the Bank Holiday weekend? Haven't we seen strange VI polls before over similar time, with the theory that rich educated types go away to their second homes, city breaks, etc.
A very good article. I wonder where British migrants to other EU member states fit into this. We should not forget them. Post-Brexit deals will have to be done so that they can stay where they are and new ones can join them, or we are going to have to reabsorb them. What are the social and economic costs of having an older and less productive population, with more people dependent on public services? I do not know the answer but it surely has to be part of the calculation.
Mr. Observer, may I remind you once more that prior to 1973 Brits moved abroad to live and people from abroad moved here to live. Very little paper work was involved then or now. Please do stop carrying on as if the EEC/EC/EU introduced or allowed something new.
There are for more of them going both ways now. In 1973 there were not hundreds of thousands of elderly Brits living in Spain and many, many more seeking to join them. If we pull out of the EU there automatic right of to reside there will be in doubt, as will the right of others to migrate. Some kind of deal will have to be done. Before it is, surely we should understand the cost of not doing one.
I think there are about 300,000 British Expats now living in Spain, how many of those are elderly or retired criminals or both I don't know. What I am bloody certain of is that UK policy should not be decided, even in part, by consideration of the needs of a relatively small number of people who have decided to live elsewhere.
I rather suspect that the UK diaspora is rather greater in the Middle and Far East not to mention Australia and New Zealand, but nobody is suggesting we should think about keeping policy to suit the needs of them.
My parents (and me) emigrated to Spain (Canary islands) in the mid 1960s. There were many other ex-pats there at the time, mainly Brits and Krauts. Our neighbor was a ww2 German Navy officer, who had a huge crab called Pontus, with a collection of its shells around the house. He was a lovely man, and his wife was charming, but was noticeably reticent about his wartime activities.
huge collection of shells, 3.7 cm, 8.8cm, 10,5 cm, 38 cm.
Mr. Betting, then that's got to be corrected rapidly. If it's tight and those not eligible to vote make the difference then the referendum result will not be legitimate.
It's hard to think of a way to close the issue down less.
A very good article. I wonder where British migrants to other EU member states fit into this. We should not forget them. Post-Brexit deals will have to be done so that they can stay where they are and new ones can join them, or we are going to have to reabsorb them. What are the social and economic costs of having an older and less productive population, with more people dependent on public services? I do not know the answer but it surely has to be part of the calculation.
Mr. Observer, may I remind you once more that prior to 1973 Brits moved abroad to live and people from abroad moved here to live. Very little paper work was involved then or now. Please do stop carrying on as if the EEC/EC/EU introduced or allowed something new.
There are for more of them going both ways now. In 1973 there were not hundreds of thousands of elderly Brits living in Spain and many, many more seeking to join them. If we pull out of the EU there automatic right of to reside there will be in doubt, as will the right of others to migrate. Some kind of deal will have to be done. Before it is, surely we should understand the cost of not doing one.
I think there are about 300,000 British Expats now living in Spain, how many of those are elderly or retired criminals or both I don't know. What I am bloody certain of is that UK policy should not be decided, even in part, by consideration of the needs of a relatively small number of people who have decided to live elsewhere.
I rather suspect that the UK diaspora is rather greater in the Middle and Far East not to mention Australia and New Zealand, but nobody is suggesting we should think about keeping policy to suit the needs of them.
The latest estimate for Brits in the UAE is 240,000, who will all be on work or investor visas. Plenty more in Oman, Qatar and Saudi, and further afield in Singapore and HK.
Mr. Tokyo, that's the convention. It's Merkel's stupidity that threw it away. Her kind but foolish words didn't decrease the flow of migrants into Greece, Austria, Italy etc.
Economic migration is a valid reason to move but it is not the same as being a refugee.
Well IIUC the convention is that if you can send someone back to a safe country they passed through before then you're not legally required to take them, but that doesn't stop them being refugees.
Game over. Immigration has killed Remain stone dead.
I think that the events of the past few days have swung opinion to Leave, but there'll be news items that favour Remain in the last three weeks of the campaign.
