Cultures which practice contraception and abortion will inevitably be replaced with cultures that do not.
Cocaine for horses, not for men Preacher say it kill you but he don't know when...
Actually, you could just as well say "cultures that let women vote will inevitably be replaced..." - and it would be even more conservative!
It would be wrong though.
If I have 5 kids (which I actually do) and they all have five kids, within 50 years I have replaced myself with 12.5 voters
If you have one kid and he in turn has one kid then within 50 years you have replaced yourself with 1/4 of a voter.
A ratio of 50:1
. I could name lots of nations where abortion was illegal but is no longer illegal, can you name any that has gone the other way around.
Certain US states are doing their darnedest. As a guess somewhere in the Middle or Far East that has done from a Secular to Islamic government in the last 30 years may have banned abortion.
To be fair in the States that's because they never actually wanted abortion legalising but it was forced upon them by SCOTUS. So the culture has never flipped back.
True. I did edit my previous post though, Chile banned previously legal abortion in 1989.
The idea thwt the triumph of progressive values is inevitable is as silly as the idea of the triumph of Marxist Values was.
This referendum is alresdy showing that progressive european ideals are not shared by nearly so much of the UK population than the great and good thought.
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
Should LEAVE prevail on 23 June, it will be Labour voters wot won it for them. Reflecting Corbyn's decidedly lacklustre level of support for the party's official line as being for REMAIN, the rank and file of their supporters are so far clearly not convinced.
The LEAVE Tories, together with UKIP supporters are nowhere near enough to win it for LEAVE on their own, they need a mighty wodge of Labour voting LEAVERS to push them over the line.
The way the numbers work out could eventually prove to look something like this:
Conservative Leavers ..... 60% x 35% = 21.0% UKIP Leavers .................. 90% x 15% = 13.5% Labour Leavers ............... 45% x 30% = 13.5% Other Parties' Leavers ..... 15% x 20% = 3.0%
Total LEAVERS .................................... 51.0%
It's fascinating how cross-party the Leave campaign is - I'm sure I've seen posters here using whatever leaflets/signs are most appropriate for their area, irrespective of their own politics.
I'm pushing LabourLeave stuff quite hard. They've a really compelling BS free message. GrassRootsOut have some great nuggets too. VoteLeave are impressing me with video evidence/rapid rebuttals/big announcements.
I don't want to believe the polling - but the trend seems to be coming our way.
It is often said that Rupert Murdoch likes to support the winning side and that's certainly a logical stance for a newspaper proprietor to take, i.e. in not wishing to alienate one's readership. I suspect there's also a small, probably very small percentage of the electorate who want to back the winner. Even if this percentage is < 1%, this could prove crucial in what looks like a very close contest.
My Dad has voted Leave because he wants Remain to win, but not by very much!
I guess there's some logic in that somewhere, if one were to dig very deep and then dig some more!
For him it's all about sovereignty - but he's ok (just about) with the current set up. He thinks that a 50.01% victory with Remain would make the EU think very carefully before pursuing further integration. I disagree...
But he's voted Leave anyway (by post). It was mildly amusing the other day when the chairman of the firm (who is a serious Establishment figure) decided not to discuss the referendum as he suspected that he would would be the only pro-remain voice at the table!
I've heard that view from a lot of people (including @SeanT): they want a 51:49 victory to Remain, because that would (a) make it clear how unhappy we are with the EU project; (b) leave the door open to another referendum if there are significant changes; but also (c) minimise the economic risk.
It's a view I have considerable sympathy with. But wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
Leave has to deliver substantial reductions in immigration. Can't do that with EEA/EFTA.
SO is cynical, but not cynical enough. A re-basing here, a re-categorisation there, a few footnotes expounding some complicated changes in methodology and Ahmed is your British uncle.
Governments have been using those tactics to massage unemployment figures for years.
*edit* For example, just exclude all Commonwealth countries from the immigration figures.
Thanks for another in a long line of interesting threads David - enjoy your hols.
Other than TSE, is anyone here campaigning for Remain?
Depends whether you consider what Scott does as "campaigning". I suspect it's deemed best he doesn't actually go outside and meet voters... Like the Viking Berserker - the one they keep back in the boat. The one who does as much harm to his own side as to the opposition.
If we take the largest employer, the NHS, they are utterly dependent on immigration. In theory we could be training masses more doctors and nurses and technical staff. In practice we don't - indeed,the current government has CUT nursing training. That, at some level, is undoubtedly because they can get qualified labour more inexpensively from immigration. We could reverse that, if we diverted a bigger chunk of NHS spending to salaries and spent 5-10 years massively increasing training. But in that case either we'd have big cuts in NHS services or a sharply rising NHS budget.
If leaving the EU leads to us investing (through higher taxes) in developing needed skills for our society, then so be it. Twice the PM has faced questions linking cuts to nursing training to the ability of the government to bring in ready-to-go labour.
I made an out-of-the-box suggestion the other day that the NHS might open, expand or work with training colleges in large non-EU cities like Mumbai or Manila, which would reduce training costs while maintaining standards and allow skilled foreigners an immigration route to the UK. The closed EU and NHS mindsets don't seem to allow this sort of thinking - surely better to try and fail than not to try at all?
That would be a 10 year project, and does beg the question: Why not just expand medical and nursing schools in the UK? Both are oversubscribed applications at present. Bond bursaries to working for the NHS if needed.
I meant to make this point during the doctors dispute. My mum was very hostile to the doctors (unfairly in my opinion) because she thinks they should be grateful to have got into medical school. Like you, I would expand medical schools. The problem is that it's expensive - far cheaper to have kids doing social science degrees.
Whatever we think about our EU membership, I think we can agree that there's a lot we would change about this country. The problem, I think, is that our politicians aren't interested in tackling these issues.
I suspect that Labour Leavers are more motivated with giving politicians, experts, and the elite in general a bloody nose. Up yours. Driven by anger at not sharing in prosperity and being generally ignored. "Take Control" will resonate with them even though they will be even less in control after Brexit under a right wing government.
I also suspect that a Brexit will lead to a EEA/EFTA arrangement which will be very similar to the present arrangement. The only difference is that it will be more appealing emotionally to some, and it will lead to an extended period of economic uncertainty with more cuts and less jobs for a time. No change to immigration though. It's a false promise that will only reconfirm Labour Leavers contempt for politicians.
Why will we be less in control after Brexit? We will have a government that we, the voters, can hold to account. I'd argue that this will encourage more people to get out & vote.
With overseers in Europe who aren't elected & can't be removed, why should we bother to vote in our national sub-parliament elections that can make no difference?
Miss Plato, if you bet on every number you're bound to win roulette [although, of course, your winnings will be exceeded by your loss].
Indeed. This is such an interesting conundrum for pollsters - online gets more candour, but can be infested by the overtly political; phone polls suffer from shy voters, and can't find older voters or those in trades as easily.
I'm not sure we can deduce anything at all, bar the very widest impression of which way the wind is blowing.
Should LEAVE prevail on 23 June, it will be Labour voters wot won it for them. Reflecting Corbyn's decidedly lacklustre level of support for the party's official line as being for REMAIN, the rank and file of their supporters are so far clearly not convinced.
The LEAVE Tories, together with UKIP supporters are nowhere near enough to win it for LEAVE on their own, they need a mighty wodge of Labour voting LEAVERS to push them over the line.
The way the numbers work out could eventually prove to look something like this:
Conservative Leavers ..... 60% x 35% = 21.0% UKIP Leavers .................. 90% x 15% = 13.5% Labour Leavers ............... 45% x 30% = 13.5% Other Parties' Leavers ..... 15% x 20% = 3.0%
Total LEAVERS .................................... 51.0%
It's fascinating how cross-party the Leave campaign is - I'm sure I've seen posters here using whatever leaflets/signs are most appropriate for their area, irrespective of their own politics.
I'm pushing LabourLeave stuff quite hard. They've a really compelling BS free message. GrassRootsOut have some great nuggets too. VoteLeave are impressing me with video evidence/rapid rebuttals/big announcements.
I don't want to believe the polling - but the trend seems to be coming our way.
It is often said that Rupert Murdoch likes to support the winning side and that's certainly a logical stance for a newspaper proprietor to take, i.e. in not wishing to alienate one's readership. I suspect there's also a small, probably very small percentage of the electorate who want to back the winner. Even if this percentage is < 1%, this could prove crucial in what looks like a very close contest.
My Dad has voted Leave because he wants Remain to win, but not by very much!
I guess there's some logic in that somewhere, if one were to dig very deep and then dig some more!
For him it's all about sovereignty - but he's ok (just about) with the current set up. He thinks that a 50.01% victory with Remain would make the EU think very carefully before pursuing further integration. I disagree...
But he's voted Leave anyway (by post). It was mildly amusing the other day when the chairman of the firm (who is a serious Establishment figure) decided not to discuss the referendum as he suspected that he would would be the only pro-remain voice at the table!
I've heard that view from a lot of people (including @SeanT): they want a 51:49 victory to Remain, because that would (a) make it clear how unhappy we are with the EU project; (b) leave the door open to another referendum if there are significant changes; but also (c) minimise the economic risk.
