Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
F*cking immigrants - that's what it was all about - scary times ahead.
I'm once again going to perform an act of kindness. I know it's easy to just sit at the keyboard squawking 'racist xenephobes' through one's preferred social media channel. However, my experience of the British is that we're pretty civilised folk. So once more, for the hard of thinking:
Net migration in the 90s was running at around 30-40k p.a. In the late 90s and early 00s it jumped to around 150k p.a. It jumped again after 2004 to around 250k, and again in the last two years to around 330k. That's a current run rate of 1 million per three years, and 1.5 million per three years if you take into account natural population growth. That's greater than the population of Birmingham, in a country that builds 1.5 million homes per decade.
I wouldn't care if every single person was Ghandi and Mary Poppins rolled into one. It's still a logistical issue. It's also an issue that has caused difficulties for many people. If you'd like to continue to be in denial and just heap opprobrium on those affected, then fair enough. But you'll never win an election.
Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
F*cking immigrants - that's what it was all about - scary times ahead.
What we are witnessing is the death of the Labour party as a potential party of government. The Labour membership would prefer that to allowing a "Blairite" (ie, anyone who is not Jeremy Corbyn) to be leader. The comfort blanket is too warm, the membership - largely well-off and unaffected personally by Tory policy - too detached from real life. Labour will develop into a full-blown socialist party and will gradually wither away into complete irrelevance. A new centre-left party will take its place. All that, though, will take time.
Unfortunately, what it means is that a right wing Tory government that needs just 37% of the vote to stay in power will negotiate the terms of Brexit largely unscrutinised and unopposed. And that will result in a deal which will hurt ordinary voters and alienate them even further from the political process.
That's how decent Jeremy Corbyn is.
This is the deal the Tories will negotiate, under May (or maybe even Boris).
The Norway option, with Free movement and a promise of another vote in ten years.
There aren't enough die-hard anti-migrationists in the Tory party to stop it. Most Tory LEAVERS are in the Hannan camp: Sovereigntists. They will be content with this, the City will be content with this. Labour and UKIP wwc voters will not be content, but the Tories won't care
Well if Jahadi Jez and McMao for the "Mr Benn" option to running a shadow cabinet team, one thing we can't accuse them of is not working hard enough and being value for money. Thatcher would have been proud.
The latest pensioner incomes data from the ONS shows that average pensioner incomes have grown closer to those of workers.
In 1994/95 pensioner incomes were 38% lower than average workers' incomes, but by 2014/15 the gap had narrowed to just 7%.
There's a time bomb ticking in society - for how long can the working age people of today carry on bearing the burden of financing the elderly?
Blame the way Labour set up the system.
People think that they are paying in to the system to support their own retirement. They are not. It was never designed that way. They are paying in to support those who are retired now in the hope that there wil still be someone to pay in when they are wanting to take out.
I agree with you entirely that it is unsustainable and someone needs to bite the bullet. Unfortunately I suspect it will be around my retirement age that it will all fall apart.
C'est la vie. Those are the breaks.
How do you think they should have set it up, made the first generation pay in without getting anything out?
And what's with "in the hope that there will still be someone to pay in"? Are all the kids in school right now suddenly going to drop dead when they hit 18?
It's bound to be May. The horrific aftermath of Brexit and all that immigration duplicity can then be blamed on silly old Boris. The Tories need to put clear blue water now between themselves and the whole Leave racket.
"In this Act “Leader of the Opposition” means, in relation to either House of Parliament, that Member of that House who is for the time being the Leader in that House of the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons(...)"
"If any doubt arises as to which is or was at any material time the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons, or as to who is or was at any material time the leader in that House of such a party, the question shall be decided for the purposes of this Act by the Speaker of the House of Commons, and his decision, certified in writing under his hand, shall be final and conclusive."
This is only to do with the LotO's salary.
But does "party" mean "parliamentary party"? What else would the Speaker know about?
Meanwhile, in the Tory party, Johnson and May are crossing over.
R4 Wato stating Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out which leaves Eagle and Watson to fight it out for contender against Corbyn.Eagle is still the value bet but the price keeps contracting.25s will do me.
I can hear the sigh of SouthamObserver from here.
It's all irrelevant as Corbyn is going nowhere. But if by some miracle he did depart I would take either Eagle or Watson as they would stand a better chance than Corbyn of keeping Labour relevant. The Tories will probably win the next election outright (though the LDs may make a comeback and win a few seats in the SW to deprive them), so the most important thing is the scrutiny that their Brexit deal gets in the Commons. If there is no serious opposition - and there can't be if Corbyn is Labour leader - then the deal is inevitably going to screw more ordinary punters than otherwise would be the case.
R4 Wato stating Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out which leaves Eagle and Watson to fight it out for contender against Corbyn.Eagle is still the value bet but the price keeps contracting.25s will do me.
Is Eagle the short blonde lady from the 1st brexit debate? She was rubbish.
What we are witnessing is the death of the Labour party as a potential party of government. The Labour membership would prefer that to allowing a "Blairite" (ie, anyone who is not Jeremy Corbyn) to be leader. The comfort blanket is too warm, the membership - largely well-off and unaffected personally by Tory policy - too detached from real life. Labour will develop into a full-blown socialist party and will gradually wither away into complete irrelevance. A new centre-left party will take its place. All that, though, will take time.
Unfortunately, what it means is that a right wing Tory government that needs just 37% of the vote to stay in power will negotiate the terms of Brexit largely unscrutinised and unopposed. And that will result in a deal which will hurt ordinary voters and alienate them even further from the political process.
That's how decent Jeremy Corbyn is.
This is the deal the Tories will negotiate, under May (or maybe even Boris).
The Norway option, with Free movement and a promise of another vote in ten years.
There aren't enough die-hard anti-migrationists in the Tory party to stop it. Most Tory LEAVERS are in the Hannan camp: Sovereigntists. They will be content with this, the City will be content with this. Labour and UKIP wwc voters will not be content, but the Tories won't care
R4 Wato stating Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out which leaves Eagle and Watson to fight it out for contender against Corbyn.Eagle is still the value bet but the price keeps contracting.25s will do me.
Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
F*cking immigrants - that's what it was all about - scary times ahead.
I have worked in both Newham and Redbridge within the last year and listened to complaints about street drinking, mini-cab drivers having their wages undercut, closed shops on employment, etc.
I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
F*cking immigrants - that's what it was all about - scary times ahead.
No, it wasn't, at least for me!
A minority voice this time Sunil.
Remember the Sunil on Sunday's *positive* message from way back in April:
I am sure that Diane Abbot could fill 2 or even 3 seats at a push.
Oh dear - so funny!