I suppose the (impossible) ideal would be to deal with the root-problem-at-home that causes large numbers of people to want to emigrate from their country of birth.
That would go some way to reducing the 'push' factor. But it would need large-scale direction of those countries' affairs by the nations on the receiving end of the migration.
That, I think, is known as imperialism, isn't it?
Looking at the current refugee situation it would be known as not invading middle eastern countries or funding the overthrow of their governments.
That aside, there's an interesting techno-utopian version of imperialism people have been floating recently where rich countries (or in the libertarian version, individuals or companies) would sponsor/govern/police new cities where people could get away from bad governments, which it's hoped would have successful economies like Hong Kong. Assuming you can make a voluntary deal with some government to get some land to build the city on, that makes imperialism opt-in by the imperial subjects.
Cities of refuge: what an interesting idea; thank you. Sounds as though they would need to be very easily & rapidly scaled up.
The interesting thing about this is how far across the political spectrum it stretches.
I guess the big practical problem is how to persuade somebody to let you put your Free Imperial City in their country, but maybe that one can be solved with cash.
Just establish a few "free Cities" them on the coast of North Africa. Start with Libya and "pay" a rent into an aid fund for the country. We have a massive aid budget that can be re-directed and it is time the EU countries met their obligations. Cheaper than bribing Turkey in the long term.
Game over. Immigration has killed Remain stone dead.
I think that the events of the past few days have swung opinion to Leave, but there'll be news items that favour Remain in the last three weeks of the campaign.
Oh please do not spoil a few days of cheerfulness for LEAVE.
By North of Paris, does she mean as close to the Channel Tunnel terminal as possible? Again nobody asks the question, a) if they are genuinely fleeing persecution why aren't they claiming asylum and b) if they aren't, why aren't they been arrested for being illegal immigrants?
A very lucid header from Ms Cyclefree. The "basic requirements" she mentions have always actually been an unspoken contract - one that has increasingly been honoured in the breach.
It feels squeamish to talk immigration in blunt terms, since the core of almost any policy is to imply that one bunch of humans are more deserving than another. But we owe it to all sides to do so as honestly as we can.
A very good article. I wonder where British migrants to other EU member states fit into this. We should not forget them. Post-Brexit deals will have to be done so that they can stay where they are and new ones can join them, or we are going to have to reabsorb them. What are the social and economic costs of having an older and less productive population, with more people dependent on public services? I do not know the answer but it surely has to be part of the calculation.
Mr. Observer, may I remind you once more that prior to 1973 Brits moved abroad to live and people from abroad moved here to live. Very little paper work was involved then or now. Please do stop carrying on as if the EEC/EC/EU introduced or allowed something new.
There are for more of them going both ways now. In 1973 there were not hundreds of thousands of elderly Brits living in Spain and many, many more seeking to join them. If we pull out of the EU there automatic right of to reside there will be in doubt, as will the right of others to migrate. Some kind of deal will have to be done. Before it is, surely we should understand the cost of not doing one.
I think there are about 300,000 British Expats now living in Spain, how many of those are elderly or retired criminals or both I don't know. What I am bloody certain of is that UK policy should not be decided, even in part, by consideration of the needs of a relatively small number of people who have decided to live elsewhere.
I rather suspect that the UK diaspora is rather greater in the Middle and Far East not to mention Australia and New Zealand, but nobody is suggesting we should think about keeping policy to suit the needs of them.
In fairness the British government does actually consider our interests and try to be helpful. For example, Japanese people can drive in Britain without taking a British driving test, despite the fact that they probably suck at roundabouts and wreak havoc on the unsuspecting citizenry, so that we British people can do the same thing here. (Americans have to take the Japanese test.)
Game over. Immigration has killed Remain stone dead.
I think that the events of the past few days have swung opinion to Leave, but there'll be news items that favour Remain in the last three weeks of the campaign.
The main concern I have with the polls is the small number of undecided. Whether it is on the media or in conversations there appears to be a substantial number of confused voters. In my opinion this could go either way but leave will be pleased that their immigration onslaught has coincided with postal votes arriving
Politico Daily John McDonnell says Sadiq Khan has "discredited" Labour by sharing platform with David Cameron adding, seeing it "demotivates" Labour voters
@Coral: BREAKING: Townsend and Drinkwater miss out on the England squad. Rashford and Sturridge remain. https://t.co/wPtunBEzwz
Rubbish. - should have dropped sturridge and kept Townsend,we have enough strikers.