It's a view I have considerable sympathy with. But wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
Thanks for another in a long line of interesting threads David - enjoy your hols.
Other than TSE, is anyone here campaigning for Remain?
Depends whether you consider what Scott does as "campaigning". I suspect it's deemed best he doesn't actually go outside and meet voters... Like the Viking Berserker - the one they keep back in the boat. The one who does as much harm to his own side as to the opposition.
In all my years on here, I don't think I've ever seen Scott say what line of work he's in. Never really thought about it before.
I suspect that Labour Leavers are more motivated with giving politicians, experts, and the elite in general a bloody nose. Up yours. Driven by anger at not sharing in prosperity and being generally ignored. "Take Control" will resonate with them even though they will be even less in control after Brexit under a right wing government.
I also suspect that a Brexit will lead to a EEA/EFTA arrangement which will be very similar to the present arrangement. The only difference is that it will be more appealing emotionally to some, and it will lead to an extended period of economic uncertainty with more cuts and less jobs for a time. No change to immigration though. It's a false promise that will only reconfirm Labour Leavers contempt for politicians.
Why will we be less in control after Brexit? We will have a government that we, the voters, can hold to account. I'd argue that this will encourage more people to get out & vote.
With overseers in Europe who aren't elected & can't be removed, why should we bother to vote in our national sub-parliament elections that can make no difference?
I doubt it would encourage more people to go out to vote. Most UK constituencies are safe seats. Why bother to vote if that can make no difference?
I'm interested in understanding better the motivation of Labour Leavers. What proportion of the electorate are they? 15%? I've met some in my canvassing. They are angry and aggressive. But though they are loud, they tend in practice not to vote. They say they'll vote, but then they don't.
If 70% of the 15% say they'll vote Leave, but in practice only 40% actually vote, that reduces the Leave vote by 4.5% (15% x (70%-40%)) roughly speaking.
Despite all the tv and press coverage, I've yet to see a single poster for either side in Harrogate. As for people discussing the issue all I hear at work is a plague on both their houses and not even much of that..
It's really very strange. Perhaps closer to the date people will get more interested, but at the moment, it's very, meh.
Mr. Freggles, it'd need to be plausible, and I think Cameron's credibility is shot. It'd also raise the question of why he hasn't done that already if he was able to do so.
Mr. Freggles, it'd need to be plausible, and I think Cameron's credibility is shot. It'd also raise the question of why he hasn't done that already if he was able to do so.
Yeah, I'm not sure how effective it would be, but I can see Dave trying it
Should LEAVE prevail on 23 June, it will be Labour voters wot won it for them. Reflecting Corbyn's decidedly lacklustre level of support for the party's official line as being for REMAIN, the rank and file of their supporters are so far clearly not convinced.
The LEAVE Tories, together with UKIP supporters are nowhere near enough to win it for LEAVE on their own, they need a mighty wodge of Labour voting LEAVERS to push them over the line.
The way the numbers work out could eventually prove to look something like this:
Conservative Leavers ..... 60% x 35% = 21.0% UKIP Leavers .................. 90% x 15% = 13.5% Labour Leavers ............... 45% x 30% = 13.5% Other Parties' Leavers ..... 15% x 20% = 3.0%
Total LEAVERS .................................... 51.0%
It's fascinating how cross-party the Leave campaign is - I'm sure I've seen posters here using whatever leaflets/signs are most appropriate for their area, irrespective of their own politics.
I'm pushing LabourLeave stuff quite hard. They've a really compelling BS free message. GrassRootsOut have some great nuggets too. VoteLeave are impressing me with video evidence/rapid rebuttals/big announcements.
I don't want to believe the polling - but the trend seems to be coming our way.
It is often said that Rupert Murdoch likes to support the winning side and that's certainly a logical stance for a newspaper proprietor to take, i.e. in not wishing to alienate one's readership. I suspect there's also a small, probably very small percentage of the electorate who want to back the winner. Even if this percentage is < 1%, this could prove crucial in what looks like a very close contest.
My Dad has voted Leave because he wants Remain to win, but not by very much!
I guess there's some logic in that somewhere, if one were to dig very deep and then dig some more!
For him it's all about sovereignty - but he's ok (just about) with the current set up. He thinks that a 50.01% victory with Remain would make the EU think very carefully before pursuing further integration. I disagree...
But he's voted Leave anyway (by post). It was mildly amusing the other day when the chairman of the firm (who is a serious Establishment figure) decided not to discuss the referendum as he suspected that he would would be the only pro-remain voice at the table!
I've heard that view from a lot of people (including @SeanT): they want a 51:49 victory to Remain, because that would (a) make it clear how unhappy we are with the EU project; (b) leave the door open to another referendum if there are significant changes; but also (c) minimise the economic risk.
It's a view I have considerable sympathy with. But wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
If it's 51:49 the other way (to Leave) I suspect that's what we'll get.
Have fun, all. I'm off on holiday now for a week so am unlikely to be posting again. I've not taken off in a huff or despair - just want to tune out for a while. And yes, it is a huge and important vote (which I'll be back for), but I've not really found it in me to campaign for Remain so my presence won't be missed there as it would be for a regular election.
I'm unlikely to post a piece next Saturday but hope to get another in before the vote.
Have to say I'm glad I'm off - to the Czech Rep and Slovakia - for the last week of this as frankly it's doing my head in.
I suspect that Labour Leavers are more motivated with giving politicians, experts, and the elite in general a bloody nose. Up yours. Driven by anger at not sharing in prosperity and being generally ignored. "Take Control" will resonate with them even though they will be even less in control after Brexit under a right wing government.
I also suspect that a Brexit will lead to a EEA/EFTA arrangement which will be very similar to the present arrangement. The only difference is that it will be more appealing emotionally to some, and it will lead to an extended period of economic uncertainty with more cuts and less jobs for a time. No change to immigration though. It's a false promise that will only reconfirm Labour Leavers contempt for politicians.
Why will we be less in control after Brexit? We will have a government that we, the voters, can hold to account. I'd argue that this will encourage more people to get out & vote.
With overseers in Europe who aren't elected & can't be removed, why should we bother to vote in our national sub-parliament elections that can make no difference?
I doubt it would encourage more people to go out to vote. Most UK constituencies are safe seats. Why bother to vote if that can make no difference?
I'm interested in understanding better the motivation of Labour Leavers. What proportion of the electorate are they? 15%? I've met some in my canvassing. They are angry and aggressive. But though they are loud, they tend in practice not to vote. They say they'll vote, but then they don't.
If 70% of the 15% say they'll vote Leave, but in practice only 40% actually vote, that reduces the Leave vote by 4.5% (15% x (70%-40%)) roughly speaking.
Every election, we hear why this time it's different.
I see football fans from across Europe are taking the chance to sample the delights of the south of France at this time of year & fully embracing the cafe culture!!!!!
EU will be praying that England votes to leave after another 2 weeks of riots
England fans are no different from Hibernian supported. Apart from the former can pay for themselves.
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
It does however generate a tax windfall for the government which it can then use as it sees fit to cut the cost of living or the cost of running a business in this country.
A depreciation in sterling of the magnitude Remain are inclined to suggest would also offset the tariff for exporters, while European importers would find it harder to sell to the UK as their goods become less price competitive.
Tariffs plus sterling depreciation would be dreadful news for Europe, but would help UK domestic producers in competition with european companies, surely?
If we look back to the time of the Euro, Heseltine and others were arguing precisely the opposite that they argue now - he was arguing that sterling should fall to keep us competitive.
Should LEAVE prevail on 23 June, it will be Labour voters wot won it for them. Reflecting Corbyn's decidedly lacklustre level of support for the party's official line as being for REMAIN, the rank and file of their supporters are so far clearly not convinced.
The LEAVE Tories, together with UKIP supporters are nowhere near enough to win it for LEAVE on their own, they need a mighty wodge of Labour voting LEAVERS to push them over the line.
The way the numbers work out could eventually prove to look something like this:
Conservative Leavers ..... 60% x 35% = 21.0% UKIP Leavers .................. 90% x 15% = 13.5% Labour Leavers ............... 45% x 30% = 13.5% Other Parties' Leavers ..... 15% x 20% = 3.0%
Total LEAVERS .................................... 51.0%
It's fascinating how cross-party the Leave campaign is - I'm sure I've seen posters here using whatever leaflets/signs are most appropriate for their area, irrespective of their own politics.
I'm pushing LabourLeave stuff quite hard. They've a really compelling BS free message. GrassRootsOut have some great nuggets too. VoteLeave are impressing me with video evidence/rapid rebuttals/big announcements.
I don't want to believe the polling - but the trend seems to be coming our way.
It is often said that Rupert Murdoch likes to support the winning side and that's certainly a logical stance for a newspaper proprietor to take, i.e. in not wishing to alienate one's readership. I suspect there's also a small, probably very small percentage of the electorate who want to back the winner. Even if this percentage is < 1%, this could prove crucial in what looks like a very close contest.
My Dad has voted Leave because he wants Remain to win, but not by very much!
I guess there's some logic in that somewhere, if one were to dig very deep and then dig some more!
For him it's all about sovereignty - but he's ok (just about) with the current set up. He thinks that a 50.01% victory with Remain would make the EU think very carefully before pursuing further integration. I disagree...
