May might go for EEA but a points system for non-EU immigration (fewer muzzies more Indain doctors, etc) and a serious crackdown on EU benefits whilst allowing them legally to come (but they'll do so in far fewer numbers). We'll have left and the numbers will fall.
May was pretty pisspoor at reducing the immigration that she could control.
We need to end virtually all non-EU immigration, apart from Tier 1 and Tier 2. End chain migration apart from very eligible spouses, immediate kids. But, most of all, take bloody students out of the stats, they mislead.
I think the first thing we need to do is actually count them in (and record passport numbers and detail) and count them out. The statistics are just statistics.
May is responsible for not knowing or controlling non EU migration. There is no reason to believe she will do better as PM.
The political climate is now totally changed. I think this will happen whoever gets to be PM.
I agree. This has been a seismic and necessary shock to the body politic. My guess (or my hope) is that we will end up with a Brexit lite that doesn't do that much damage to the country, economically, and does restore some significant sovereignty.
EEA, probably.
But everyone is now aware - very aware - that endless immigration is simply unsustainable. Next time it won't be a lost referendum, it will be civil strife. The UK government HAS to get it down to 100,000 a year, or so.
We could easily have negative net immigration in a recessionary scenario.
Did that happen during the 2008 crash?
No but that's because all the european countries went into a recession too. It's the differential that matters.
Oh right. Unemployment low in the EU at the moment?
Eurozone employment growth has been rather better than the US since the start of the single currency.
Incidentally, my prediction for Labour for the next week: expect a group of about 30 Labour MPs to publicly promise to nominate Clive Lewis for the leadership contest, in exchange for getting Corbyn to quit.
Lewis is monumentally unfit to lead a conga let alone a major political party, If Labour wants to self-immolate, it is thinking that someone like him is a viable leader that will hasten their demise.
Isn't Clive Lewis from exactly the same poisonous well that Corbyn comes from? He does the aggressive direct shouty action stuff, classic Momentum mentality.
Utterly unelectable as PM in a GE. But, hey, why stop the fun now? Pass the popcorn.
Whereas those MPs who just threw all their chips in with the "Remain" campaign have shown just how electable they are!
Who the leader is will be more important than EU/Brexit by GE 2020. Seriously. The voting public will have long forgotten what this referendum, and the result, was about in 4 years.
Leadsom's God-bothering ways would make me very, very wary of her.
All faiths should be kept out of politics as far as I am concerned.
How do you stop people's beliefs affecting their actions? Religious faith is just another belief.
Coming at it from a different angle, are you suggesting that muslims should be barred from running for office? Along with Christians, Hindu, Jews, Taoists and so forth.
Good point and well made. Anyone who believes in supernatural beings with omnipotent powers should be sent to the funny corner. Religion, now...now is utterly bizarre.
But now Crabb and Leadsom have come out, how many happy, clapper, bible thumping Tory MP's are there? Too many.
Leadsom's God-bothering ways would make me very, very wary of her.
All faiths should be kept out of politics as far as I am concerned.
How do you stop people's beliefs affecting their actions? Religious faith is just another belief.
Coming at it from a different angle, are you suggesting that muslims should be barred from running for office? Along with Christians, Hindu, Jews, Taoists and so forth.
Religious faith is not just another belief. It is a completely different beast - where people act because of teachings said to come from a deity - for whom there is absolutely no evidence. That, for me, is a major, major problem.
I prefer politicians who don't wear their faith on their sleeves - ideally those who have no faith in any religion whatsoever.
I know politics is not always totally rational (the events of the past two weeks demonstrates that) but I prefer it carried out by those who at least try to use reason.
(and I know that this will not be a popular position - but faith is at the heart of so many of the world's problems that I will always strongly argue that a world without religion would be a better place)
We could easily have negative net immigration in a recessionary scenario.
Did that happen during the 2008 crash?
I think the best (potential) comparison for the UK is Spain during the Eurozone crisis. In the decade to 2008, Spain was one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Employment went from 13m to almost 21m. But it was an economy based on (a) debt, (b) a massive current account deficit, (c) a housing boom, and (d) an influx of immigrants.
Now, we are shielded somewhat due to having a floating exchange rate (although Spain has a stronger manufacturing economy than we do, and we have much worse government and personal debt than Spain did), but when the housing market turned down, and unemployment started to rise, net migration when from a very big positive number to a large negative one.
That is actually one of the big problems with the way the EU and free movement works.
People leaving on mass probably made everything worse, leading to a vast over supply of housing.
Ultimately, hideously unbalanced economies must balance. Whether it's China with their excessive capital investment, Spain 2008 or the UK in 2016, balance will be reached.
The question is merely the degree of pain - and who experiences it - that comes with the rebalancing.
Well quite. I think the trick is to avoid too much imbalance. At the moment there is much in a lot of economies.
Out of interest.. Have you had a chance to draft a reply to my email?
Leadsom's God-bothering ways would make me very, very wary of her.
All faiths should be kept out of politics as far as I am concerned.
How do you stop people's beliefs affecting their actions? Religious faith is just another belief.
Coming at it from a different angle, are you suggesting that muslims should be barred from running for office? Along with Christians, Hindu, Jews, Taoists and so forth.