You know it is a cliché that sarcasm doesn't work over the internet but in this case I think you have cracked it. You're right, not one of my better efforts.
Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
F*cking immigrants - that's what it was all about - scary times ahead.
I have worked in both Newham and Redbridge within the last year and listened to complaints about street drinking, mini-cab drivers having their wages undercut, closed shops on employment, etc.
Two factions in my party - Progress and Momentum. Progress try and pretend that its still 2005 but at least they turn out and are active campaigners. Momentum try and pretend that its still 1945, but instead of doing any actual work spend too much time holding impromptu demonstrations and passing pointless resolutions.
Both sides are utterly incapable of recognising the other as the Labour Party. Progress thinks Momentum are trots and crazies. Momentum think anyone not Momentum is a Tory or a closet Tory. One or the other will leave the party in the coming weeks.
The sad thing is they could be great together. Momentum have great ideas and a genuine grasp on where the country has gone wrong and solutions to proffer, but couldn't run the proverbial piss-up in a brewery. Progress have nothing whatsoever left to say of their third way project but are great at organising (as long as they don't get too carried away and have the brewery privatised under a "what works" initiative.
They need each other. Sadly they appear to have decided that oblivion is better - rank arrogance and disdain from both sides. Perhaps a grand political realignment is needed. But not now. Not like this.
Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
I thought the whole point of this rebellion against Corbyn was because he didn't support Remain as much as they wanted him to. Why would they then choose an out and out Outer to replace him?
Gisela would probably be the best for stopping the UKIP surge. I struggle to see who Labour can pick that would actually see them increase their seat count. Given the short space of time between choosing a leader and the supposed general election they might be better off picking someone with the right background and instant appeal (Dan Jarvis if he wants it), even if his lack of ability gets exposed further down the line.
Labour members would never vote for her. That is a bigger disconnect that the one which also clearly exists between MPs and voters, 62% of whom voted remain. Indeed to listen to some on here last week's vote for Leave was rather grander than 52/48. Of course the result has to be accepted but let's not pretend the country is united.
I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
Norway means Open Borders. Munchau rarely (ever?) considers/sees a problem there. Some party will have to sell it to the People at an election/ref. Good luck with that.
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed?
Yes.
And what are they going to do then?
As for Norway, they are subject to about 70% of EU directives. EU laws which bring significant new obligations do have to be okayed by the Storting, though. (Whether they've ever said no, I don't know.)
"In this Act “Leader of the Opposition” means, in relation to either House of Parliament, that Member of that House who is for the time being the Leader in that House of the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons(...)" ...
Surely the fact that this rule applies to the Lords proves that it is the leader of the parliamentary party in each House.
R4 Wato stating Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out which leaves Eagle and Watson to fight it out for contender against Corbyn.Eagle is still the value bet but the price keeps contracting.25s will do me.
My Eagles bet is looking good. Her WatO intv yesterday must surely have swayed many. She genuinely cares about her Party.
R4 Wato stating Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out which leaves Eagle and Watson to fight it out for contender against Corbyn.Eagle is still the value bet but the price keeps contracting.25s will do me.
Hopeless communicator.. lacks gravitas, sounds like an angry mum on mumsnet. she cannot win... and if by some miracle she does win Labour are just as fecked as they are now..
What we are witnessing is the death of the Labour party as a potential party of government. The Labour membership would prefer that to allowing a "Blairite" (ie, anyone who is not Jeremy Corbyn) to be leader. The comfort blanket is too warm, the membership - largely well-off and unaffected personally by Tory policy - too detached from real life. Labour will develop into a full-blown socialist party and will gradually wither away into complete irrelevance. A new centre-left party will take its place. All that, though, will take time.
Unfortunately, what it means is that a right wing Tory government that needs just 37% of the vote to stay in power will negotiate the terms of Brexit largely unscrutinised and unopposed. And that will result in a deal which will hurt ordinary voters and alienate them even further from the political process.
That's how decent Jeremy Corbyn is.
This is the deal the Tories will negotiate, under May (or maybe even Boris).
The Norway option, with Free movement and a promise of another vote in ten years.
There aren't enough die-hard anti-migrationists in the Tory party to stop it. Most Tory LEAVERS are in the Hannan camp: Sovereigntists. They will be content with this, the City will be content with this. Labour and UKIP wwc voters will not be content, but the Tories won't care
There is also a way for us to square the immigration circle. May (or Boris) should propose, along with joining EEA, that our benefits system becomes contributory, thus ending much of the pull factor
This would also be popular with quite a lot of voters, in itself.
Although it is the right option, you need serious balls to propose that, as there will be plenty of UK based losers. Think how the BBC / Guardian went nuts over Tax Credit reform then multiple by 1000.
They really wouldn't have to try hard to find lots and lots of sob stories of people who are going to lose out a lot from any contributory system.
The sad thing is they could be great together. Momentum have great ideas and a genuine grasp on where the country has gone wrong and solutions to proffer, but couldn't run the proverbial piss-up in a brewery. Progress have nothing whatsoever left to say of their third way project but are great at organising (as long as they don't get too carried away and have the brewery privatised under a "what works" initiative.
Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
F*cking immigrants - that's what it was all about - scary times ahead.
I have worked in both Newham and Redbridge within the last year and listened to complaints about street drinking, mini-cab drivers having their wages undercut, closed shops on employment, etc.
None of it from Tories, Kippers or white people.
Redbridge LEAVE 46% Newham LEAVE 47%
Indeed, Sunil.
The idea that rapid change is something Labour London isn't vexed about is nonsense.
Large swathes of suburban London was very close to voting leave - Croydon, Hounslow, Enfield, Redbridge and so on.
It's the enclaves of vast wealth or Corbynistas that are different.
Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
F*cking immigrants - that's what it was all about - scary times ahead.
LABOUR REMAIN believes in 300,000+ immigrants every year for ever.
It is doomed.
Gosh! Almost as many people as the entire population of Iceland!
R4 Wato stating Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out which leaves Eagle and Watson to fight it out for contender against Corbyn.Eagle is still the value bet but the price keeps contracting.25s will do me.
Yes, well she's the obvious choice, an oven-ready, Corbyn-untainted PM-in-waiting who could match Theresa May for seriousness and make Boris look like a smirking schoolboy.
Labour would be out of their minds not to choose her as Corbyn's replacement. So it won't be her, I guess.
R4 Wato stating Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out which leaves Eagle and Watson to fight it out for contender against Corbyn.Eagle is still the value bet but the price keeps contracting.25s will do me.
Is Eagle the short blonde lady from the 1st brexit debate? She was rubbish.
She's great in the HoC - funny, passionate, on her brief.