Townsend offers us something different down the right with pace,poor decision Hodgson.
I am assuming you didn't catch the Europe League final...
Sturridge is absolute quality, Rashford is a lucky boy, the "2006 Walcott" of 2016
I am assuming you didn't watch the Brazil world cup with sturridge up front ? I go by what he's done for England when it matters and the rumour of his latest injury.
Politico Daily John McDonnell says Sadiq Khan has "discredited" Labour by sharing platform with David Cameron adding, seeing it "demotivates" Labour voters
The ICM phone poll represents a 7-point swing to Leave since their last poll a fortnight ago. Which is huge. Leave still 100/30 best price, as far as I can see. Won't be for long, I suspect.
Sean- I think events dear boy will come into play when the voting appears this close. Do you remember the Madrid bomb that turned the Spanish election?
What events could influence the Euro vote? Certainly, the imagery of migrants crossing on boats. The UEFA tournament....a terrorist attack here.....
Today, is actually the first day that I genuinely feel that Brexit will become a reality and that was before I saw these poll results.
O/T and selfish. I’m delighted to report that my latest blood test has come back negative and therefore I've, or rather the NHS has, beaten my cancer! Five years after the operation finally I’m in the clear!
Cyclefree- I would like to say that I like your article, and admittedly it does provoke some discussion, but your 1-8 point framework for assessing the benefits of immigration is pretty well loaded in one direction.
O/T and selfish. I’m delighted to report that my latest blood test has come back negative and therefore I've, or rather the NHS has, beaten my cancer! Five years after the operation finally I’m in the clear!
Stupid scale. Down by less than a cent is not down sharply.
Brexit is up about 3% on the betting markets (to 25%). So we can extrapolate a further 25c fall in GBPUSD by June 24th in the event of Brexit (or a 8c rise if it goes the other way).
O/T and selfish. I’m delighted to report that my latest blood test has come back negative and therefore I've, or rather the NHS has, beaten my cancer! Five years after the operation finally I’m in the clear!
O/T and selfish. I’m delighted to report that my latest blood test has come back negative and therefore I've, or rather the NHS has, beaten my cancer! Five years after the operation finally I’m in the clear!
O/T and selfish. I’m delighted to report that my latest blood test has come back negative and therefore I've, or rather the NHS has, beaten my cancer! Five years after the operation finally I’m in the clear!
Cyclefree- I would like to say that I like your article, and admittedly it does provoke some discussion, but your 1-8 point framework for assessing the benefits of immigration is pretty well loaded in one direction.
I'm not against immigration but it does seem to me that too much of the discussion around it has either been ad hominem e.g. look at these hard luck cases or, equally, look at these bad people we can't deport or too full of self-delusion e.g. assuming that people are interchangeable.
I was deliberately trying to set out what factors an immigration policy should take account of and doing so from the perspective of the host country/community. The case for why someone might want to move to another country to make a better life for themselves does not need to be made. The case for why a country should let in people does I think need to be made and in a way which gets the broad consent of the people already in the country. The problem as I see it is that too many of our politicians have not been straight with us about this, people feel that their generosity/hospitality has been abused and that their interests have not been taken into account. These factors have made much of the discussion about this topic unnecessarily toxic.
Still, feel free to add in your own factors. It's a big topic and not one that can be adequately covered in just one thread (or even a shortened discussion).
O/T and selfish. I’m delighted to report that my latest blood test has come back negative and therefore I've, or rather the NHS has, beaten my cancer! Five years after the operation finally I’m in the clear!
That's fabulous!! So glad for you. Many happy years to come!
O/T and selfish. I’m delighted to report that my latest blood test has come back negative and therefore I've, or rather the NHS has, beaten my cancer! Five years after the operation finally I’m in the clear!
Congrats.... It's amazing when you get to five years out and they tell that your cured.