Good point and well made. Anyone who believes in supernatural beings with omnipotent powers should be sent to the funny corner. Religion, now...now is utterly bizarre.
But now Crabb and Leadsom have come out, how many happy, clapper, bible thumping Tory MP's are there? Too many.
May might go for EEA but a points system for non-EU immigration (fewer muzzies more Indain doctors, etc) and a serious crackdown on EU benefits whilst allowing them legally to come (but they'll do so in far fewer numbers). We'll have left and the numbers will fall.
May was pretty pisspoor at reducing the immigration that she could control.
We need to end virtually all non-EU immigration, apart from Tier 1 and Tier 2. End chain migration apart from very eligible spouses, immediate kids. But, most of all, take bloody students out of the stats, they mislead.
I think the first thing we need to do is actually count them in (and record passport numbers and detail) and count them out. The statistics are just statistics.
May is responsible for not knowing or controlling non EU migration. There is no reason to believe she will do better as PM.
The political climate is now totally changed. I think this will happen whoever gets to be PM.
I agree. This has been a seismic and necessary shock to the body politic. My guess (or my hope) is that we will end up with a Brexit lite that doesn't do that much damage to the country, economically, and does restore some significant sovereignty.
EEA, probably.
But everyone is now aware - very aware - that endless immigration is simply unsustainable. Next time it won't be a lost referendum, it will be civil strife. The UK government HAS to get it down to 100,000 a year, or so.
We could easily have negative net immigration in a recessionary scenario.
Did that happen during the 2008 crash?
No but that's because all the european countries went into a recession too. It's the differential that matters.
Oh right. Unemployment low in the EU at the moment?
Eurozone employment growth has been rather better than the US since the start of the single currency.
Why the Eagle is really a Duck. 'Her proposed challenge threatens to create a chasm between her and party members. The Wallasey vote last week was 40 in favour of Corbyn, none against, and four abstentions. The judgement of Liam Hertzenberg, one of the members, is uncompromising. “I do not think she has the support of the CLP,” he said. “I hope she will be deselected.”' https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2016/jul/02/angela-eagle-anger-rises-in-her-wallasey-constituency-corbyn-labour?CMP=share_btn_tw 2500 comments... Massive march today in Liverpool for Corbyn.
Momentum won't be stopped like someone as weak as Eagle.
Labour can't survive if Momentum is allowed to continue to exert influence over the Party.
Either a purge of Soviet-scale has to take place or a split will happen.
The prize is to be able to register "Labour Party" on the ballot paper. It will be an absolute nightmare for the splitters to define themselves. All those signs over the working men's clubs. Hang on in there Jezza.
No doubt Arron Banks is thinking the same thing kind of thoughts - about rebranding UKIP/pheonixing something else, but the risks of splitting the vote are massive.
Leadsom's God-bothering ways would make me very, very wary of her.
All faiths should be kept out of politics as far as I am concerned.
How do you stop people's beliefs affecting their actions? Religious faith is just another belief.
Coming at it from a different angle, are you suggesting that muslims should be barred from running for office? Along with Christians, Hindu, Jews, Taoists and so forth.
Religious faith is not just another belief. It is a completely different beast - where people act because of teachings said to come from a deity - for whom there is absolutely no evidence. That, for me, is a major, major problem.
I prefer politicians who don't wear their faith on their sleeves - ideally those who have no faith in any religion whatsoever.
I know politics is not always totally rational (the events of the past two weeks demonstrates that) but I prefer it carried out by those who at least try to use reason.
(and I know that this will not be a popular position - but faith is at the heart of so many of the world's problems that I will always strongly argue that a world without religion would be a better place)
Ed Miliband was an atheist and Corbyn some sort of spiritualist... Cameron, Farage and Farron all Christians. Clegg was agnostic, attends church because of his misses.
Eurozone employment growth has been rather better than the US since the start of the single currency.
We are talking about right now...
And right now.
While one would have to be a complete crazy to say all is well in the Eurozone right now, employment is growing very rapidly in Spain and Ireland, and pretty well in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and most of the rest of the bloc. It's only really Italy and (to a lesser extent) France that look really troubled. Basically, those that took their austerity medicine and liberalised their labour markets are moving in the right direction.
We could easily have negative net immigration in a recessionary scenario.
Did that happen during the 2008 crash?
I think the best (potential) comparison for the UK is Spain during the Eurozone crisis. In the decade to 2008, Spain was one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Employment went from 13m to almost 21m. But it was an economy based on (a) debt, (b) a massive current account deficit, (c) a housing boom, and (d) an influx of immigrants.
Now, we are shielded somewhat due to having a floating exchange rate (although Spain has a stronger manufacturing economy than we do, and we have much worse government and personal debt than Spain did), but when the housing market turned down, and unemployment started to rise, net migration when from a very big positive number to a large negative one.
That is actually one of the big problems with the way the EU and free movement works.
People leaving on mass probably made everything worse, leading to a vast over supply of housing.
Ultimately, hideously unbalanced economies must balance. Whether it's China with their excessive capital investment, Spain 2008 or the UK in 2016, balance will be reached.
The question is merely the degree of pain - and who experiences it - that comes with the rebalancing.
Well quite. I think the trick is to avoid too much imbalance. At the moment there is much in a lot of economies.
Out of interest.. Have you had a chance to draft a reply to my email?