She was awful and tribal for Remain - she was in totally the wrong zone, then again so were Sturgeon/Rudd - it was a tactical failure for all three. That's over now.
I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Boris is pro-migration so is Hannan, I don't think Cash especially cares. Etc. For them it's all about sovereignty.
Besides the point is they will HAVE to do this, or face economic meltdown, the destruction of the City, desertion of party donors. Choices are narrowing, by the day.
This is just about the only solution which looks remotely democratic (i.e. we really are LEAVING) while saving the economy
I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Boris is pro-migration so is Hannan, I don't think Cash especially cares. Etc. For them it's all about sovereignty.
Besides the point is they will HAVE to do this, or face economic meltdown, the destruction of the City, desertion of party donors. Choices are narrowing, by the day.
This is just about the only solution which looks remotely democratic (i.e. we really are LEAVING) while saving the economy
For the people who just voted leave, the primary expression of lack of sovereignty is immigration. They are seriously playing with fire if this is on the table.
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed?
Yes.
And what are they going to do then?
Vote UKIP. I think between 25% and 30% of Leave's 52% was based on immigration. Some of them can be won over with minor concessions, the others will look to UKIP. I think the Tories will be safe as the party delivering our exit from the EU, but if Labour are going to seriously campaign on the basis of re-entry or ignoring the will of the people then they could face heavy losses to UKIP.
It's bound to be May. The horrific aftermath of Brexit and all that immigration duplicity can then be blamed on silly old Boris. The Tories need to put clear blue water now between themselves and the whole Leave racket.
Erm...apart from the fact that all the rhetoric on immigration came from UKIP. Boris and Gove fought hard to ensure Vote Leave was the voice of Leave and not Farage. They fought almost all on sovereignty. UKIP own the nastiness not Boris. He can easily distance himself from it, starting with Farage's somewhat incendiary (but not wrong) speech in the EU Parliament today.
Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
I thought the whole point of this rebellion against Corbyn was because he didn't support Remain as much as they wanted him to. Why would they then choose an out and out Outer to replace him?
Gisela would probably be the best for stopping the UKIP surge. I struggle to see who Labour can pick that would actually see them increase their seat count. Given the short space of time between choosing a leader and the supposed general election they might be better off picking someone with the right background and instant appeal (Dan Jarvis if he wants it), even if his lack of ability gets exposed further down the line.
Labour members would never vote for her. That is a bigger disconnect that the one which also clearly exists between MPs and voters, 62% of whom voted remain. Indeed to listen to some on here last week's vote for Leave was rather grander than 52/48. Of course the result has to be accepted but let's not pretend the country is united.
I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
Norway means Open Borders. Some party will have to sell it to the People at an election/ref. Good luck with that.
Make our benefits contributory, at the same time, so fewer want to come.
I wonder if there is some grand plan here. When I've proposed this sort of revolution in the past, my friends on the Left have howled about how unfair it would be. They might not be in a position to oppose such radical changes to welfare if it's wrapped up in a deal to keep us in the Single Market.
Look at the Twitter update in Mike's article. That's the nuclear option.
Oh Good Lord. Tomorrow's PMQs might be fun as Corbyn and Watson jostle each other to ask Dave a question.
Some procedural questions - can anyone help?
If the PLP install a parliamentary leader, can Corbyn have them suspended from the party? Interestingly, this would reduce the numbers required to nominate John McDonnell.
If there's a Oct/Nov general election, is there time for deselections?
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
My rather hard nosed view is that in the end it all comes down to numbers.
There is a hard core of true racists and xenophobes who are very small in number and will never be satisfied with anything less than a BNP style repatriation. Given that both their numbers are tiny and their views absolutely abhorrent I am not sure anyone is looking to take their views into account when deciding the best deal for the country.
There are a larger number of people who are genuinely concerned, rightly or wrongly about immigration and the effects on their lives and communities. Again there is a spectrum of these from those who feel they have been directly affected by immigration in places like Boston to those who are not directly affected at all but blame a lot of the ills they genuinely suffer from on migration. I don't believe those people should be lumped together with the racists but I also do believe that a lot of their fears and problems can be addressed by other measures such as limits on benefits and a general wider move to improve their lives through measures unconnected to the EU debate.
These two sections of the leave vote apparently - according to polls - account for around 50% of those who voted to Leave the EU. They are the ones who are not immediately amenable to an EFTA type solution.
But that still leaves the other 50% of Leave voters who, along with a large majority of Remain voters, would be in favour of an EFTA or EEA type solution as outlined by Munchau.
And as an aside I certainly don't buy your idea that there is very much buyers remorse at all.
R4 Wato stating Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out which leaves Eagle and Watson to fight it out for contender against Corbyn.Eagle is still the value bet but the price keeps contracting.25s will do me.
Yes, well she's the obvious choice, an oven-ready, Corbyn-untainted PM-in-waiting who could match Theresa May for seriousness and make Boris look like a smirking schoolboy.
Labour would be out of their minds not to choose her as Corbyn's replacement. So it won't be her, I guess.
She does have the baggage of having lost to him. But I do have her cautiously onside (I'm mostly all-in on Watson at the moment, with a bit on Eagle). McDonnell is a worry in the event of a formal split, but I'd get enough non-monetary upside from that to compensate.
The latest pensioner incomes data from the ONS shows that average pensioner incomes have grown closer to those of workers.
In 1994/95 pensioner incomes were 38% lower than average workers' incomes, but by 2014/15 the gap had narrowed to just 7%.
There's a time bomb ticking in society - for how long can the working age people of today carry on bearing the burden of financing the elderly?
Blame the way Labour set up the system.
People think that they are paying in to the system to support their own retirement. They are not. It was never designed that way. They are paying in to support those who are retired now in the hope that there wil still be someone to pay in when they are wanting to take out.
I agree with you entirely that it is unsustainable and someone needs to bite the bullet. Unfortunately I suspect it will be around my retirement age that it will all fall apart.
C'est la vie. Those are the breaks.
How do you think they should have set it up, made the first generation pay in without getting anything out?
And what's with "in the hope that there will still be someone to pay in"? Are all the kids in school right now suddenly going to drop dead when they hit 18?
The baby boomers were a large enough demographic to pay their parent's the derisory state pension . There are not enough children of the baby boomers to pay theirtriple locked pensions plus top ups.
Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
F*cking immigrants - that's what it was all about - scary times ahead.
LABOUR REMAIN believes in 300,000+ immigrants every year for ever.
It is doomed.
Gosh! Almost as many people as the entire population of Iceland!
It's bound to be May. The horrific aftermath of Brexit and all that immigration duplicity can then be blamed on silly old Boris. The Tories need to put clear blue water now between themselves and the whole Leave racket.