But he's voted Leave anyway (by post). It was mildly amusing the other day when the chairman of the firm (who is a serious Establishment figure) decided not to discuss the referendum as he suspected that he would would be the only pro-remain voice at the table!
I've heard that view from a lot of people (including @SeanT): they want a 51:49 victory to Remain, because that would (a) make it clear how unhappy we are with the EU project; (b) leave the door open to another referendum if there are significant changes; but also (c) minimise the economic risk.
It's a view I have considerable sympathy with. But wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
Leave has to deliver substantial reductions in immigration. Can't do that with EEA/EFTA.
Apparently I do need to keep reminding people that this isn't an election, so Leave won't form a government if they win, and hence they won't be in a position to deliver or otherwise.
Mr. Observer, yes but if Remain are accepting that those who were wrong about the euro have errant judgement that's to the detriment of Remain far more than Leave.
Possibly. My point is more to those on here who say that the views of anyone who backed the Euro should be discounted. Funnily enough, it doesn't apply to James Dyson - who also shat on British workers when he moved his manufacturing operation to Malaysia, of course.
Read the Wiki-page on Dyson:
UK manufacturing was never a key concern. Are you going to slag-off Advanced RISC Machines next...?
I wonder if we will see a Vow moment from the Government, if there is in fact anything that can be done to throw a bone to Leave at this point.
I think we're going to get an equivalent of some of those "please stay, we love you" letters that the Scots got in the Indy Ref, but with a hint if menace mixed in.
The one from Schauble is likely to be the first of a few of these, I suspect: "Please don't go. We do like you really. All the same, if you do leave, make no mistake, we are going to kick the sh*t out of you".
I vaguely recall something in an article from the English version of Der Spiegel a few days to the effect that Juncker wanted to say something to help persuade the UK to vote to remain, but had been told his intervention would be unlikely to help. But that he might be allowed to intervene in the last week of the campaign if things were going badly for Remain? Or did I get that wrong?
I wonder if we will see a Vow moment from the Government, if there is in fact anything that can be done to throw a bone to Leave at this point.
I think we're going to get an equivalent of some of those "please stay, we love you" letters that the Scots got in the Indy Ref, but with a hint if menace mixed in.
The one from Schauble is likely to be the first of a few of these, I suspect: "Please don't go. We do like you really. All the same, if you do leave, make no mistake, we are going to kick the sh*t out of you".
I vaguely recall something in an article from the English version of Der Spiegel a few days to the effect that Juncker wanted to say something to help persuade the UK to vote to remain, but had been told his intervention would be unlikely to help. But that he might be allowed to intervene in the last week of the campaign if things were going badly for Remain? Or did I get that wrong?
I think we should greatly encourage all interventions by Juncker.
Should LEAVE prevail on 23 June, it will be Labour voters wot won it for them. Reflecting Corbyn's decidedly lacklustre level of support for the party's official line as being for REMAIN, the rank and file of their supporters are so far clearly not convinced.
The LEAVE Tories, together with UKIP supporters are nowhere near enough to win it for LEAVE on their own, they need a mighty wodge of Labour voting LEAVERS to push them over the line...
Conservative Leavers ..... 60% x 35% = 21.0% UKIP Leavers .................. 90% x 15% = 13.5% Labour Leavers ............... 45% x 30% = 13.5% Other Parties' Leavers ..... 15% x 20% = 3.0%
Total LEAVERS .................................... 51.0%
It's fascinating how cross-party the Leave campaign is - I'm sure I've seen posters here using whatever leaflets/signs are most appropriate for their area, irrespective of their own politics.
I'm pushing LabourLeave stuff quite hard. They've a really compelling BS free message. GrassRootsOut have some great nuggets too. VoteLeave are impressing me with video evidence/rapid rebuttals/big announcements.
I don't want to believe the polling - but the trend seems to be coming our way.
It is often said that Rupert Murdoch likes to support the winning side and that's certainly a logical stance for a newspaper proprietor to take, i.e. in not wishing to alienate one's readership. I suspect there's also a small, probably very small percentage of the electorate who want to back the winner. Even if this percentage is < 1%, this could prove crucial in what looks like a very close contest.
My Dad has voted Leave because he wants Remain to win, but not by very much!
I guess there's some logic in that somewhere, if one were to dig very deep and then dig some more!
For him it's all about sovereignty - but he's ok (just about) with the current set up. He thinks that a 50.01% victory with Remain would make the EU think very carefully before pursuing further integration. I disagree...
But he's voted Leave anyway (by post). It was mildly amusing the other day when the chairman of the firm (who is a serious Establishment figure) decided not to discuss the referendum as he suspected that he would would be the only pro-remain voice at the table!
I've heard that view from a lot of people (including @SeanT): they want a 51:49 victory to Remain, because that would (a) make it clear how unhappy we are with the EU project; (b) leave the door open to another referendum if there are significant changes; but also (c) minimise the economic risk.
It's a view I have considerable sympathy with. But wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
Leave has to deliver substantial reductions in immigration. Can't do that with EEA/EFTA.
Apparently I do need to keep reminding people that this isn't an election, so Leave won't form a government if they win, and hence they won't be in a position to deliver or otherwise.
Quite. Once we leave, we'll have left.
I know this is not a popular viewpoint, but the Brexit bonus the Tory party will get by leaving is:
- not angering the largely eurosceptic activist base - not angering the largely eurosceptic voter base - pleasing the c.18% of voters who vote UKIP - removing Cameron and Osborne
If Corbo stays in place, Post vote we're going to see 10+ point poll leads.
I see football fans from across Europe are taking the chance to sample the delights of the south of France at this time of year & fully embracing the cafe culture!!!!!
EU will be praying that England votes to leave after another 2 weeks of riots
England fans are no different from Hibernian supported. Apart from the former can pay for themselves.
And the latter have won a trophy within the last 49 years.
Should LEAVE prevail on 23 June, it will be Labour voters wot won it for them. Reflecting Corbyn's decidedly lacklustre level of support for the party's official line as being for REMAIN, the rank and file of their supporters are so far clearly not convinced.
The LEAVE Tories, together with UKIP supporters are nowhere near enough to win it for LEAVE on their own, they need a mighty wodge of Labour voting LEAVERS to push them over the line.
The way the numbers work out could eventually prove to look something like this:
Conservative Leavers ..... 60% x 35% = 21.0% UKIP Leavers .................. 90% x 15% = 13.5% Labour Leavers ............... 45% x 30% = 13.5% Other Parties' Leavers ..... 15% x 20% = 3.0%
Total LEAVERS .................................... 51.0%
It's fascinating how cross-party the Leave campaign is - I'm sure I've seen posters here using whatever leaflets/signs are most appropriate for their area, irrespective of their own politics.
I'm pushing LabourLeave stuff quite hard. They've a really compelling BS free message. GrassRootsOut have some great nuggets too. VoteLeave are impressing me with video evidence/rapid rebuttals/big announcements.
I don't want to believe the polling - but the trend seems to be coming our way.
It is often said that Rupert Murdoch likes to support the winning side and that's certainly a logical stance for a newspaper proprietor to take, i.e. in not wishing to alienate one's readership. I suspect there's also a small, probably very small percentage of the electorate who want to back the winner. Even if this percentage is < 1%, this could prove crucial in what looks like a very close contest.
My Dad has voted Leave because he wants Remain to win, but not by very much!
I guess there's some logic in that somewhere, if one were to dig very deep and then dig some more!
For him it's all about sovereignty - but he's ok (just about) with the current set up. He thinks that a 50.01% victory with Remain would make the EU think very carefully before pursuing further integration. I disagree...
But he's voted Leave anyway (by post). It was mildly amusing the other day when the chairman of the firm (who is a serious Establishment figure) decided not to discuss the referendum as he suspected that he would would be the only pro-remain voice at the table!
I've heard that view from a lot of people (including @SeanT): they want a 51:49 victory to Remain, because that would (a) make it clear how unhappy we are with the EU project; (b) leave the door open to another referendum if there are significant changes; but also (c) minimise the economic risk.
It's a view I have considerable sympathy with. But wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
Leave has to deliver substantial reductions in immigration. Can't do that with EEA/EFTA.
Apparently I do need to keep reminding people that this isn't an election, so Leave won't form a government if they win, and hence they won't be in a position to deliver or otherwise.
It's a somewhat disingenuous distinction as the key roles in the new Tory Government will be taken by leavers. Who will then need to deliver on what the people think they voted for, which is a massive reduction in immigration.
I wonder if we will see a Vow moment from the Government, if there is in fact anything that can be done to throw a bone to Leave at this point.
I think we're going to get an equivalent of some of those "please stay, we love you" letters that the Scots got in the Indy Ref, but with a hint if menace mixed in.
The one from Schauble is likely to be the first of a few of these, I suspect: "Please don't go. We do like you really. All the same, if you do leave, make no mistake, we are going to kick the sh*t out of you".
I vaguely recall something in an article from the English version of Der Spiegel a few days to the effect that Juncker wanted to say something to help persuade the UK to vote to remain, but had been told his intervention would be unlikely to help. But that he might be allowed to intervene in the last week of the campaign if things were going badly for Remain? Or did I get that wrong?