Guilty: I wrote about 400 words on Friday and then got caught up on picking my kids up from school I'm in the middle of a couple of projects and haven't been as diligent as I should be about finishing things off.
As an aside, Caroline Aherne? Really? 52? That's my age.
Pfffffffffff.
She was funny.
Too much alcohol (and ciggies) You need to start taking care of yourself maybe?
Didn't stop Winston Churchill.
The majority of us are reliant on the genetic makeup bestowed on us by our families. Despite, all the warnings and 5 a day, and a thimble of wine, your family genes decide pretty much how long you'll live and how you'll die.
Churchill's parent died aged 47 and 67 so the old boy out did them both and by a long margin. Of course, his parents lived in the days before antibiotics when an illness that we now can shrug off could have been fatal.
You are probably correct on the genetics thing dictating how long we live and what we die of but I have lived longer than all my forebears except one and my elder brother has lived longer than anyone in the family tree. So perhaps it is not a universal rule.
Why the Eagle is really a Duck. 'Her proposed challenge threatens to create a chasm between her and party members. The Wallasey vote last week was 40 in favour of Corbyn, none against, and four abstentions. The judgement of Liam Hertzenberg, one of the members, is uncompromising. “I do not think she has the support of the CLP,” he said. “I hope she will be deselected.”' https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2016/jul/02/angela-eagle-anger-rises-in-her-wallasey-constituency-corbyn-labour?CMP=share_btn_tw 2500 comments... Massive march today in Liverpool for Corbyn.
Momentum won't be stopped like someone as weak as Eagle.
Labour can't survive if Momentum is allowed to continue to exert influence over the Party.
Either a purge of Soviet-scale has to take place or a split will happen.
The prize is to be able to register "Labour Party" on the ballot paper. It will be an absolute nightmare for the splitters to define themselves. All those signs over the working men's clubs. Hang on in there Jezza.
No doubt Arron Banks is thinking the same thing kind of thoughts - about rebranding UKIP/pheonixing something else, but the risks of splitting the vote are massive.
UKIP actually do pretty terribly in regular elections considering the sheer weight of an obvious anti-immigration vote in lots of places... Alot of those voters will only turn up once every 20 years though - they need to find someone other than Farage methinks. When you consider how well Hofer, Le Pen, Denmark Freedom party etc - UKIP has done poorly imo.
Eurozone employment growth has been rather better than the US since the start of the single currency.
We are talking about right now...
And right now.
While one would have to be a complete crazy to say all is well in the Eurozone right now, employment is growing very rapidly in Spain and Ireland, and pretty well in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and most of the rest of the bloc. It's only really Italy and (to a lesser extent) France that look really troubled. Basically, those that took their austerity medicine and liberalised their labour markets are moving in the right direction.
That is always the problem. Thing is that Spain has issues with the liberalisation.
It has to be said that EU net migration would drop dramatically without any other changes if the EU sorted itself out. Problem is you need nation states to lead their people, and listen to them as well. The big issue with the EU is that it does neither it simply dictates.
Leadsom's God-bothering ways would make me very, very wary of her.
All faiths should be kept out of politics as far as I am concerned.
How do you stop people's beliefs affecting their actions? Religious faith is just another belief.
Coming at it from a different angle, are you suggesting that muslims should be barred from running for office? Along with Christians, Hindu, Jews, Taoists and so forth.
Good point and well made. Anyone who believes in supernatural beings with omnipotent powers should be sent to the funny corner. Religion, now...now is utterly bizarre.
But now Crabb and Leadsom have come out, how many happy, clapper, bible thumping Tory MP's are there? Too many.
Is Liam Fox religous ?
No idea if Miss Fox does bend the knee at any altar...
We could easily have negative net immigration in a recessionary scenario.
Did that happen during the 2008 crash?
I think the best (potential) comparison for the UK is Spain during the Eurozone crisis. In the decade to 2008, Spain was one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Employment went from 13m to almost 21m. But it was an economy based on (a) debt, (b) a massive current account deficit, (c) a housing boom, and (d) an influx of immigrants.
Now, we are shielded somewhat due to having a floating exchange rate (although Spain has a stronger manufacturing economy than we do, and we have much worse government and personal debt than Spain did), but when the housing market turned down, and unemployment started to rise, net migration when from a very big positive number to a large negative one.
That is actually one of the big problems with the way the EU and free movement works.
People leaving on mass probably made everything worse, leading to a vast over supply of housing.
Ultimately, hideously unbalanced economies must balance. Whether it's China with their excessive capital investment, Spain 2008 or the UK in 2016, balance will be reached.
The question is merely the degree of pain - and who experiences it - that comes with the rebalancing.
Well quite. I think the trick is to avoid too much imbalance. At the moment there is much in a lot of economies.
Out of interest.. Have you had a chance to draft a reply to my email?
Guilty: I wrote about 400 words on Friday and then got caught up on picking my kids up from school I'm in the middle of a couple of projects and haven't been as diligent as I should be about finishing things off.
I was hoping you could just pull together the bits that had been posted here... As you have the access (And knowledge)
Wow, that table makes the odds-on bet from Ladbrokes that May and Leadsom would be the winning duo look decidedly dodgy. Those of a nervous disposition, including yours truly, might like to cover their position by also having a piece of May & Gove at 5/1. DYOR.