Erm...apart from the fact that all the rhetoric on immigration came from UKIP. Boris and Gove fought hard to ensure Vote Leave was the voice of Leave and not Farage. They fought almost all on sovereignty. UKIP own the nastiness not Boris. He can easily distance himself from it, starting with Farage's somewhat incendiary (but not wrong) speech in the EU Parliament today.
Yes, Johnson and Gove never, ever campaigned or even mentioned immigration and those nasty foreigners coming over here. And signing up for a deal (EEA) that means they won't even be in the room when Turkey accession is discussed will not be a massive U-turn.
"Boris Johnson and Michael Gove have challenged David Cameron to "guarantee" that Turkey will never join the European Union by pledging to use the UK's veto to block it
The move is designed to focus the campaign on the issue of immigration in the final days ahead of the vote, as Mr Cameron fought yesterday to focus on the economy"
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed?
Yes.
And what are they going to do then?
Vote UKIP. I think between 25% and 30% of Leave's 52% was based on immigration. Some of them can be won over with minor concessions, the others will look to UKIP. I think the Tories will be safe as the party delivering our exit from the EU, but if Labour are going to seriously campaign on the basis of re-entry or ignoring the will of the people then they could face heavy losses to UKIP.
I think Tristam Hunt going around Stoke campaigning to ignore them and re-enter the EU in a GE campaign would be worth a tv mini-series alone....would contain more swearing than the best of Malcolm Tucker compilation.
Nicola making her statement right now, its on BBC News and Sky, they won't cover the debate afterwards and the motion to start the process but it can be followed at
R4 Wato stating Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out which leaves Eagle and Watson to fight it out for contender against Corbyn.Eagle is still the value bet but the price keeps contracting.25s will do me.
Yes, well she's the obvious choice, an oven-ready, Corbyn-untainted PM-in-waiting who could match Theresa May for seriousness and make Boris look like a smirking schoolboy.
Labour would be out of their minds not to choose her as Corbyn's replacement. So it won't be her, I guess.
..errr.. were you on holiday at the last leader hustings. she was awful.. .
I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Boris is pro-migration so is Hannan, I don't think Cash especially cares. Etc. For them it's all about sovereignty.
Besides the point is they will HAVE to do this, or face economic meltdown, the destruction of the City, desertion of party donors. Choices are narrowing, by the day.
This is just about the only solution which looks remotely democratic (i.e. we really are LEAVING) while saving the economy
This is where Theresa out-Brexits Boris, though. Something ought to be done on immigration, given the vote we just had, even though it would cynically probably be in the Tory Party's interest not to do so.
R4 Wato stating Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out which leaves Eagle and Watson to fight it out for contender against Corbyn.Eagle is still the value bet but the price keeps contracting.25s will do me.
Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
Not that it will happen, but Labour making a Leaver leader would be an incredibly smart move for holding onto support in Northern heartlands and winning some back from Ukip. Gisela Stuart would be the standout choice were this to happen, which it won't.
You are assuming that: a) Leaving the EU will be as popular at the time of the GE as it was last Thursday. b) All those who voted Leave will vote in a general election c) All those who voted Leave in a binary referendum would be as binary in a general election d) a competent Labour leader would not be able to frame the argument in Labour constituencies as a vote about the Tories e) Labour leave voters would be happy to vote for an economically and fiscally right wing party
These may be all fair assumptions. But I am not sure that they are close to being certainties.
The only certainty is that with Corbyn as leader Labour will be destroyed.
The danger is that UKIP become a socially conservative, left wing economic party in favour of higher taxes and higher spending. I don't know how Labour would react to that.
It's bound to be May. The horrific aftermath of Brexit and all that immigration duplicity can then be blamed on silly old Boris. The Tories need to put clear blue water now between themselves and the whole Leave racket.
Erm...apart from the fact that all the rhetoric on immigration came from UKIP. Boris and Gove fought hard to ensure Vote Leave was the voice of Leave and not Farage. They fought almost all on sovereignty. UKIP own the nastiness not Boris. He can easily distance himself from it, starting with Farage's somewhat incendiary (but not wrong) speech in the EU Parliament today.
"In this Act “Leader of the Opposition” means, in relation to either House of Parliament, that Member of that House who is for the time being the Leader in that House of the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons(...)" ...
Surely the fact that this rule applies to the Lords proves that it is the leader of the parliamentary party in each House.
Yes - good point. But LotO the PLP leader isn't chosen by the PLP.
I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Boris is pro-migration so is Hannan, I don't think Cash especially cares. Etc. For them it's all about sovereignty.
Besides the point is they will HAVE to do this, or face economic meltdown, the destruction of the City, desertion of party donors. Choices are narrowing, by the day.
This is just about the only solution which looks remotely democratic (i.e. we really are LEAVING) while saving the economy
This is where Theresa out-Brexits Boris, though. Something ought to be done on immigration, given the vote we just had, even though it would cynically probably be in the Tory Party's interest not to do so.
Which is why the next leader will get a minor concession such as longer welfare waiting periods of 12 or 18 months instead of the current 3 months. They can't and won't pull up the drawbridge. It will be too economically damaging in the short term.
Look at the Twitter update in Mike's article. That's the nuclear option.
Can they do that? What if Jezza takes his seat next to Watson and when Speaker B calls LOTO they both stand up and start speaking?
He won't. The Speaker calls MPs by name (except for government ministers).
As I understand it, the House does not recognise organisations that exist outside the House, which makes sense as the government exists - for example - as long as it has the confidence of MPs (or as long as it isn't shown not to have it). What the view of any party is outside the House is beside the point. In essence, it goes back to pre-1885 when a political party and its parliamentary caucus were essentially one and the same; they barely existed outside Westminster.
One historic point I don't have the data to at hand but which might provide a precedent is Labour itself, pre-1918. Before then, there was no leader of the party, the leader in the Commons was simply the chairman of the parliamentary party. The party overall was 'led' by the NEC corporately. Presumably there was a chairman of that and I assume that it wasn't always the leader in the Commons; it may even at some points have been a different MP. it might be worth checking.
The latest pensioner incomes data from the ONS shows that average pensioner incomes have grown closer to those of workers.
In 1994/95 pensioner incomes were 38% lower than average workers' incomes, but by 2014/15 the gap had narrowed to just 7%.
There's a time bomb ticking in society - for how long can the working age people of today carry on bearing the burden of financing the elderly?
Blame the way Labour set up the system.
People think that they are paying in to the system to support their own retirement. They are not. It was never designed that way. They are paying in to support those who are retired now in the hope that there wil still be someone to pay in when they are wanting to take out.