Can't remember where it was - but I've read the same article.
Bless his earnestness - he evidently thinks people will listen to him. It will make the QT laugh about Obama's intervention sound quiet....
If we take the largest employer, the NHS, they are utterly dependent on immigration. In theory we could be training masses more doctors and nurses and technical staff. In practice we don't - indeed,the current government has CUT nursing training. That, at some level, is undoubtedly because they can get qualified labour more inexpensively from immigration. We could reverse that, if we diverted a bigger chunk of NHS spending to salaries and spent 5-10 years massively increasing training. But in that case either we'd have big cuts in NHS services or a sharply rising NHS budget.
If leaving the EU leads to us investing (through higher taxes) in developing needed skills for our society, then so be it. Twice the PM has faced questions linking cuts to nursing training to the ability of the government to bring in ready-to-go labour.
I made an out-of-the-box suggestion the other day that the NHS might open, expand or work with training colleges in large non-EU cities like Mumbai or Manila, which would reduce training costs while maintaining standards and allow skilled foreigners an immigration route to the UK. The closed EU and NHS mindsets don't seem to allow this sort of thinking - surely better to try and fail than not to try at all?
That would be a 10 year project, and does beg the question: Why not just expand medical and nursing schools in the UK? Both are oversubscribed applications at present. Bond bursaries to working for the NHS if needed.
Why not cut out funding for deadwood university courses to fund essential public service training?
I would be intrigued to know just how many young people have been encouraged into a mountain of debt to obtain a qualification that offers them very little in real return.
The mis-selling of degrees and university is one of the great scandals of the last fifteen years.
If we take the largest employer, the NHS, they are utterly dependent on immigration. In theory we could be training masses more doctors and nurses and technical staff. In practice we don't - indeed,the current government has CUT nursing training. That, at some level, is undoubtedly because they can get qualified labour more inexpensively from immigration. We could reverse that, if we diverted a bigger chunk of NHS spending to salaries and spent 5-10 years massively increasing training. But in that case either we'd have big cuts in NHS services or a sharply rising NHS budget.
If leaving the EU leads to us investing (through higher taxes) in developing needed skills for our society, then so be it. Twice the PM has faced questions linking cuts to nursing training to the ability of the government to bring in ready-to-go labour.
I made an out-of-the-box suggestion the other day that the NHS might open, expand or work with training colleges in large non-EU cities like Mumbai or Manila, which would reduce training costs while maintaining standards and allow skilled foreigners an immigration route to the UK. The closed EU and NHS mindsets don't seem to allow this sort of thinking - surely better to try and fail than not to try at all?
That would be a 10 year project, and does beg the question: Why not just expand medical and nursing schools in the UK? Both are oversubscribed applications at present. Bond bursaries to working for the NHS if needed.
Thanks again for the reply Dr foxinsox.
The project would indeed be more than an election cycle, which illustrates well why having healthcare controlled by politicians doesn't work anywhere else in the world. The NHS could however leverage its massive size on a project like this.
Training bonds could be tied to work visas in the UK after training, rather than initial training, having the initial training / med school in a low-cost country, overseen by NHS staff to ensure medical conformity, *might* be both better and cheaper both for the NHS and the students - a lot of whom come to the UK for a few years in order to support families in India or Philippines.
Expanding med schools in the UK (for UK nationals or those willing to pay *full* cost fees, not everyone in the EU who wants a British education) is of course also desirable.
Couldn't read much of it before it was covered with an ad, but I gather he wants the political elite to be allowed to get on with running us plebs without us interfering. That's the way the EU sees it. Elections, democracy, bah.
Should LEAVE prevail on 23 June, it will be Labour voters wot won it for them. Reflecting Corbyn's decidedly lacklustre level of support for the party's official line as being for REMAIN, the rank and file of their supporters are so far clearly not convinced.
The LEAVE Tories, together with UKIP supporters are nowhere near enough to win it for LEAVE on their own, they need a mighty wodge of Labour voting LEAVERS to push them over the line.
The way the numbers work out could eventually prove to look something like this:
Conservative Leavers ..... 60% x 35% = 21.0% UKIP Leavers .................. 90% x 15% = 13.5% Labour Leavers ............... 45% x 30% = 13.5% Other Parties' Leavers ..... 15% x 20% = 3.0%
Total LEAVERS .................................... 51.0%
I don't want to believe the polling - but the trend seems to be coming our way.
It is often said that Rupert Murdoch likes to support the winning side and that's certainly a logical stance for a newspaper proprietor to take, i.e. in not wishing to alienate one's readership. I suspect there's also a small, probably very small percentage of the electorate who want to back the winner. Even if this percentage is < 1%, this could prove crucial in what looks like a very close contest.
My Dad has voted Leave because he wants Remain to win, but not by very much!
I guess there's some logic in that somewhere, if one were to dig very deep and then dig some more!
For him it's all about sovereignty - but he's ok (just about) with the current set up. He thinks that a 50.01% victory with Remain would make the EU think very carefully before pursuing further integration. I disagree...
But he's voted Leave anyway (by post). It was mildly amusing the other day when the chairman of the firm (who is a serious Establishment figure) decided not to discuss the referendum as he suspected that he would would be the only pro-remain voice at the table!
I've heard that view from a lot of people (including @SeanT): they want a 51:49 victory to Remain, because that would (a) make it clear how unhappy we are with the EU project; (b) leave the door open to another referendum if there are significant changes; but also (c) minimise the economic risk.
It's a view I have considerable sympathy with. But wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
Leave has to deliver substantial reductions in immigration. Can't do that with EEA/EFTA.
Apparently I do need to keep reminding people that this isn't an election, so Leave won't form a government if they win, and hence they won't be in a position to deliver or otherwise.
That's true, but the syllogism goes like this (assuming, which, I don't, Brexit)
- UK voters don't like sustained high levels of immigration - The EU enables sustained high levels of immigration - Vote to leave the EU
If immigration doesn't fall, irrespective of whose failure it actually _is_, a good chunk of the electorate are going to be furious. Then the world will end. Or there'll be an election, or something. It's at that point that I can't follow the logic.
TL; DR If immigration doesn't fall post Brexit something something something.
I wonder if we will see a Vow moment from the Government, if there is in fact anything that can be done to throw a bone to Leave at this point.
I think we're going to get an equivalent of some of those "please stay, we love you" letters that the Scots got in the Indy Ref, but with a hint if menace mixed in.
The one from Schauble is likely to be the first of a few of these, I suspect: "Please don't go. We do like you really. All the same, if you do leave, make no mistake, we are going to kick the sh*t out of you".
I vaguely recall something in an article from the English version of Der Spiegel a few days to the effect that Juncker wanted to say something to help persuade the UK to vote to remain, but had been told his intervention would be unlikely to help. But that he might be allowed to intervene in the last week of the campaign if things were going badly for Remain? Or did I get that wrong?
The reaction to Schauble seems to be Don't You Remember The Last Two Times You Did This.
If you haven't read Flexcit, which (by some accounts) the Civil Service are currently using to plan for Brexit, it's worth doing so. However a brief overview of the It gives some of the highlights of EFTA membership would include:
1) Cut out c.75% of the EU legislative corpus 2) Repatriate fisheries and agricultural policy 3) Lower overall membership cost, even if we opt back into additional programmes like the Single European Sky and Horizon 2020 4) 'Emergency brake' on freedom of movement via Articles 112-3 5) An independent voice on the global regulatory bodies which actually set many of the market standards we're told come from the EU 6) A veto over some aspects of EU single market legislation 7) The ability to sign our own trade deals 8) By leaving the EU, we firmly opt-out of further integration (e.g. the tax harmonisation and European army proposals which have been put on hold until after the referendum). We can then choose to use EFTA as a stepping stone to a looser bilateral deal, or remain there as long as it suits us. However, it puts Britain back in control of its own destiny.
There's a reason the Norwegians oppose EU membership by 70.8% to 17.8%
Should LEAVE prevail on 23 June, it will be Labour voters wot won it for them. Reflecting Corbyn's decidedly lacklustre level of support for the party's official line as being for REMAIN, the rank and file of their supporters are so far clearly not convinced.
The LEAVE Tories, together with UKIP supporters are nowhere near enough to win it for LEAVE on their own, they need a mighty wodge of Labour voting LEAVERS to push them over the line.
The way the numbers work out could eventually prove to look something like this:
Conservative Leavers ..... 60% x 35% = 21.0% UKIP Leavers .................. 90% x 15% = 13.5% Labour Leavers ............... 45% x 30% = 13.5% Other Parties' Leavers ..... 15% x 20% = 3.0%
Total LEAVERS .................................... 51.0%
It's fascinating how cross-party the Leave campaign is - I'm sure I've seen posters here using whatever leaflets/signs are most appropriate for their area, irrespective of their own politics.
I'm pushing LabourLeave stuff quite hard. They've a really compelling BS free message. GrassRootsOut have some great nuggets too. VoteLeave are impressing me with video evidence/rapid rebuttals/big announcements.
I don't want to believe the polling - but the trend seems to be coming our way.