They appear to be polling the public as opposed to Tory MPs.
Peter from Putney. As TP points out, the requirement for the Ladbrokes bet to pay out is how the Tory MPs vote and not party members, (plus the membership do need to vote on the final two otherwise the market is void).
Of more concern is the quote from Leadsom that leaving the EU would lead to an economic disaster. She needs to be able to successfully explain this away. If this damages her with the MPs who will benefit most? Gove would be the obvious one but if reports from connected PBers here are to be believed he is now anathema to most Tory voters. If true this ought to be filtering through to MPs and affect their choice. So if not Gove it must be Fox. He is the third of The Three Brexiteers and it would be a big surprise if there was no Brexiteer in the final two.
It's an unlikely outcome from here I know, for Fox to pull off a surprise but I've backed him at 110 to win the contest (now 120-150!) and I've backed May/Fox for the final two with Ladbrokes at 25/1.
As an aside, Caroline Aherne? Really? 52? That's my age.
Pfffffffffff.
She was funny.
Too much alcohol (and ciggies) You need to start taking care of yourself maybe?
Didn't stop Winston Churchill.
The majority of us are reliant on the genetic makeup bestowed on us by our families. Despite, all the warnings and 5 a day, and a thimble of wine, your family genes decide pretty much how long you'll live and how you'll die.
Churchill's parent died aged 47 and 67 so the old boy out did them both and by a long margin. Of course, his parents lived in the days before antibiotics when an illness that we now can shrug off could have been fatal.
You are probably correct on the genetics thing dictating how long we live and what we die of but I have lived longer than all my forebears except one and my elder brother has lived longer than anyone in the family tree. So perhaps it is not a universal rule.
I suspect the genetics thing just says what hand you have been dealt - how you play it is up to you.
Leadsom's God-bothering ways would make me very, very wary of her.
All faiths should be kept out of politics as far as I am concerned.
How do you stop people's beliefs affecting their actions? Religious faith is just another belief.
Coming at it from a different angle, are you suggesting that muslims should be barred from running for office? Along with Christians, Hindu, Jews, Taoists and so forth.
Religious faith is not just another belief. It is a completely different beast - where people act because of teachings said to come from a deity - for whom there is absolutely no evidence. That, for me, is a major, major problem.
I prefer politicians who don't wear their faith on their sleeves - ideally those who have no faith in any religion whatsoever.
I know politics is not always totally rational (the events of the past two weeks demonstrates that) but I prefer it carried out by those who at least try to use reason.
(and I know that this will not be a popular position - but faith is at the heart of so many of the world's problems that I will always strongly argue that a world without religion would be a better place)
Every one of us a system of beliefs and values and they affect (I think direct) how we behave. Religious faith is just one set of those values and beliefs. Your apparent belief that religion is malignant is just another belief based, perhaps, on how you experience the world.
I'll come back to what you said earlier, "All faiths should be kept out of politics". So are you suggesting that someone who has a religious belief should be barred from standing for public office?
Leadsom's God-bothering ways would make me very, very wary of her.
All faiths should be kept out of politics as far as I am concerned.
How do you stop people's beliefs affecting their actions? Religious faith is just another belief.
Coming at it from a different angle, are you suggesting that muslims should be barred from running for office? Along with Christians, Hindu, Jews, Taoists and so forth.
Religious faith is not just another belief. It is a completely different beast - where people act because of teachings said to come from a deity - for whom there is absolutely no evidence. That, for me, is a major, major problem.
I prefer politicians who don't wear their faith on their sleeves - ideally those who have no faith in any religion whatsoever.
I know politics is not always totally rational (the events of the past two weeks demonstrates that) but I prefer it carried out by those who at least try to use reason.
(and I know that this will not be a popular position - but faith is at the heart of so many of the world's problems that I will always strongly argue that a world without religion would be a better place)
Every one of us a system of beliefs and values and they affect (I think direct) how we behave. Religious faith is just one set of those values and beliefs. Your apparent belief that religion is malignant is just another belief based, perhaps, on how you experience the world.
I'll come back to what you said earlier, "All faiths should be kept out of politics". So are you suggesting that someone who has a religious belief should be barred from standing for public office?
No. My position is based on an examination of the evidence from both history and the modern world. Having considered the evidence, I stand by my position on the subject of religion.
With regards to faith and politics - those who justify their political positions on the basis of their faith should not be part of our political system. Allowing the teachings of any religion to determine public policy is a bad, bad way of operating any modern democracy.
Leadsom's God-bothering ways would make me very, very wary of her.
All faiths should be kept out of politics as far as I am concerned.
How do you stop people's beliefs affecting their actions? Religious faith is just another belief.
Coming at it from a different angle, are you suggesting that muslims should be barred from running for office? Along with Christians, Hindu, Jews, Taoists and so forth.
Good point and well made. Anyone who believes in supernatural beings with omnipotent powers should be sent to the funny corner. Religion, now...now is utterly bizarre.
But now Crabb and Leadsom have come out, how many happy, clapper, bible thumping Tory MP's are there? Too many.
Another mistake by the chattering classes: they said Malcolm Turnbull would be more popular with Australian voters than Tony Abbott. Turns out not to be the case.