I agree with you entirely that it is unsustainable and someone needs to bite the bullet. Unfortunately I suspect it will be around my retirement age that it will all fall apart.
C'est la vie. Those are the breaks.
How do you think they should have set it up, made the first generation pay in without getting anything out?
And what's with "in the hope that there will still be someone to pay in"? Are all the kids in school right now suddenly going to drop dead when they hit 18?
The baby boomers were a large enough demographic to pay their parent's the derisory state pension . There are not enough children of the baby boomers to pay theirtriple locked pensions plus top ups.
I don't disagree, they're paying them too much. But the problem isn't that each generation pays for the previous one, it's that the current previous one is getting too much.
What we are witnessing is the death of the Labour party as a potential party of government. The Labour membership would prefer that to allowing a "Blairite" (ie, anyone who is not Jeremy Corbyn) to be leader. The comfort blanket is too warm, the membership - largely well-off and unaffected personally by Tory policy - too detached from real life. Labour will develop into a full-blown socialist party and will gradually wither away into complete irrelevance. A new centre-left party will take its place. All that, though, will take time.
Unfortunately, what it means is that a right wing Tory government that needs just 37% of the vote to stay in power will negotiate the terms of Brexit largely unscrutinised and unopposed. And that will result in a deal which will hurt ordinary voters and alienate them even further from the political process.
That's how decent Jeremy Corbyn is.
This is the deal the Tories will negotiate, under May (or maybe even Boris).
The Norway option, with Free movement and a promise of another vote in ten years.
There aren't enough die-hard anti-migrationists in the Tory party to stop it. Most Tory LEAVERS are in the Hannan camp: Sovereigntists. They will be content with this, the City will be content with this. Labour and UKIP wwc voters will not be content, but the Tories won't care
There is also a way for us to square the immigration circle. May (or Boris) should propose, along with joining EEA, that our benefits system becomes contributory, thus ending much of the pull factor
This would also be popular with quite a lot of voters, in itself.
The only way it works is if just British born citizens get auto benefits - everyone else is excluded. Even then, it's The Establishment trying to get around what the populace believed they voted for.
It does politicians no favours to subvert what the people decided. Sovereignty and control are inimical with FoM.
R4 Wato stating Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out which leaves Eagle and Watson to fight it out for contender against Corbyn.Eagle is still the value bet but the price keeps contracting.25s will do me.
Yes, well she's the obvious choice, an oven-ready, Corbyn-untainted PM-in-waiting who could match Theresa May for seriousness and make Boris look like a smirking schoolboy.
Labour would be out of their minds not to choose her as Corbyn's replacement. So it won't be her, I guess.
..errr.. were you on holiday at the last leader hustings. she was awful.. .
Well, yes, she was. Beggars can't be choosers, though. At least she's credible and grown-up.
I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Boris is pro-migration so is Hannan, I don't think Cash especially cares. Etc. For them it's all about sovereignty.
Besides the point is they will HAVE to do this, or face economic meltdown, the destruction of the City, desertion of party donors. Choices are narrowing, by the day.
This is just about the only solution which looks remotely democratic (i.e. we really are LEAVING) while saving the economy
For the people who just voted leave, the primary expression of lack of sovereignty is immigration. They are seriously playing with fire if this is on the table.
We're already playing with fire. The economy might burn down. Our choices are dwindling, as I say
I have never seen such panic as these latest posts on PB. It's frantic; it's manic, and SeanT, who should know better, is leader of the pack.
I see there is talk of a Southgate/Hoddle dream ticket. A desire to go back to the relative glory days of the 90s when only penalties could stop England and the Prime minister was loved by everyone.
What we are witnessing is the death of the Labour party as a potential party of government. The Labour membership would prefer that to allowing a "Blairite" (ie, anyone who is not Jeremy Corbyn) to be leader. The comfort blanket is too warm, the membership - largely well-off and unaffected personally by Tory policy - too detached from real life. Labour will develop into a full-blown socialist party and will gradually wither away into complete irrelevance. A new centre-left party will take its place. All that, though, will take time.
Unfortunately, what it means is that a right wing Tory government that needs just 37% of the vote to stay in power will negotiate the terms of Brexit largely unscrutinised and unopposed. And that will result in a deal which will hurt ordinary voters and alienate them even further from the political process.
That's how decent Jeremy Corbyn is.
This is the deal the Tories will negotiate, under May (or maybe even Boris).
The Norway option, with Free movement and a promise of another vote in ten years.
There aren't enough die-hard anti-migrationists in the Tory party to stop it. Most Tory LEAVERS are in the Hannan camp: Sovereigntists. They will be content with this, the City will be content with this. Labour and UKIP wwc voters will not be content, but the Tories won't care
There is also a way for us to square the immigration circle. May (or Boris) should propose, along with joining EEA, that our benefits system becomes contributory, thus ending much of the pull factor
This would also be popular with quite a lot of voters, in itself.
The only way it works is if just British born citizens get auto benefits - everyone else is excluded. Even then, it's The Establishment trying to get around what the populace believed they voted for.
It does politicians no favours to subvert what the people decided. Sovereignty and control are inimical with FoM.
I wasn't born in the UK. I'm f*cked then!
Plato's world must a really wonderful place to live in!!
PS - I pay over 30k in tax every year - can i get an exemption please?
Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
F*cking immigrants - that's what it was all about - scary times ahead.
I have worked in both Newham and Redbridge within the last year and listened to complaints about street drinking, mini-cab drivers having their wages undercut, closed shops on employment, etc.
None of it from Tories, Kippers or white people.
Isn't it Uber rather than the immigrants that are cutting minicab wages? And Amazon is destroying High Street jobs everywhere.
I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Boris is pro-migration so is Hannan, I don't think Cash especially cares. Etc. For them it's all about sovereignty.
Besides the point is they will HAVE to do this, or face economic meltdown, the destruction of the City, desertion of party donors. Choices are narrowing, by the day.
This is just about the only solution which looks remotely democratic (i.e. we really are LEAVING) while saving the economy
Would you have a word with @murali_s ? He seems to think every Leaver is a white supremacist. @MaxPB and @Sunil_Prasannan has tried and yet he's still at it.
Look at the Twitter update in Mike's article. That's the nuclear option.
Oh Good Lord. Tomorrow's PMQs might be fun as Corbyn and Watson jostle each other to ask Dave a question.
Some procedural questions - can anyone help?
If the PLP install a parliamentary leader, can Corbyn have them suspended from the party? Interestingly, this would reduce the numbers required to nominate John McDonnell.
If there's a Oct/Nov general election, is there time for deselections?