It is often said that Rupert Murdoch likes to support the winning side and that's certainly a logical stance for a newspaper proprietor to take, i.e. in not wishing to alienate one's readership. I suspect there's also a small, probably very small percentage of the electorate who want to back the winner. Even if this percentage is < 1%, this could prove crucial in what looks like a very close contest.
My Dad has voted Leave because he wants Remain to win, but not by very much!
I guess there's some logic in that somewhere, if one were to dig very deep and then dig some more!
For him it's all about sovereignty - but he's ok (just about) with the current set up. He thinks that a 50.01% victory with Remain would make the EU think very carefully before pursuing further integration. I disagree...
But he's voted Leave anyway (by post). It was mildly amusing the other day when the chairman of the firm (who is a serious Establishment figure) decided not to discuss the referendum as he suspected that he would would be the only pro-remain voice at the table!
I've heard that view from a lot of people (including @SeanT): they want a 51:49 victory to Remain, because that would (a) make it clear how unhappy we are with the EU project; (b) leave the door open to another referendum if there are significant changes; but also (c) minimise the economic risk.
It's a view I have considerable sympathy with. But wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
Leave has to deliver substantial reductions in immigration. Can't do that with EEA/EFTA.
Apparently I do need to keep reminding people that this isn't an election, so Leave won't form a government if they win, and hence they won't be in a position to deliver or otherwise.
It's a somewhat disingenuous distinction as the key roles in the new Tory Government will be taken by leavers.
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign rhetoric of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.
It's leave's vote to lose now. All the momentum is with them because (sadly but unsurprisingly) the single issue of the campaign is migration and remain have no answer. So far the campaign has traded increasingly ludicrous claim and counter claim with "facts" that patently aren't.
But a lot of people aren't going with their head, they are going with their gut. And that tells them they are unhappy with the status quo, aren't happy with where the country is going, and even if leaving the EU isn't a silver bullet cure all, it's a start. Or at the very least a scream of defiance against an establishment which for two long has offered (as Galloway put it) two cheeks of the same arse.
It'll be leave. It won't be close.
I'm increasingly in agreement with this. The question is how they will react when they discover they've voted for the 'continuity' Tories rather than the 'real' Tories. But still end up with Tories whose fundamental view of the world is free market neoliberalism (with added protection for their own interests, but not yours).
They'll have a vote in the 2020 election.
Quite. The whole point is that it's for the British people to decide who governs them - and to be able to give the buggers a P45 at the ballot box if we don't like what they do.
Amusingly, the party that might benefit most from this independence would be a centrist liberal party, but the LDs inexplicably love the EU more then the rest of them!
The Leavers are maintaining a fiction that many of the limitations on what modern Government can achieve are caused by the EU. What will be discovered if we leave is that the EU is often a convenient excuse, and actually the limitations are more a consequence of the globalised world in which we live.
So the removal of that convenient excuse will render our Governments that much more accountable to the voters.
Absolutely - without the EU's skirts, our politicians will have to own what happens - and the civil service won't have so much gold-plating to do either.
One of many benefits. Which is why our civil service are so against it.
If we take the largest employer, the NHS, they are utterly dependent on immigration. In theory we could be training masses more doctors and nurses and technical staff. In practice we don't - indeed,the current government has CUT nursing training. That, at some level, is undoubtedly because they can get qualified labour more inexpensively from immigration. We could reverse that, if we diverted a bigger chunk of NHS spending to salaries and spent 5-10 years massively increasing training. But in that case either we'd have big cuts in NHS services or a sharply rising NHS budget.
If leaving the EU leads to us investing (through higher taxes) in developing needed skills for our society, then so be it. Twice the PM has faced questions linking cuts to nursing training to the ability of the government to bring in ready-to-go labour.
I made an out-of-the-box suggestion the other day that the NHS might open, expand or work with training colleges in large non-EU cities like Mumbai or Manila, which would reduce training costs while maintaining standards and allow skilled foreigners an immigration route to the UK. The closed EU and NHS mindsets don't seem to allow this sort of thinking - surely better to try and fail than not to try at all?
That would be a 10 year project, and does beg the question: Why not just expand medical and nursing schools in the UK? Both are oversubscribed applications at present. Bond bursaries to working for the NHS if needed.
Why not cut out funding for deadwood university courses to fund essential public service training?
I would be intrigued to know just how many young people have been encouraged into a mountain of debt to obtain a qualification that offers them very little in real return.
The mis-selling of degrees and university is one of the great scandals of the last fifteen years.
Define 'deadwood'. HEFCE funding for teaching in universities is based on a formula which prioritises high cost STEM subjects, including those allied to health. Most courses are expected to rely on funding from tuition fees, not taxation.
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign logic of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.
I think there is truth in this, notwithstanding the large number of unskilled non-EU immigrants that we seem to have. My husband works for a software house and they struggle to get visas for skilled workers from places like India and Thailand. Yet when they advertise for vacancies within the UK they just don't seem to get any response.
Anyone aware of postal vote sampling? Shame it's illegal to put it on here.
Its also illegal to do it although the practice aeems fairly widespread
Representatives of the campaigns are present when postal votes are opened as they arrive. They all try to see the way the votes have been cast as the officials stack them to be counted.
Making general comments on what they see is okay, as has been seen over the past couple of days, but any numbers, whether of the form "60:40 for X" or 500 postal votes for Y so far here" is definitely illegal.
I wonder if we will see a Vow moment from the Government, if there is in fact anything that can be done to throw a bone to Leave at this point.
Not sure that there is a rabbit to be pulled and not sure that I want one anyway.
Juncker and Merkel promise us fresh 'sympathetic' negotiations if we vote to remain.
Of course that will fool no one as the UK was ripped off for £5 billion for having a 'sympathetic review' of the CAP and it was found "That we have got it just about right".
Should LEAVE prevail on 23 June, it will be Labour voters wot won it for them. Reflecting Corbyn's decidedly lacklustre level of support for the party's official line as being for REMAIN, the rank and file of their supporters are so far clearly not convinced.
The LEAVE Tories, together with UKIP supporters are nowhere near enough to win it for LEAVE on their own, they need a mighty wodge of Labour voting LEAVERS to push them over the line.
The way the numbers work out could eventually prove to look something like this:
Conservative Leavers ..... 60% x 35% = 21.0% UKIP Leavers .................. 90% x 15% = 13.5% Labour Leavers ............... 45% x 30% = 13.5% Other Parties' Leavers ..... 15% x 20% = 3.0%
Total LEAVERS .................................... 51.0%
It's fascinating how cross-party the Leave campaign is - I'm sure I've seen posters here using whatever leaflets/signs are most appropriate for their area, irrespective of their own politics.
I'm pushing LabourLeave stuff quite hard. They've a really compelling BS free message. GrassRootsOut have some great nuggets too. VoteLeave are impressing me with video evidence/rapid rebuttals/big announcements.
I don't want to believe the polling - but the trend seems to be coming our way.
It is often said that Rupert Murdoch likes to support the winning side and that's certainly a logical stance for a newspaper proprietor to take, i.e. in not wishing to alienate one's readership. I suspect there's also a small, probably very small percentage of the electorate who want to back the winner. Even if this percentage is < 1%, this could prove crucial in what looks like a very close contest.
My Dad has voted Leave because he wants Remain to win, but not by very much!
I guess there's some logic in that somewhere, if one were to dig very deep and then dig some more!
For him it's all about sovereignty - but he's ok (just about) with the current set up. He thinks that a 50.01% victory with Remain would make the EU think very carefully before pursuing further integration. I disagree...
But he's voted Leave anyway (by post). It was mildly amusing the other day when the chairman of the firm (who is a serious Establishment figure) decided not to discuss the referendum as he suspected that he would would be the only pro-remain voice at the table!
I've heard that view from a lot of people (including @SeanT): they want a 51:49 victory to Remain, because that would (a) make it clear how unhappy we are with the EU project; (b) leave the door open to another referendum if there are significant changes; but also (c) minimise the economic risk.
It's a view I have considerable sympathy with. But wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
He'd be very happy with that outcome
What possible benefit would efta/eea bring?
Cost Sovereignty Ability to limit immigration (through a sensible market based mechanism) No longer in CAP/CFP No negative impact on British businesses Ability to have our own trade deals
Should LEAVE prevail on 23 June, it will be Labour voters wot won it for them. Reflecting Corbyn's decidedly lacklustre level of support for the party's official line as being for REMAIN, the rank and file of their supporters are so far clearly not convinced.
The LEAVE Tories, together with UKIP supporters are nowhere near enough to win it for LEAVE on their own, they need a mighty wodge of Labour voting LEAVERS to push them over the line.
The way the numbers work out could eventually prove to look something like this:
Conservative Leavers ..... 60% x 35% = 21.0% UKIP Leavers .................. 90% x 15% = 13.5% Labour Leavers ............... 45% x 30% = 13.5% Other Parties' Leavers ..... 15% x 20% = 3.0%
Total LEAVERS .................................... 51.0%
It's fascinating how cross-party the Leave campaign is - I'm sure I've seen posters here using whatever leaflets/signs are most appropriate for their area, irrespective of their own politics.
I'm pushing LabourLeave stuff quite hard. They've a really compelling BS free message. GrassRootsOut have some great nuggets too. VoteLeave are impressing me with video evidence/rapid rebuttals/big announcements.