Abbott would almost certainly have lost, Turnbull got a Gillard like result but it keeps the L/NP in government in all likelihood
As an aside, Caroline Aherne? Really? 52? That's my age.
Pfffffffffff.
She was funny.
Too much alcohol (and ciggies) You need to start taking care of yourself maybe?
Didn't stop Winston Churchill.
The majority of us are reliant on the genetic makeup bestowed on us by our families. Despite, all the warnings and 5 a day, and a thimble of wine, your family genes decide pretty much how long you'll live and how you'll die.
Churchill's parent died aged 47 and 67 so the old boy out did them both and by a long margin. Of course, his parents lived in the days before antibiotics when an illness that we now can shrug off could have been fatal.
You are probably correct on the genetics thing dictating how long we live and what we die of but I have lived longer than all my forebears except one and my elder brother has lived longer than anyone in the family tree. So perhaps it is not a universal rule.
I suspect the genetics thing just says what hand you have been dealt - how you play it is up to you.
Perhaps so. Ms. Vance, though in the case of my brother, and indeed myself, we have not played carefully.
Leadsom's God-bothering ways would make me very, very wary of her.
All faiths should be kept out of politics as far as I am concerned.
Theresa May is an active Christian as well. Her father was a vicar incidentally.
Thing is, Being a 'Christian', probably more so than any other religion apart from possibly Islam, could mean almost any point along a sliding scale. Even within the broad church that is the CofE, there's a full spectrum ranging from full-on bible-brandishing evangelical to wishy-washy liberal Anglo-Catholicism, which from a policy-impact point of view is probably minimal.
Because both the strengths of the belief and the beliefs themselves vary so wildly (more so than people brought up as Atheists often realise) it's not always easy to predict the extent to which profession of the faith will impact on a politicians personal character, or indeed their policy making.
I get the impression that May is probably in the benign, middle of the road, church fetey sort of camp - any impact her faith has on her is likely to be of the 'making her a slightly kinder, more tolerant sort of person' variety. (She may even be 'towards the top of the candle', which would be absolutely fine with me.)
Crabb seems to be further down the evangelical nutjob scale and indeed has some views that liberal Christians would take issue with - let alone everybody else.
No idea about Leadsom, probably somewhere in the middle, leaning towards the Crabby end but a bit more guarded about it.
While I'd be slightly uncomfortable with an overtly evangelical Prime Minister, I think even the likes of Crabb would wind their neck in if actually in power on the basis that society and parliament are both hugely diverse in religiosity and anyone preaching too much fire and brimstone ain't gonna last long.
Leadsom's God-bothering ways would make me very, very wary of her.
All faiths should be kept out of politics as far as I am concerned.
How do you stop people's beliefs affecting their actions? Religious faith is just another belief.
Coming at it from a different angle, are you suggesting that muslims should be barred from running for office? Along with Christians, Hindu, Jews, Taoists and so forth.
Religious faith is not just another belief. It is a completely different beast - where people act because of teachings said to come from a deity - for whom there is absolutely no evidence. That, for me, is a major, major problem.
I prefer politicians who don't wear their faith on their sleeves - ideally those who have no faith in any religion whatsoever.
I know politics is not always totally rational (the events of the past two weeks demonstrates that) but I prefer it carried out by those who at least try to use reason.
(and I know that this will not be a popular position - but faith is at the heart of so many of the world's problems that I will always strongly argue that a world without religion would be a better place)
Every one of us a system of beliefs and values and they affect (I think direct) how we behave. Religious faith is just one set of those values and beliefs. Your apparent belief that religion is malignant is just another belief based, perhaps, on how you experience the world.
I'll come back to what you said earlier, "All faiths should be kept out of politics". So are you suggesting that someone who has a religious belief should be barred from standing for public office?
No. My position is based on an examination of the evidence from both history and the modern world. Having considered the evidence, I stand by my position on the subject of religion.
With regards to faith and politics - those who justify their political positions on the basis of their faith should not be part of our political system. Allowing the teachings of any religion to determine public policy is a bad, bad way of operating any modern democracy.
So you do want to ban Muslims (and christians and Hindus etc.) from public office.
I suppose May, if she wins, will do the least she can to get away with still getting a majority 2020 over the SNP/Lab coalition horror show. Same as last time. However, if I were UKIP, I'd refresh and put Suzanne Evans in charge and start campaigning in the North....
If UKIP did that and almost stopped campaigning in the South there would be much sighing of relief in the Tory party.
And it all but destroys the Labour party.
There are plenty of Tory seats in Essex and Kent, Lincolnshire and East Anglia and in the Southwest that are good prospects for them and not all Labour northern seats have a strong UKIP presence i.e. they do worse in Manchester and Liverpool for instance than they do nationwide
With regards to faith and politics - those who justify their political positions on the basis of their faith should not be part of our political system. Allowing the teachings of any religion to determine public policy is a bad, bad way of operating any modern democracy.
Even leaving aside the negative effect that this would have on diversity (no Muslim MPs, no Jews, no Christians etc.) would you also ban, say, black MPs whose political position has been determined by racism they have experienced because of their colour? Female MPs who have Feminism-influenced standpoints? Engels-admirers who grew up in poverty?