Pass. It is turning into a bloody disaster for Labour, think The Titanic meets The Hindenburg meets Chernobyl meets The Battle of Zama meets Tron 2 meets Batman v Superman: The Dawn of Justice
What we are witnessing is the death of the Labour party as a potential party of government. The Labour membership would prefer that to allowing a "Blairite" (ie, anyone who is not Jeremy Corbyn) to be leader. The comfort blanket is too warm, the membership - largely well-off and unaffected personally by Tory policy - too detached from real life. Labour will develop into a full-blown socialist party and will gradually wither away into complete irrelevance. A new centre-left party will take its place. All that, though, will take time.
Unfortunately, what it means is that a right wing Tory government that needs just 37% of the vote to stay in power will negotiate the terms of Brexit largely unscrutinised and unopposed. And that will result in a deal which will hurt ordinary voters and alienate them even further from the political process.
That's how decent Jeremy Corbyn is.
This is the deal the Tories will negotiate, under May (or maybe even Boris).
The Norway option, with Free movement and a promise of another vote in ten years.
There aren't enough die-hard anti-migrationists in the Tory party to stop it. Most Tory LEAVERS are in the Hannan camp: Sovereigntists. They will be content with this, the City will be content with this. Labour and UKIP wwc voters will not be content, but the Tories won't care
There is also a way for us to square the immigration circle. May (or Boris) should propose, along with joining EEA, that our benefits system becomes contributory, thus ending much of the pull factor
This would also be popular with quite a lot of voters, in itself.
The only way it works is if just British born citizens get auto benefits - everyone else is excluded. Even then, it's The Establishment trying to get around what the populace believed they voted for.
It does politicians no favours to subvert what the people decided. Sovereignty and control are inimical with FoM.
So not naturalized British citizens? Great way to divide society even further.
I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Boris is pro-migration so is Hannan, I don't think Cash especially cares. Etc. For them it's all about sovereignty.
Besides the point is they will HAVE to do this, or face economic meltdown, the destruction of the City, desertion of party donors. Choices are narrowing, by the day.
This is just about the only solution which looks remotely democratic (i.e. we really are LEAVING) while saving the economy
For the people who just voted leave, the primary expression of lack of sovereignty is immigration. They are seriously playing with fire if this is on the table.
We're already playing with fire. The economy might burn down. Our choices are dwindling, as I say
I have never seen such panic as these latest posts on PB. It's frantic; it's manic, and SeanT, who should know better, is leader of the pack.
You know as well as i do that Sean's emotions are usually set to 11. Sometimes he even means it.
Erm...apart from the fact that all the rhetoric on immigration came from UKIP. Boris and Gove fought hard to ensure Vote Leave was the voice of Leave and not Farage. They fought almost all on sovereignty. UKIP own the nastiness not Boris. He can easily distance himself from it, starting with Farage's somewhat incendiary (but not wrong) speech in the EU Parliament today.
No
You can't rewrite history.
Gove went on national TV and talked about 80 million new immigrants.
What we are witnessing is the death of the Labour party as a potential party of government. The Labour membership would prefer that to allowing a "Blairite" (ie, anyone who is not Jeremy Corbyn) to be leader. The comfort blanket is too warm, the membership - largely well-off and unaffected personally by Tory policy - too detached from real life. Labour will develop into a full-blown socialist party and will gradually wither away into complete irrelevance. A new centre-left party will take its place. All that, though, will take time.
Unfortunately, what it means is that a right wing Tory government that needs just 37% of the vote to stay in power will negotiate the terms of Brexit largely unscrutinised and unopposed. And that will result in a deal which will hurt ordinary voters and alienate them even further from the political process.
That's how decent Jeremy Corbyn is.
This is the deal the Tories will negotiate, under May (or maybe even Boris).
The Norway option, with Free movement and a promise of another vote in ten years.
There aren't enough die-hard anti-migrationists in the Tory party to stop it. Most Tory LEAVERS are in the Hannan camp: Sovereigntists. They will be content with this, the City will be content with this. Labour and UKIP wwc voters will not be content, but the Tories won't care
There is also a way for us to square the immigration circle. May (or Boris) should propose, along with joining EEA, that our benefits system becomes contributory, thus ending much of the pull factor
This would also be popular with quite a lot of voters, in itself.
The only way it works is if just British born citizens get auto benefits - everyone else is excluded. Even then, it's The Establishment trying to get around what the populace believed they voted for.
It does politicians no favours to subvert what the people decided. Sovereignty and control are inimical with FoM.
So not naturalized British citizens? Great way to divide society even further.
This isn't a select committee. The broad thrust of a contributory system has some merit. I just doubt our political masters have the balls to tackle health, pension and welfare reform.
I noticed from Cooper's remarks that she still doesn't get it. One million people every three years. It's not difficult to understand.
Norway means Open Borders. Munchau rarely (ever?) considers/sees a problem there. Some party will have to sell it to the People at an election/ref. Good luck with that.
It also means having to obey every EU single market directive, no matter how idiotic, and having no say in how they are made, doesn't it? Also making massive annual contributions. I can't see it working in the medium term, though it would undoubtedly calm industry and finance in the short term.
I think Switzerland is better than Norway, though hardly perfect.
I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Boris is pro-migration so is Hannan, I don't think Cash especially cares. Etc. For them it's all about sovereignty.
Besides the point is they will HAVE to do this, or face economic meltdown, the destruction of the City, desertion of party donors. Choices are narrowing, by the day.
This is just about the only solution which looks remotely democratic (i.e. we really are LEAVING) while saving the economy
Would you have a word with @murali_s ? He seems to think every Leaver is a white supremacist. @MaxPB and @Sunil_Prasannan has tried and yet he's still at it.
No I don't.
However I do know that a lot of bigoted and racist people voted Leave - that's well known.
Norway means Open Borders. Munchau rarely (ever?) considers/sees a problem there. Some party will have to sell it to the People at an election/ref. Good luck with that.
It also means having to obey every EU single market directive, no matter how idiotic, and having no say in how they are made, doesn't it? Also making massive annual contributions. I can't see it working in the medium term, though it would undoubtedly calm industry and finance in the short term.
I think Switzerland is better than Norway, though hardly perfect.
What we are witnessing is the death of the Labour party as a potential party of government. The Labour membership would prefer that to allowing a "Blairite" (ie, anyone who is not Jeremy Corbyn) to be leader. The comfort blanket is too warm, the membership - largely well-off and unaffected personally by Tory policy - too detached from real life. Labour will develop into a full-blown socialist party and will gradually wither away into complete irrelevance. A new centre-left party will take its place. All that, though, will take time.