24 Duty to communicate information about role of named persons
(1)Each service provider must publish (in such manner as it considers appropriate) information about—
(a)the operation of the named person service provided in pursuance of the arrangements made by it, including in particular—
(i)how the named person functions are, generally, exercised, and
(ii)the arrangements, generally, for contacting named persons,
(b)how the service provider generally exercises its functions under this Part, and
(c)such other matters relating to this Part as it considers appropriate.
(2 )The service provider in relation to a child or young person must provide the child or young person and the parents of the child or young person with information about the arrangements for contacting the named person for the child or young person—
(a)as soon as reasonably practicable after it becomes the service provider in relation to the child or young person, and
(b)as soon as reasonably practicable after there is any change in those arrangements.
(2 )The service provider in relation to a child or young person must provide the child or young person and the parents of the child or young person with information about the arrangements for contacting the named person for the child or young person—
So no requirement to tell the parents who the named person is.
O/T and selfish. I’m delighted to report that my latest blood test has come back negative and therefore I've, or rather the NHS has, beaten my cancer! Five years after the operation finally I’m in the clear!
That's fabulous!! So glad for you. Many happy years to come!
Seconded.
NickP - I asked last night re: your admiration of Switzerland - how do you reconcile Switzerland doing so well whilst outside of the EU?
It is still 75% to 25% chance for Remain. I wonder what does that correspond to in polls. 53% - 47% ? or a higher margin like 55% - 45% ?
OH MY GOD, If I do ONE thing on this pissant f*****g board it will be to stamp out that misconception. It's a common misconception - even Matthew Shaddick thinks it's true[1] - but it just isn't true.
To put it simply: a big probability of a win is not a probability of a big win. If the probability of X beating Y is large, you cannot then conclude that X will beat Y by a large margin.
As a corollary, Matthew's graph[2] is simply wrong.
Comments
I think PB.com is at its very best when it is discussing betting, it is jolly good fun when it is, with a light heart, discussing anything else but it is bloody dire when posters start talking about (about not to) other posters.
Still too far out to get giddy/panic.
LEAVE ahead in both online and phone.
Nothing to see here, please move along?
For example, look at the numbers here, sourced to UNHCR etc:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis
Of the non-Syrians/non-Iraqis, lots of other people fleeing wars, particularly Afghans.
"Support for Ukip appeared to have picked up, perhaps aided by the prominence of the party’s leader, Nigel Farage, during the referendum campaign, and the focus on immigration in the debate. The party scored 15% in the phone poll, up 2% from last time.
Gisela Stuart, the chair of Vote Leave and a Labour MP, told the Guardian recently that the party’s backing for remaining in the EU was, “a recruiting agent for Ukip”.
"This latest result is likely to alarm the Stronger In campaign, which had previously taken comfort from the tendency for phone polls to deliver a pro-remain verdict."
https://twitter.com/EuroGuido/status/737641744922202113?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
No, what is happening is that immigration has caught up with the Remain side. They have no answers and it is going to destroy them.
Mr. Observer, tiny leads more than three weeks from polling day. Stiff upper lip, man.
5/25-5/28
2016 New Hampshire President
Clinton 44% Trump 44%
Franklin Pierce University/RKM/Boston Herald
Immigration has benefited the UK in all aspects of life. business, public services, the NHS, the arts, sport, you name it, there are many many immigrants making the UK a better place.
But if you add >300K immigrants per year net, no matter where they are from, no matter how fabulous they are, then before too long there will be problems, even if the "native" (FWOABW) population is wholly welcoming. Infrastructure, roads, the NHS, school places, power supply to name but a few (and NOT to name anything harder to define but no less real around the issues of "integration")
If we Remain i can't see anything other than 300K+ being the norm, and hence the problems above will slowly mount up.
If we Leave, we might at least have a chance of getting it right?? People will still want to come, and come they will, by dinghy from Northern France if not by Easybus from Warsaw :-(
“David Cameron can you hear me? David Cameron, I have a message for you in the middle of the project fear campaign. I have a message for you: We have knocked REMAIN out of the referendum.