People are who they are, and their political beliefs can be influenced by a huge range of factors, of which their right to exercise religious freedom is just one. Disqualifying vast numbers of politicians simply because of the factors and life circumstances that led them to arrive where they happen to be is IMHO far more dangerous than any of said politicians beliefs are likely to be. And indeed less democratic.
P.S. Is this the longest thread in pb history? Have been to a concert, watched the football in the pub and had a meal and still the same thread as when I left just after 6pm and then it had been going for an hour or two. Clearly much to discuss regarding Mrs May
Leadsom's God-bothering ways would make me very, very wary of her.
All faiths should be kept out of politics as far as I am concerned.
Theresa May is an active Christian as well. Her father was a vicar incidentally.
Thing is, Being a 'Christian', probably more so than any other religion apart from possibly Islam, could mean almost any point along a sliding scale. Even within the broad church that is the CofE, there's a full spectrum ranging from full-on bible-brandishing evangelical to wishy-washy liberal Anglo-Catholicism, which from a policy-impact point of view is probably minimal.
Because both the strengths of the belief and the beliefs themselves vary so wildly (more so than people brought up as Atheists often realise) it's not always easy to predict the extent to which profession of the faith will impact on a politicians personal character, or indeed their policy making.
I get the impression that May is probably in the benign, middle of the road, church fetey sort of camp - any impact her faith has on her is likely to be of the 'making her a slightly kinder, more tolerant sort of person' variety. (She may even be 'towards the top of the candle', which would be absolutely fine with me.)
Crabb seems to be further down the evangelical nutjob scale and indeed has some views that liberal Christians would take issue with - let alone everybody else.
No idea about Leadsom, probably somewhere in the middle, leaning towards the Crabby end but a bit more guarded about it.
While I'd be slightly uncomfortable with an overtly evangelical Prime Minister, I think even the likes of Crabb would wind their neck in if actually in power on the basis that society and parliament are both hugely diverse in religiosity and anyone preaching too much fire and brimstone ain't gonna last long.
Spiffing post, SirBenjamin, agree with every word.
I do think that with minor adjustments the same could be said of politicians over the last few hundred years. Elizabeth I was a very clever lady.
Leadsom's God-bothering ways would make me very, very wary of her.
All faiths should be kept out of politics as far as I am concerned.
How do you stop people's beliefs affecting their actions? Religious faith is just another belief.
are you suggesting that muslims should be barred from running for office? Along with Christians, Hindu, Jews, Taoists and so forth.
Religious faith is not just another belief. It is a completely different beast - where people act because of teachings said to come from a deity - for whom there is absolutely no evidence. That, for me, is a major, major problem.
I prefer politicians who don't wear their faith on their sleeves - ideally those who have no faith in any religion whatsoever.
I know politics is not always totally rational (the events of the past two weeks demonstrates that) but I prefer it carried out by those who at least try to use reason.
(and I know that this will not be a popular position - but faith is at the heart of so many of the world's problems that I will always strongly argue that a world without religion would be a better place)
Every one of us a system of beliefs and values and they affect (I think direct) how we behave. Religious faith is just one set of those values and beliefs. Your apparent belief that religion is malignant is just another belief based, perhaps, on how you experience the world.
I'll come back to what you said earlier, "All faiths should be kept out of politics". So are you suggesting that someone who has a religious belief should be barred from standing for public office?
No. My position is based on an examination of the evidence from both history and the modern world. Having considered the evidence, I stand by my position on the subject of religion.
With regards to faith and politics - those who justify their political positions on the basis of their faith should not be part of our political system. Allowing the teachings of any religion to determine public policy is a bad, bad way of operating any modern democracy.
So you do want to ban Muslims (and christians and Hindus etc.) from public office.
I think my position is perfectly clear. It is about creating a rational space in which sound policy can be developed. Faith can get in the way of that. For that reason, I would keep the two spheres apart.
It is not about banning people (and I will not allow you to paint me as anti-Muslim - as that is what you appear to be wanting me to say) - it is about wanting candidates for political office to demonstrate clearly that their positions are rationally developed and rationally held.
I think my position is perfectly clear. It is about creating a rational space in which sound policy can be developed. Faith can get in the way of that. For that reason, I would keep the two spheres apart.
It is not about banning people (and I will not allow you to paint me as anti-Muslim - as that is what you appear to be wanting me to say) - it is about wanting candidates for political office to demonstrate clearly that their positions are rationally developed and rationally held.
I was being a bit naughty but only in the cause of exploring how you differentiate a person's beliefs and values from their politics. You seem to think you can, I think they are an essential part of the person and therefore cannot be separated.
Even within the broad church that is the CofE, there's a full spectrum ranging from full-on bible-brandishing evangelical to wishy-washy liberal Anglo-Catholicism, which from a policy-impact point of view is probably minimal.
Because both the strengths of the belief and the beliefs themselves vary so wildly (more so than people brought up as Atheists often realise) it's not always easy to predict the extent to which profession of the faith will impact on a politicians personal character, or indeed their policy making.
I get the impression that May is probably in the benign, middle of the road, church fetey sort of camp - any impact her faith has on her is likely to be of the 'making her a slightly kinder, more tolerant sort of person' variety. (She may even be 'towards the top of the candle', which would be absolutely fine with me.)
Anglicans who want to gauge how far up the candle they are can take this quiz to get a rough idea.