Unfortunately, what it means is that a right wing Tory government that needs just 37% of the vote to stay in power will negotiate the terms of Brexit largely unscrutinised and unopposed. And that will result in a deal which will hurt ordinary voters and alienate them even further from the political process.
That's how decent Jeremy Corbyn is.
This is the deal the Tories will negotiate, under May (or maybe even Boris).
The Norway option, with Free movement and a promise of another vote in ten years.
There aren't enough die-hard anti-migrationists in the Tory party to stop it. Most Tory LEAVERS are in the Hannan camp: Sovereigntists. They will be content with this, the City will be content with this. Labour and UKIP wwc voters will not be content, but the Tories won't care
There is also a way for us to square the immigration circle. May (or Boris) should propose, along with joining EEA, that our benefits system becomes contributory, thus ending much of the pull factor
This would also be popular with quite a lot of voters, in itself.
The only way it works is if just British born citizens get auto benefits - everyone else is excluded. Even then, it's The Establishment trying to get around what the populace believed they voted for.
It does politicians no favours to subvert what the people decided. Sovereignty and control are inimical with FoM.
I wasn't born in the UK. I'm f*cked then!
Plato's world must a really wonderful place to live in!!
PS - I pay over 30k in tax every year - can i get an exemption please?
i'm am both stunned that you have a job and that you manage to turn the computer on every day. Perhaps you need to calm down and engage with the real world, it's not as scary as you think.
I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Boris is pro-migration so is Hannan, I don't think Cash especially cares. Etc. For them it's all about sovereignty.
Besides the point is they will HAVE to do this, or face economic meltdown, the destruction of the City, desertion of party donors. Choices are narrowing, by the day.
This is just about the only solution which looks remotely democratic (i.e. we really are LEAVING) while saving the economy
For the people who just voted leave, the primary expression of lack of sovereignty is immigration. They are seriously playing with fire if this is on the table.
We're already playing with fire. The economy might burn down. Our choices are dwindling, as I say
I have never seen such panic as these latest posts on PB. It's frantic; it's manic, and SeanT, who should know better, is leader of the pack.
Quislings the lot of them! Only Jezza is sticking to his guns at this point!
Norway means Open Borders. Munchau rarely (ever?) considers/sees a problem there. Some party will have to sell it to the People at an election/ref. Good luck with that.
It also means having to obey every EU single market directive, no matter how idiotic, and having no say in how they are made, doesn't it? Also making massive annual contributions. I can't see it working in the medium term, though it would undoubtedly calm industry and finance in the short term.
I think Switzerland is better than Norway.
I think it's going to be a test of the EU. If they can't manage a custom deal for the UK, they're doomed (note for pedants: we might be doomed too of course).
Erm...apart from the fact that all the rhetoric on immigration came from UKIP. Boris and Gove fought hard to ensure Vote Leave was the voice of Leave and not Farage. They fought almost all on sovereignty. UKIP own the nastiness not Boris. He can easily distance himself from it, starting with Farage's somewhat incendiary (but not wrong) speech in the EU Parliament today.
No
You can't rewrite history.
Gove went on national TV and talked about 80 million new immigrants.
Twat,
Even better, they demanded Cameron veto Turkey joining the EU and now seem to be proposing we join the EEA where we have no say over Turkeys EU accession but have to allow Free Movement to those 80 million Turks.
What we are witnessing is the death of the Labour party as a potential party of government. The Labour membership would prefer that to allowing a "Blairite" (ie, anyone who is not Jeremy Corbyn) to be leader. The comfort blanket is too warm, the membership - largely well-off and unaffected personally by Tory policy - too detached from real life. Labour will develop into a full-blown socialist party and will gradually wither away into complete irrelevance. A new centre-left party will take its place. All that, though, will take time.
Unfortunately, what it means is that a right wing Tory government that needs just 37% of the vote to stay in power will negotiate the terms of Brexit largely unscrutinised and unopposed. And that will result in a deal which will hurt ordinary voters and alienate them even further from the political process.
That's how decent Jeremy Corbyn is.
This is the deal the Tories will negotiate, under May (or maybe even Boris).
The Norway option, with Free movement and a promise of another vote in ten years.
There aren't enough die-hard anti-migrationists in the Tory party to stop it. Most Tory LEAVERS are in the Hannan camp: Sovereigntists. They will be content with this, the City will be content with this. Labour and UKIP wwc voters will not be content, but the Tories won't care
There is also a way for us to square the immigration circle. May (or Boris) should propose, along with joining EEA, that our benefits system becomes contributory, thus ending much of the pull factor
This would also be popular with quite a lot of voters, in itself.
The only way it works is if just British born citizens get auto benefits - everyone else is excluded. Even then, it's The Establishment trying to get around what the populace believed they voted for.
It does politicians no favours to subvert what the people decided. Sovereignty and control are inimical with FoM.
I wasn't born in the UK. I'm f*cked then!
Plato's world must a really wonderful place to live in!!
PS - I pay over 30k in tax every year - can i get an exemption please?
i'm am both stunned that you have a job and that you manage to turn the computer on every day. Perhaps you need to calm down and engage with the real world, it's not as scary as you think.
so the assumption is that everyone who posts here doesn't have a job?
I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Boris is pro-migration so is Hannan, I don't think Cash especially cares. Etc. For them it's all about sovereignty.
Besides the point is they will HAVE to do this, or face economic meltdown, the destruction of the City, desertion of party donors. Choices are narrowing, by the day.
This is just about the only solution which looks remotely democratic (i.e. we really are LEAVING) while saving the economy
Would you have a word with @murali_s ? He seems to think every Leaver is a white supremacist. @MaxPB and @Sunil_Prasannan has tried and yet he's still at it.
No I don't.
However I do know that a lot of bigoted and racist people voted Leave - that's well known.
Define 'a lot'. I want to hear a proper number from you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. How many of the 17 million people who voted Leave are racist bigots?
So not naturalized British citizens? Great way to divide society even further.
They are both stupid ideas. Benefits should be payable only to those who have paid into the system for a minimum of 12 out of the last 24 months. Doesn't matter where you're from or what nationality you are. Naturalised, born here, commonwealth citizen, EU citizen. Everyone should get the same bloody treatment, let's just fix the fucking benefits system once and for all. I'm sick of hearing about how British citizens are out competed by EU citizens, until we have a benefits system that incentiveses work and an education system fit for purpose, everything else is just treating the symptoms. Mass immigration is caused by a badly designed benefits system and rubbish education system, let's fix those.
Comments
Net migration in the 90s was running at around 30-40k p.a. In the late 90s and early 00s it jumped to around 150k p.a. It jumped again after 2004 to around 250k, and again in the last two years to around 330k. That's a current run rate of 1 million per three years, and 1.5 million per three years if you take into account natural population growth. That's greater than the population of Birmingham, in a country that builds 1.5 million homes per decade.