I don't want to believe the polling - but the trend seems to be coming our way.
It is often said that Rupert Murdoch likes to support the winning side and that's certainly a logical stance for a newspaper proprietor to take, i.e. in not wishing to alienate one's readership. I suspect there's also a small, probably very small percentage of the electorate who want to back the winner. Even if this percentage is < 1%, this could prove crucial in what looks like a very close contest.
My Dad has voted Leave because he wants Remain to win, but not by very much!
I guess there's some logic in that somewhere, if one were to dig very deep and then dig some more!
For him it's all about sovereignty - but he's ok (just about) with the current set up. He thinks that a 50.01% victory with Remain would make the EU think very carefully before pursuing further integration. I disagree...
But he's voted Leave anyway (by post). It was mildly amusing the other day when the chairman of the firm (who is a serious Establishment figure) decided not to discuss the referendum as he suspected that he would would be the only pro-remain voice at the table!
I've heard that view from a lot of people (including @SeanT): they want a 51:49 victory to Remain, because that would (a) make it clear how unhappy we are with the EU project; (b) leave the door open to another referendum if there are significant changes; but also (c) minimise the economic risk.
It's a view I have considerable sympathy with. But wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
It's weird for Schauble as for the last few years he has been dealing with nations going cap in hand to Germany needing a bailout while simultaneously wanting a change. He has quite frankly and rightly been the loudest advocate for the notion "beggars can't be choosers" and that if eg the Greeks want German cash then the German conditions are non negotiable.
The UK is in the very different position. We aren't the ones demanding money we are the ones paying in. To be fair to Schauble he has acknowledged that and said it is our choice.
Anyone aware of postal vote sampling? Shame it's illegal to put it on here.
Its also illegal to do it although the practice aeems fairly widespread
Representatives of the campaigns are present when postal votes are opened as they arrive. They all try to see the way the votes have been cast as the officials stack them to be counted.
Making general comments on what they see is okay, as has been seen over the past couple of days, but any numbers, whether of the form "60:40 for X" or 500 postal votes for Y so far here" is definitely illegal.
I suspect that Labour Leavers are more motivated with giving politicians, experts, and the elite in general a bloody nose. Up yours. Driven by anger at not sharing in prosperity and being generally ignored. "Take Control" will resonate with them even though they will be even less in control after Brexit under a right wing government.
I also suspect that a Brexit will lead to a EEA/EFTA arrangement which will be very similar to the present arrangement. The only difference is that it will be more appealing emotionally to some, and it will lead to an extended period of economic uncertainty with more cuts and less jobs for a time. No change to immigration though. It's a false promise that will only reconfirm Labour Leavers contempt for politicians.
Why will we be less in control after Brexit? We will have a government that we, the voters, can hold to account. I'd argue that this will encourage more people to get out & vote.
With overseers in Europe who aren't elected & can't be removed, why should we bother to vote in our national sub-parliament elections that can make no difference?
I doubt it would encourage more people to go out to vote. Most UK constituencies are safe seats. Why bother to vote if that can make no difference?
I'm interested in understanding better the motivation of Labour Leavers. What proportion of the electorate are they? 15%? I've met some in my canvassing. They are angry and aggressive. But though they are loud, they tend in practice not to vote. They say they'll vote, but then they don't.
If 70% of the 15% say they'll vote Leave, but in practice only 40% actually vote, that reduces the Leave vote by 4.5% (15% x (70%-40%)) roughly speaking.
I think in many cases they don't because "there's no f****** point, they're all the same"
If they believe - rightly or wrongly - this is there one chance to shake things up I think you could be surprised
It may be subjective, but ... media studies (watching telly), film studies (watching films), most of the arts (self-indulgent), all language courses (English excepted), PPE (trainee politicians), gender studies (walking around Liverpool on a Saturday night, or perhaps not), and indeed anything with studies in the title.
Edit: and of course, sociology, which is only for middle class women with too much time on their hands.
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign logic of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.
I think there is truth in this, notwithstanding the large number of unskilled non-EU immigrants that we seem to have. My husband works for a software house and they struggle to get visas for skilled workers from places like India and Thailand. Yet when they advertise for vacancies within the UK they just don't seem to get any response.
It is always worth remembering that non-EU immigration of 155,000 was more than 50% above the 100,000 limit.
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign rhetoric of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.
Any knowledgeable Premier League football fan should be able to explain how talented non-EU professionals are declined access to the UK via the work permit system whilst any mediocrity with an EU passport can ply their trade.
Guido According to ORB, 44% of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back @labourleave #Lexit
I don't have confidence in ORB. I didn't believe them when they had whopping great big leads for Remain with 96-97% voting certainties and only 3-4% don't knows, and I don't believe them now.
Should LEAVE prevail on 23 June, it will be Labour voters wot won it for them. Reflecting Corbyn's decidedly lacklustre level of support for the party's official line as being for REMAIN, the rank and file of their supporters are so far clearly not convinced.
The LEAVE Tories, together with UKIP supporters are nowhere near enough to win it for LEAVE on their own, they need a mighty wodge of Labour voting LEAVERS to push them over the line.
The way the numbers work out could eventually prove to look something like this:
Conservative Leavers ..... 60% x 35% = 21.0% UKIP Leavers .................. 90% x 15% = 13.5% Labour Leavers ............... 45% x 30% = 13.5% Other Parties' Leavers ..... 15% x 20% = 3.0%
Total LEAVERS .................................... 51.0%
It's fascinating how cross-party the Leave campaign is - I'm sure I've seen posters here using whatever leaflets/signs are most appropriate for their area, irrespective of their own politics.
I'm pushing LabourLeave stuff quite hard. They've a really compelling BS free message. GrassRootsOut have some great nuggets too. VoteLeave are impressing me with video evidence/rapid rebuttals/big announcements.
I don't want to believe the polling - but the trend seems to be coming our way.
It is often said that Rupert Murdoch likes to support the winning side and that's certainly a logical stance for a newspaper proprietor to take, i.e. in not wishing to alienate one's readership. I suspect there's also a small, probably very small percentage of the electorate who want to back the winner. Even if this percentage is < 1%, this could prove crucial in what looks like a very close contest.
My Dad has voted Leave because he wants Remain to win, but not by very much!
I guess there's some logic in that somewhere, if one were to dig very deep and then dig some more!
For him it's all about sovereignty - but he's ok (just about) with the current set up. He thinks that a 50.01% victory with Remain would make the EU think very carefully before pursuing further integration. I disagree...
But he's voted Leave anyway (by post). It was mildly amusing the other day when the chairman of the firm (who is a serious Establishment figure) decided not to discuss the referendum as he suspected that he would would be the only pro-remain voice at the table!
I've heard that view from a lot of people (including @SeanT): they want a 51:49 victory to Remain, because that would (a) make it clear how unhappy we are with the EU project; (b) leave the door open to another referendum if there are significant changes; but also (c) minimise the economic risk.
It's a view I have considerable sympathy with. But wouldn't it simply be easier to have EFTA/EEA as the explicit destination?
He'd be very happy with that outcome
What possible benefit would efta/eea bring?
Cost Sovereignty Ability to limit immigration (through a sensible market based mechanism) No longer in CAP/CFP No negative impact on British businesses Ability to have our own trade deals
It's weird for Schauble as for the last few years he has been dealing with nations going cap in hand to Germany needing a bailout while simultaneously wanting a change. He has quite frankly and rightly been the loudest advocate for the notion "beggars can't be choosers" and that if eg the Greeks want German cash then the German conditions are non negotiable.
The UK is in the very different position. We aren't the ones demanding money we are the ones paying in. To be fair to Schauble he has acknowledged that and said it is our choice.
Normally I would be sympathetic to the beggars cant be choosers argument, but the Germans were complicit in allowing Greece and others to cheat on their Euro entry criteria in the interest of The Project. Now that it has gone wrong they are trying to wash their hands of their involvement, time to cough up and share some of the pain.
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign logic of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.
I think there is truth in this, notwithstanding the large number of unskilled non-EU immigrants that we seem to have. My husband works for a software house and they struggle to get visas for skilled workers from places like India and Thailand. Yet when they advertise for vacancies within the UK they just don't seem to get any response.
Exactly so. That's why Cameron's drastic reduction in immigration pledge was dishonest when he made. And it is dishonest now for exactly the same reasons when Gove and others make the same argument for Leave. High immigration is a facet of an open economy in a globalised world. No-one is prepared to admit it.
I suspect that Labour Leavers are more motivated with giving politicians, experts, and the elite in general a bloody nose. Up yours. Driven by anger at not sharing in prosperity and being generally ignored. "Take Control" will resonate with them even though they will be even less in control after Brexit under a right wing government.
I also suspect that a Brexit will lead to a EEA/EFTA arrangement which will be very similar to the present arrangement. The only difference is that it will be more appealing emotionally to some, and it will lead to an extended period of economic uncertainty with more cuts and less jobs for a time. No change to immigration though. It's a false promise that will only reconfirm Labour Leavers contempt for politicians.
Why will we be less in control after Brexit? We will have a government that we, the voters, can hold to account. I'd argue that this will encourage more people to get out & vote.