It sounded strange to hear about a spectrum stretching from evangelical fire-and-brimstone at one end to "wishy-washy liberal Anglo-Catholic" at the other. I was going to ask where Opus Dei and the sedevacantists fitted in, until I realised you were only talking about the C of E
Even within the broad church that is the CofE, there's a full spectrum ranging from full-on bible-brandishing evangelical to wishy-washy liberal Anglo-Catholicism, which from a policy-impact point of view is probably minimal.
Because both the strengths of the belief and the beliefs themselves vary so wildly (more so than people brought up as Atheists often realise) it's not always easy to predict the extent to which profession of the faith will impact on a politicians personal character, or indeed their policy making.
I get the impression that May is probably in the benign, middle of the road, church fetey sort of camp - any impact her faith has on her is likely to be of the 'making her a slightly kinder, more tolerant sort of person' variety. (She may even be 'towards the top of the candle', which would be absolutely fine with me.)
Anglicans who want to gauge how far up the candle they are can take this quiz to get a rough idea.
It sounded strange to hear about a spectrum stretching from evangelical fire-and-brimstone at one end to "wishy-washy liberal Anglo-Catholic" at the other. I was going to ask where Opus Dei and the sedevacantists fitted in, until I realised you were only talking about the C of E
Crikey, I only came out middle of the candle. Me, who is only still in the CofE because of Herself's hatred of Rome.
Incidentally, my prediction for Labour for the next week: expect a group of about 30 Labour MPs to publicly promise to nominate Clive Lewis for the leadership contest, in exchange for getting Corbyn to quit.
Lewis is monumentally unfit to lead a conga let alone a major political party, If Labour wants to self-immolate, it is thinking that someone like him is a viable leader that will hasten their demise.
Not saying you're wrong but what's the problem with Lewis specifically?
Religious faith is not just another belief. It is a completely different beast - where people act because of teachings said to come from a deity - for whom there is absolutely no evidence. That, for me, is a major, major problem
Most Buddhists don't think the teachings they act on come from a deity. Many pagans don't either. Many rabbis are atheists.
I was once told by a humanist who ministrated at funerals that all religions teach as a main plank of their faith that people have to act in a certain way in this life in order to do well in the afterlife. Well they don't. He was right ideological when I said that. He said well, er, er, they may say they don't but they do really. I strongly suspect he was reacting against the religious faith of his parents.
"Evidence"? Sheesh. I'm quite sure that like everyone else you often act not on a basis that's 100% determined by "evidence". Rationalism can function essentially in the same way as religious faith, and as for pragmatism it can convey an outlook similar to that of a Nazi truth dentist. Let's all get in touch with our irrational sides, okay? Lol.
Just as there are religious people who are atheists, there are also people critical of the role of religion in society who believe in God.
Thatcher did not stand for the leadership in fury at failing to get written assurances of a top job from a bumbling colleague such as Boris. Yet this snub seems to have been enough to persuade Leadsom to shoot for the nation’s highest office.
It’s no surprise to see that Leadsom’s backers include Iain Duncan Smith, the worst Tory leader in modern memory, whose embittered Cabinet resignation three months ago effectively fired the starting gun on this crisis.
More emollient Brexiteers such as Chris Grayling are backing Mrs May. The Leader of the House argued publicly and privately for Cameron to stay regardless of the referendum result, to ensure stability.
World events have shown how civil wars spiral out of control. As these people play a self-serving game of thrones, the country’s stability lies in ruins.
Even within the broad church that is the CofE, there's a full spectrum ranging from full-on bible-brandishing evangelical to wishy-washy liberal Anglo-Catholicism, which from a policy-impact point of view is probably minimal.
Because both the strengths of the belief and the beliefs themselves vary so wildly (more so than people brought up as Atheists often realise) it's not always easy to predict the extent to which profession of the faith will impact on a politicians personal character, or indeed their policy making.
I get the impression that May is probably in the benign, middle of the road, church fetey sort of camp - any impact her faith has on her is likely to be of the 'making her a slightly kinder, more tolerant sort of person' variety. (She may even be 'towards the top of the candle', which would be absolutely fine with me.)
Anglicans who want to gauge how far up the candle they are can take this quiz to get a rough idea.
It sounded strange to hear about a spectrum stretching from evangelical fire-and-brimstone at one end to "wishy-washy liberal Anglo-Catholic" at the other. I was going to ask where Opus Dei and the sedevacantists fitted in, until I realised you were only talking about the C of E
Crikey, I only came out middle of the candle. Me, who is only still in the CofE because of Herself's hatred of Rome.
Top of the flame for me. Perhaps it's because I am an atheist.
'A senior Labour source, close to the embattled leader, said they had blocked Watson from talking privately to Corbyn because they have a “duty of care. They [Watson’s aides] want Watson to be on his own with Corbyn so that he can jab his finger at him,” the source said.
“We are not letting that happen. He’s a 70-year-old [sic] man. We have a duty of care … This is not a one-off. There is a culture of bullying. Maybe it’s a Blairite/Brownite thing.”'
[Also]
On Saturday night, Corbyn allies accused the parliamentary party of sabotaging Labour’s ability to hold the government to account.