I wouldn't care if every single person was Ghandi and Mary Poppins rolled into one. It's still a logistical issue. It's also an issue that has caused difficulties for many people. If you'd like to continue to be in denial and just heap opprobrium on those affected, then fair enough. But you'll never win an election.
And what's with "in the hope that there will still be someone to pay in"? Are all the kids in school right now suddenly going to drop dead when they hit 18?
"In this Act “Leader of the Opposition” means, in relation to either House of Parliament, that Member of that House who is for the time being the Leader in that House of the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons(...)"
"If any doubt arises as to which is or was at any material time the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons, or as to who is or was at any material time the leader in that House of such a party, the question shall be decided for the purposes of this Act by the Speaker of the House of Commons, and his decision, certified in writing under his hand, shall be final and conclusive."
This is only to do with the LotO's salary.
But does "party" mean "parliamentary party"? What else would the Speaker know about?
Meanwhile, in the Tory party, Johnson and May are crossing over.
I made a comparison with a Jeremy Kyle guest months ago. "You're still in love with him, aren't you?"
I cast no aspersions on his fidelity.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/yvette-cooper-calls-jeremy-corbyn-8301464
None of it from Tories, Kippers or white people.
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Brown really wanted to be PM and we know how good he was once he got there...
Mensch is doing my head in. again
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/725339057669165058
Newham LEAVE 47%
Both sides are utterly incapable of recognising the other as the Labour Party. Progress thinks Momentum are trots and crazies. Momentum think anyone not Momentum is a Tory or a closet Tory. One or the other will leave the party in the coming weeks.
The sad thing is they could be great together. Momentum have great ideas and a genuine grasp on where the country has gone wrong and solutions to proffer, but couldn't run the proverbial piss-up in a brewery. Progress have nothing whatsoever left to say of their third way project but are great at organising (as long as they don't get too carried away and have the brewery privatised under a "what works" initiative.
They need each other. Sadly they appear to have decided that oblivion is better - rank arrogance and disdain from both sides. Perhaps a grand political realignment is needed. But not now. Not like this.
And what are they going to do then?
As for Norway, they are subject to about 70% of EU directives. EU laws which bring significant new obligations do have to be okayed by the Storting, though. (Whether they've ever said no, I don't know.)
They really wouldn't have to try hard to find lots and lots of sob stories of people who are going to lose out a lot from any contributory system.
The idea that rapid change is something Labour London isn't vexed about is nonsense.
Large swathes of suburban London was very close to voting leave - Croydon, Hounslow, Enfield, Redbridge and so on.
It's the enclaves of vast wealth or Corbynistas that are different.
Labour would be out of their minds not to choose her as Corbyn's replacement. So it won't be her, I guess.
She was awful and tribal for Remain - she was in totally the wrong zone, then again so were Sturgeon/Rudd - it was a tactical failure for all three. That's over now.
If the PLP install a parliamentary leader, can Corbyn have them suspended from the party? Interestingly, this would reduce the numbers required to nominate John McDonnell.
If there's a Oct/Nov general election, is there time for deselections?
There is a hard core of true racists and xenophobes who are very small in number and will never be satisfied with anything less than a BNP style repatriation. Given that both their numbers are tiny and their views absolutely abhorrent I am not sure anyone is looking to take their views into account when deciding the best deal for the country.
There are a larger number of people who are genuinely concerned, rightly or wrongly about immigration and the effects on their lives and communities. Again there is a spectrum of these from those who feel they have been directly affected by immigration in places like Boston to those who are not directly affected at all but blame a lot of the ills they genuinely suffer from on migration. I don't believe those people should be lumped together with the racists but I also do believe that a lot of their fears and problems can be addressed by other measures such as limits on benefits and a general wider move to improve their lives through measures unconnected to the EU debate.
These two sections of the leave vote apparently - according to polls - account for around 50% of those who voted to Leave the EU. They are the ones who are not immediately amenable to an EFTA type solution.
But that still leaves the other 50% of Leave voters who, along with a large majority of Remain voters, would be in favour of an EFTA or EEA type solution as outlined by Munchau.
And as an aside I certainly don't buy your idea that there is very much buyers remorse at all.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/747777048706351104
Look at Watson, FFS.
And then he's gone...
"Boris Johnson and Michael Gove have challenged David Cameron to "guarantee" that Turkey will never join the European Union by pledging to use the UK's veto to block it
The move is designed to focus the campaign on the issue of immigration in the final days ahead of the vote, as Mr Cameron fought yesterday to focus on the economy"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/15/boris-johnson-and-michael-gove-demand-david-cameron-veto-turkeys/
http://www.scottishparliament.tv/
One warning. When they go to vote you don't have time to pop out for a three course dinner as you do with Westminster votes. It only takes 20 seconds.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1347997/tory-spat-erupts-after-brexit-backer-iain-duncan-smith-vows-annual-migration-will-fall-below-100000/
As I understand it, the House does not recognise organisations that exist outside the House, which makes sense as the government exists - for example - as long as it has the confidence of MPs (or as long as it isn't shown not to have it). What the view of any party is outside the House is beside the point. In essence, it goes back to pre-1885 when a political party and its parliamentary caucus were essentially one and the same; they barely existed outside Westminster.
One historic point I don't have the data to at hand but which might provide a precedent is Labour itself, pre-1918. Before then, there was no leader of the party, the leader in the Commons was simply the chairman of the parliamentary party. The party overall was 'led' by the NEC corporately. Presumably there was a chairman of that and I assume that it wasn't always the leader in the Commons; it may even at some points have been a different MP. it might be worth checking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union#/media/File:Soviet_censorship_with_Stalin2.jpg
Compare the entry at 14.02 here:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/28/brexit-live-cameron-eu-leaders-brussels-corbyn-confidence
It does politicians no favours to subvert what the people decided. Sovereignty and control are inimical with FoM.
Plato's world must a really wonderful place to live in!!
PS - I pay over 30k in tax every year - can i get an exemption please?
And Amazon is destroying High Street jobs everywhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9S3KFSgAj0
Suggests she's had some positive messages in private.
You can't rewrite history.
Gove went on national TV and talked about 80 million new immigrants.
Twat,
I noticed from Cooper's remarks that she still doesn't get it. One million people every three years. It's not difficult to understand.
I think Switzerland is better than Norway, though hardly perfect.
However I do know that a lot of bigoted and racist people voted Leave - that's well known.
https://twitter.com/petermannionmp/status/747760660130439168