With overseers in Europe who aren't elected & can't be removed, why should we bother to vote in our national sub-parliament elections that can make no difference?
I think this is one of the great unmade arguments by Leave - especially on the left. Remainers have taken a free shot on "protecting workers' rights" (/farm subsidies/environment/insert favoured subsidy of interest group here) because nasty Brexiteers would bin it off when we left.
Given there'll be another general election before most EU legislation etc is unpicked, there's a real opportunity for politicians of the left and centre to get off their arses and draw up compelling policy platforms which protect those things that people value through domestic policy - or are honest about what the benefits are of losing them. Maternity benefits or four weeks' holiday important to you? Get off your bum on Election Day and stop someone who says ending them will make us more competitive.
We've seen it for decades in local government - denuding it of power and resources means second rate people taking power and shrugging their shoulders because education (police/fire/social care) policy is all made at Westminster. People don't vote, bad decisions are made, cycle repeats. While a lack of resources will restrict the new conurbation mayors (and it's a policy which will create a two-tier system leaving rural areas behind), at least some serious politicians are taking the bait.
Putting some current Euro-competencies back in domestic hands, and some big issues into play in UK elections, would hopefully quickly extinguish a BoJo-Corbyn clown show and bring forward some people who could put together a serious policy platform.
(Or we may have become so bad at politics that the whole thing turns to dust in months )
Guido According to ORB, 44% of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back @labourleave #Lexit
Pardon my ignorance - what group is running LabourLeave? With a support base like that, it might have a future as an alternative to a too-left-wing-for-many Labour party.
Spoke to my Deutsche Bank director friend last night at a wedding in Stoke Newington last night where he was best man. EU ref came up. He was very dismissive of my warnings about 'covering himself' on Leave, and has just gone in even deeper with another £20k. He's convinced it'll be 56:44 to Remain.
He then got quite animated about the issue of immigration and how ignorant the masses were, and thought we should have even more: 500k-1m net each year. Needless to say, I pointed out I respectfully disagreed.
I should add that a few ales had been consumed. But not exactly a meeting of minds.
Couldn't read much of it before it was covered with an ad, but I gather he wants the political elite to be allowed to get on with running us plebs without us interfering. That's the way the EU sees it. Elections, democracy, bah.
Unlike brain surgeons or Professors, there's no qualification for being an MP.
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign rhetoric of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.
Any knowledgeable Premier League football fan should be able to explain how talented non-EU professionals are declined access to the UK via the work permit system whilst any mediocrity with an EU passport can ply their trade.
No doubt that situation isn't unique to football.
Nevertheless, non-EU immigration is 50% above the total target. So, we are clearly going to restrict non EU immigration more in the future.
I wonder if we will see a Vow moment from the Government, if there is in fact anything that can be done to throw a bone to Leave at this point.
I think we're going to get an equivalent of some of those "please stay, we love you" letters that the Scots got in the Indy Ref, but with a hint if menace mixed in.
The one from Schauble is likely to be the first of a few of these, I suspect: "Please don't go. We do like you really. All the same, if you do leave, make no mistake, we are going to kick the sh*t out of you".
I vaguely recall something in an article from the English version of Der Spiegel a few days to the effect that Juncker wanted to say something to help persuade the UK to vote to remain, but had been told his intervention would be unlikely to help. But that he might be allowed to intervene in the last week of the campaign if things were going badly for Remain? Or did I get that wrong?
Can't remember where it was - but I've read the same article.
Bless his earnestness - he evidently thinks people will listen to him. It will make the QT laugh about Obama's intervention sound quiet....
Please, please, please can the Remain campaign bring out the big EU guns promising Armageddon if we leave, in the next 12 days. It will be worse than having Major and Blair declare that there will be a war in NI.
Define 'deadwood'. HEFCE funding for teaching in universities is based on a formula which prioritises high cost STEM subjects, including those allied to health. Most courses are expected to rely on funding from tuition fees, not taxation.
Where do students get the money for tuition fees?
Deadwood? Predominantly courses that generate an employment outcome for the graduate that is frequently little or no better than if they had not been asked to part with £30k for them.
I see little discernible change in the calibre of work available to our young people compared to twenty or thirty years ago, yet they are being encouraged to build up small mortgages for the same outcome.
Anyone aware of postal vote sampling? Shame it's illegal to put it on here.
Its also illegal to do it although the practice aeems fairly widespread
Representatives of the campaigns are present when postal votes are opened as they arrive. They all try to see the way the votes have been cast as the officials stack them to be counted.
Making general comments on what they see is okay, as has been seen over the past couple of days, but any numbers, whether of the form "60:40 for X" or 500 postal votes for Y so far here" is definitely illegal.
It may be subjective, but ... media studies (watching telly), film studies (watching films), most of the arts (self-indulgent), all language courses (English excepted), PPE (trainee politicians), gender studies (walking around Liverpool on a Saturday night, or perhaps not), and indeed anything with studies in the title.
Edit: and of course, sociology, which is only for middle class women with too much time on their hands.
On that definition you wouldn't save very much public money by cutting them; they're not considered priorities by HEFCE and are funded by the students (assuming, of course, that they pay their loans but even that risk is largely outside the public finances these days).
Guido According to ORB, 44% of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back @labourleave #Lexit
Pardon my ignorance - what group is running LabourLeave? With a support base like that, it might have a future as an alternative to a too-left-wing-for-many Labour party.
A 'tariff' on imports is not paid for by the provider but by the consumer (via higher-costs). Outwith import-substitution we have to pay-up or go without. [And I am firmly B.O.O.!]
Also his argument that non-EU immigration is over-restricted and that's the fault of our EU membership doesn't add up. Although there is a theoretical possibility of substitution of non-EU immigration for reduced EU immigration, there is no actual linkage. It also runs contrary to the Leave campaign logic of more control over immigration - ie more restriction.
I think there is truth in this, notwithstanding the large number of unskilled non-EU immigrants that we seem to have. My husband works for a software house and they struggle to get visas for skilled workers from places like India and Thailand. Yet when they advertise for vacancies within the UK they just don't seem to get any response.
Exactly so. That's why Cameron's drastic reduction in immigration pledge was dishonest when he made. And it is dishonest now for exactly the same reasons when Gove and others make the same argument for Leave. High immigration is a facet of an open economy in a globalised world. No-one is prepared to admit it.
Clever or tasteless who can tell... I know what I think.
Simon Richards Retweeted Malcolm Carter @MalcCarter · 33m33 minutes ago Expect hysterical deceitful #Remain to claim these guys fought and died for a European Superstate #VoteLeave #EUref
Genuine question which I've always wondered about - how, if at all, does anyone check that someone hasn't voted twice? For example a student registered at home and at college could vote in both locations (one by post or proxy, if distance is an issue). Does anyone bother to check? I suspect I can guess the answer, but does anyone know definitively?
Just in case anyone's at a loose end this drizzly afternoon: Nigel Farage, Gisela Stuart, Paddy Ashdown and Michael Heseltine are debating in Sutton Coldfield today at 12:00 noon.
It's weird for Schauble as for the last few years he has been dealing with nations going cap in hand to Germany needing a bailout while simultaneously wanting a change. He has quite frankly and rightly been the loudest advocate for the notion "beggars can't be choosers" and that if eg the Greeks want German cash then the German conditions are non negotiable.
The UK is in the very different position. We aren't the ones demanding money we are the ones paying in. To be fair to Schauble he has acknowledged that and said it is our choice.
Normally I would be sympathetic to the beggars cant be choosers argument, but the Germans were complicit in allowing Greece and others to cheat on their Euro entry criteria in the interest of The Project. Now that it has gone wrong they are trying to wash their hands of their involvement, time to cough up and share some of the pain.
Perhaps in an ideal world, but his job is not do do what is "fair". It is not to do the best for the Greeks, or even the best for the EU. His job is to do what is best for Germans and he is doing that to the best of his ability.
If UK leaders past and present had taken such an uncompromising "what is best for my nation" view to their dealings with the rest of Europe then maybe we wouldn't all be so frustrated.
Anyone aware of postal vote sampling? Shame it's illegal to put it on here.
Its also illegal to do it although the practice aeems fairly widespread
Representatives of the campaigns are present when postal votes are opened as they arrive. They all try to see the way the votes have been cast as the officials stack them to be counted.
Making general comments on what they see is okay, as has been seen over the past couple of days, but any numbers, whether of the form "60:40 for X" or 500 postal votes for Y so far here" is definitely illegal.
So what are these general comments you've been seeing?
Also, is it illegal to quote what someone else has said illegally?
There were some tweets yesterday that were borderline but clearly legal, referred to on here.
I am not a lawyer so can't comment on the second point, but re-publishing a libel I know has been held up in court. See also the thankfully departed from the scene Sally Bercow.
Comments
This referendum is alresdy showing that progressive european ideals are not shared by nearly so much of the UK population than the great and good thought.
Governments have been using those tactics to massage unemployment figures for years.
*edit* For example, just exclude all Commonwealth countries from the immigration figures.
Whatever we think about our EU membership, I think we can agree that there's a lot we would change about this country. The problem, I think, is that our politicians aren't interested in tackling these issues.