“David Cameron, as they say in your language in the tapas bars around Notting Hill on London: Your boys took a hell of a beating! Your boys took a hell of a beating!”
Last night: Leave 4.7
Now: Leave 3.8
Economic migration is a valid reason to move but it is not the same as being a refugee.
I guess the big practical problem is how to persuade somebody to let you put your Free Imperial City in their country, but maybe that one can be solved with cash.
Sturridge is absolute quality, Rashford is a lucky boy, the "2006 Walcott" of 2016
5/10-5/13
2016 Oregon Presidential GE
Trump 44% Clinton 42%
Clout Research
It's hard to think of a way to close the issue down less.
ICM Phone poll with Leave ahead, grab that 4 on Betfair before its all gone.
I predict SeanT on here laughing his head off in about 5 minutes' time.
Cameron needs to get a grip on the Channel situation, though.
A camp for migrants is to be set up in the north of Paris within the next six weeks, the mayor of the French capital has announced.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36420111
By North of Paris, does she mean as close to the Channel Tunnel terminal as possible? Again nobody asks the question, a) if they are genuinely fleeing persecution why aren't they claiming asylum and b) if they aren't, why aren't they been arrested for being illegal immigrants?
It feels squeamish to talk immigration in blunt terms, since the core of almost any policy is to imply that one bunch of humans are more deserving than another. But we owe it to all sides to do so as honestly as we can.
Reminder to those examining polling entrails.
John McDonnell says Sadiq Khan has "discredited" Labour by sharing platform with David Cameron adding, seeing it "demotivates" Labour voters
But they're both still 1.46. https://t.co/6QcCDoecfb
ICM National Poll shows CON at 36% for both phone and online with LAB at 31% and 32% for online and phone respectively.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html
What events could influence the Euro vote? Certainly, the imagery of migrants crossing on boats. The UEFA tournament....a terrorist attack here.....
Today, is actually the first day that I genuinely feel that Brexit will become a reality and that was before I saw these poll results.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
5/23-5/27
2016 New Jersey Presidential GE
Clinton 38% Trump 34%
Monmouth University
The Register
As poll shows #Brexit lead, Google has been demoting pro-Brexit views in its search results https://t.co/ZG7JpBcLY8 https://t.co/Ltjont4xG8
I was deliberately trying to set out what factors an immigration policy should take account of and doing so from the perspective of the host country/community. The case for why someone might want to move to another country to make a better life for themselves does not need to be made. The case for why a country should let in people does I think need to be made and in a way which gets the broad consent of the people already in the country. The problem as I see it is that too many of our politicians have not been straight with us about this, people feel that their generosity/hospitality has been abused and that their interests have not been taken into account. These factors have made much of the discussion about this topic unnecessarily toxic.
Still, feel free to add in your own factors. It's a big topic and not one that can be adequately covered in just one thread (or even a shortened discussion).
Thanks Ms. Cyclefree for a fabulous post - the post referendum future is wrought with difficulties.
Thanks for writing and publishing.
Well done.
#BeatingCancer
Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2014/8/part/4
24 Duty to communicate information about role of named persons
(1)Each service provider must publish (in such manner as it considers appropriate) information about—
(a)the operation of the named person service provided in pursuance of the arrangements made by it, including in particular—
(i)how the named person functions are, generally, exercised, and
(ii)the arrangements, generally, for contacting named persons,
(b)how the service provider generally exercises its functions under this Part, and
(c)such other matters relating to this Part as it considers appropriate.
(2 )The service provider in relation to a child or young person must provide the child or young person and the parents of the child or young person with information about the arrangements for contacting the named person for the child or young person—
(a)as soon as reasonably practicable after it becomes the service provider in relation to the child or young person, and
(b)as soon as reasonably practicable after there is any change in those arrangements.
Thanks
NickP - I asked last night re: your admiration of Switzerland - how do you reconcile Switzerland doing so well whilst outside of the EU?
To put it simply: a big probability of a win is not a probability of a big win. If the probability of X beating Y is large, you cannot then conclude that X will beat Y by a large margin.
As a corollary, Matthew's graph[2] is simply wrong.
[1] See this image on this page
[2] this image