You're winning! In 2 weeks Bozo will be PM and you can wear your "I agree with Nige" T-Shirt with pride.
There will be street parties. If you get bored, you can play Hunt the TRAITORS who voted Remain.
And no need to worry about trade or housing collapsing.
You can sleep at night cloaked in the warm glow of self-satisfaction.
Cheer up man!
With overseers in Europe who aren't elected & can't be removed, why should we bother to vote in our national sub-parliament elections that can make no difference?
I'm not sure we can deduce anything at all, bar the very widest impression of which way the wind is blowing.
*From outside the EU
PS Before any smart arse Zoomers get the hump, this is a joke. Oh, shit, this edit is timestamped.
Oh, this is going to be soooooo much fun!
I'm interested in understanding better the motivation of Labour Leavers. What proportion of the electorate are they? 15%? I've met some in my canvassing. They are angry and aggressive. But though they are loud, they tend in practice not to vote. They say they'll vote, but then they don't.
If 70% of the 15% say they'll vote Leave, but in practice only 40% actually vote, that reduces the Leave vote by 4.5% (15% x (70%-40%)) roughly speaking.
It's really very strange. Perhaps closer to the date people will get more interested, but at the moment, it's very, meh.
As frustrating as debating with you can be sometimes Scott, your wit always manages to redeem!
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/10/queen-elizabeth-90th-birtday-street-parties-middel-class-nationalism-british-empire
But those who don't vote, don't vote.
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/eu-referendum-richard-dawkins-brexit-23rd-june-ignoramuses
A depreciation in sterling of the magnitude Remain are inclined to suggest would also offset the tariff for exporters, while European importers would find it harder to sell to the UK as their goods become less price competitive.
Tariffs plus sterling depreciation would be dreadful news for Europe, but would help UK domestic producers in competition with european companies, surely?
If we look back to the time of the Euro, Heseltine and others were arguing precisely the opposite that they argue now - he was arguing that sterling should fall to keep us competitive.
UK manufacturing was never a key concern. Are you going to slag-off Advanced RISC Machines next...?
:tumbleweed:
The one from Schauble is likely to be the first of a few of these, I suspect: "Please don't go. We do like you really. All the same, if you do leave, make no mistake, we are going to kick the sh*t out of you".
I vaguely recall something in an article from the English version of Der Spiegel a few days to the effect that Juncker wanted to say something to help persuade the UK to vote to remain, but had been told his intervention would be unlikely to help. But that he might be allowed to intervene in the last week of the campaign if things were going badly for Remain? Or did I get that wrong?
I know this is not a popular viewpoint, but the Brexit bonus the Tory party will get by leaving is:
- not angering the largely eurosceptic activist base
- not angering the largely eurosceptic voter base
- pleasing the c.18% of voters who vote UKIP
- removing Cameron and Osborne
If Corbo stays in place, Post vote we're going to see 10+ point poll leads.
Bless his earnestness - he evidently thinks people will listen to him. It will make the QT laugh about Obama's intervention sound quiet....
I would be intrigued to know just how many young people have been encouraged into a mountain of debt to obtain a qualification that offers them very little in real return.
The mis-selling of degrees and university is one of the great scandals of the last fifteen years.
The project would indeed be more than an election cycle, which illustrates well why having healthcare controlled by politicians doesn't work anywhere else in the world. The NHS could however leverage its massive size on a project like this.
Training bonds could be tied to work visas in the UK after training, rather than initial training, having the initial training / med school in a low-cost country, overseen by NHS staff to ensure medical conformity, *might* be both better and cheaper both for the NHS and the students - a lot of whom come to the UK for a few years in order to support families in India or Philippines.
Expanding med schools in the UK (for UK nationals or those willing to pay *full* cost fees, not everyone in the EU who wants a British education) is of course also desirable.
- UK voters don't like sustained high levels of immigration
- The EU enables sustained high levels of immigration
- Vote to leave the EU
If immigration doesn't fall, irrespective of whose failure it actually _is_, a good chunk of the electorate are going to be furious. Then the world will end. Or there'll be an election, or something. It's at that point that I can't follow the logic.
TL; DR If immigration doesn't fall post Brexit something something something.
@faisalislam: Defeatism setting in with Remainers ...Metropolitan liberals already planning to secede from a post-Brexit UK... https://t.co/KKF4domjgL
The crucial question, would SeanT join them?
1) Cut out c.75% of the EU legislative corpus
2) Repatriate fisheries and agricultural policy
3) Lower overall membership cost, even if we opt back into additional programmes like the Single European Sky and Horizon 2020
4) 'Emergency brake' on freedom of movement via Articles 112-3
5) An independent voice on the global regulatory bodies which actually set many of the market standards we're told come from the EU
6) A veto over some aspects of EU single market legislation
7) The ability to sign our own trade deals
8) By leaving the EU, we firmly opt-out of further integration (e.g. the tax harmonisation and European army proposals which have been put on hold until after the referendum). We can then choose to use EFTA as a stepping stone to a looser bilateral deal, or remain there as long as it suits us. However, it puts Britain back in control of its own destiny.
There's a reason the Norwegians oppose EU membership by 70.8% to 17.8%
"Metropolitan liberals already planning to secede from a post-Brexit UK."
That's terrible. Whatever shall we do without them telling us how stupid we are, and how clever they are?
Is that not the Brexit logic?
Making general comments on what they see is okay, as has been seen over the past couple of days, but any numbers, whether of the form "60:40 for X" or 500 postal votes for Y so far here" is definitely illegal.
The precident was Kerry McCarthy, Lab candidate in Bristol in 2010, that was definitely illegal although she got only a reprimand - but a general warning was issued to candidates.
http://order-order.com/2010/04/29/exclusive-kerry-mccarthy-illegal-postal-votes-tweets/
Of course that will fool no one as the UK was ripped off for £5 billion for having a 'sympathetic review' of the CAP and it was found "That we have got it just about right".
Sovereignty
Ability to limit immigration (through a sensible market based mechanism)
No longer in CAP/CFP
No negative impact on British businesses
Ability to have our own trade deals
The UK is in the very different position. We aren't the ones demanding money we are the ones paying in. To be fair to Schauble he has acknowledged that and said it is our choice.
Also, is it illegal to quote what someone else has said illegally?
If they believe - rightly or wrongly - this is there one chance to shake things up I think you could be surprised
It may be subjective, but ... media studies (watching telly), film studies (watching films), most of the arts (self-indulgent), all language courses (English excepted), PPE (trainee politicians), gender studies (walking around Liverpool on a Saturday night, or perhaps not), and indeed anything with studies in the title.
Edit: and of course, sociology, which is only for middle class women with too much time on their hands.
According to ORB, 44% of people who voted for Labour at last year’s general election now back @labourleave #Lexit
No doubt that situation isn't unique to football.
They are all over the place.
And wait for it - the website commissioners said it was *too hard* to include a look-up function to check.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/deadline-chaos-means-200-000-may-be-registered-to-vote-twice-tw5mcbx9q
Win win win.
Given there'll be another general election before most EU legislation etc is unpicked, there's a real opportunity for politicians of the left and centre to get off their arses and draw up compelling policy platforms which protect those things that people value through domestic policy - or are honest about what the benefits are of losing them. Maternity benefits or four weeks' holiday important to you? Get off your bum on Election Day and stop someone who says ending them will make us more competitive.
We've seen it for decades in local government - denuding it of power and resources means second rate people taking power and shrugging their shoulders because education (police/fire/social care) policy is all made at Westminster. People don't vote, bad decisions are made, cycle repeats. While a lack of resources will restrict the new conurbation mayors (and it's a policy which will create a two-tier system leaving rural areas behind), at least some serious politicians are taking the bait.
Putting some current Euro-competencies back in domestic hands, and some big issues into play in UK elections, would hopefully quickly extinguish a BoJo-Corbyn clown show and bring forward some people who could put together a serious policy platform.
(Or we may have become so bad at politics that the whole thing turns to dust in months
He then got quite animated about the issue of immigration and how ignorant the masses were, and thought we should have even more: 500k-1m net each year. Needless to say, I pointed out I respectfully disagreed.
I should add that a few ales had been consumed. But not exactly a meeting of minds.
Deadwood? Predominantly courses that generate an employment outcome for the graduate that is frequently little or no better than if they had not been asked to part with £30k for them.
I see little discernible change in the calibre of work available to our young people compared to twenty or thirty years ago, yet they are being encouraged to build up small mortgages for the same outcome.
http://www.labourleave.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Leave
Simon Richards Retweeted
Malcolm Carter @MalcCarter · 33m33 minutes ago
Expect hysterical deceitful #Remain to claim these guys fought and died for a European Superstate #VoteLeave #EUref
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkqTVzWWgAAmI5X.jpg:large
Live streaming at: http://www.suttoncoldfieldobserver.co.uk/
If UK leaders past and present had taken such an uncompromising "what is best for my nation" view to their dealings with the rest of Europe then maybe we wouldn't all be so frustrated.
I am not a lawyer so can't comment on the second point, but re-publishing a libel I know has been held up in court. See also the thankfully departed from the scene Sally Bercow.
@mrianleslie: Really interesting, searching interview with @ChukaUmunna by @shattenstone https://t.co/tvLD3Z0Yea