One Labour source said those at the top of the party were livid when it emerged that files on a shared Labour party hard drive relating to the finance bill going through parliament had been deleted as the shadow finance secretary Rob Marris resigned.
An internal email seen by this newspaper said: “Unfortunately, it looks like someone from Rob Marris’s office has deleted the vast majority of the finance bill records and notes on each clause from the shared drive.”
Another mistake by the chattering classes: they said Malcolm Turnbull would be more popular with Australian voters than Tony Abbott. Turns out not to be the case.
Abbott would almost certainly have lost, Turnbull got a Gillard like result but it keeps the L/NP in government in all likelihood
The proof of the pudding, etc, and the fact is Abbott won an election whereas Turnbull has lost one. Abbott was supposed to be unelectable and Turnbull was the moderate who would win over floating voters.
When things have calmed down after another week, and focussed more on the platform rather than the machinations, it's quite plausible the MPs will back Gove in 2nd place and send his name to the members alongside May.
When things have calmed down after another week, and focussed more on the platform rather than the machinations, it's quite plausible the MPs will back Gove in 2nd place and send his name to the members alongside May.
It would have been interesting to see how the membership might have voted with a choice of May, Leadsom and Gove if that were within the rules. We'll never know.
Another mistake by the chattering classes: they said Malcolm Turnbull would be more popular with Australian voters than Tony Abbott. Turns out not to be the case.
Abbott would almost certainly have lost, Turnbull got a Gillard like result but it keeps the L/NP in government in all likelihood
The proof of the pudding, etc, and the fact is Abbott won an election whereas Turnbull has lost one. Abbott was supposed to be unelectable and Turnbull was the moderate who would win over floating voters.
Not only that but the way that Turnbull has lost has been his lack of ability to attract transfers. Which is the fundamental reason for a moderate leader in AV - his only purpose is the one he has failed at.
Another mistake by the chattering classes: they said Malcolm Turnbull would be more popular with Australian voters than Tony Abbott. Turns out not to be the case.
Abbott would almost certainly have lost, Turnbull got a Gillard like result but it keeps the L/NP in government in all likelihood
The proof of the pudding, etc, and the fact is Abbott won an election whereas Turnbull has lost one. Abbott was supposed to be unelectable and Turnbull was the moderate who would win over floating voters.
When he was toppled Abbott trailed Shorten by about ten points and he also list the 2010 election even if only by a fraction. It was of course Abbott who originally toppled Turnbull in the first place back in 2009. There is as much bad blood between them as Rudd and Gillard
When things have calmed down after another week, and focussed more on the platform rather than the machinations, it's quite plausible the MPs will back Gove in 2nd place and send his name to the members alongside May.
It would have been interesting to see how the membership might have voted with a choice of May, Leadsom and Gove if that were within the rules. We'll never know.
Indeed. Will be fascinating to see how it all plays out, for the first time since 2005 which was a very different contest, a drawn out affair designed to find a future star - as opposed to now when we need to find a ready-made Prime Minister.
I suppose May, if she wins, will do the least she can to get away with still getting a majority 2020 over the SNP/Lab coalition horror show. Same as last time. However, if I were UKIP, I'd refresh and put Suzanne Evans in charge and start campaigning in the North....
If UKIP did that and almost stopped campaigning in the South there would be much sighing of relief in the Tory party.
And it all but destroys the Labour party.
There are plenty of Tory seats in Essex and Kent, Lincolnshire and East Anglia and in the Southwest that are good prospects for them and not all Labour northern seats have a strong UKIP presence i.e. they do worse in Manchester and Liverpool for instance than they do nationwide
Ukip did better in some safe greater Manchester and "greater Liverpool seats" like Bolton north east getting 19% but since they are not a major party in Parliament t like the SNP were in Scotland they have no media attention and they won unlike the SNP, two reasons there won't be a ukip surge unless the main parties all backtrack and ignore the will of the people which let's be honest was to reduce immigration.
Another mistake by the chattering classes: they said Malcolm Turnbull would be more popular with Australian voters than Tony Abbott. Turns out not to be the case.
Abbott would almost certainly have lost, Turnbull got a Gillard like result but it keeps the L/NP in government in all likelihood
The proof of the pudding, etc, and the fact is Abbott won an election whereas Turnbull has lost one. Abbott was supposed to be unelectable and Turnbull was the moderate who would win over floating voters.
Not only that but the way that Turnbull has lost has been his lack of ability to attract transfers. Which is the fundamental reason for a moderate leader in AV - his only purpose is the one he has failed at.
Firstly Turnbull has not lost he has probably actually won most seats just not a majority, there are still about 11 seats unclear and postal votes will be key which should favour the L/NP. The L/NP won the primary vote clearly but transfers always favour the ALP because of the significant Green vote
May might go for EEA but a points system for non-EU immigration (fewer muzzies more Indain doctors, etc) and a serious crackdown on EU benefits whilst allowing them legally to come (but they'll do so in far fewer numbers). We'll have left and the numbers will fall.
May was pretty pisspoor at reducing the immigration that she could control.
We need to end virtually all non-EU immigration, apart from Tier 1 and Tier 2. End chain migration apart from very eligible spouses, immediate kids. But, most of all, take bloody students out of the stats, they mislead.
I think the first thing we need to do is actually count them in (and record passport numbers and detail) and count them out. The statistics are just statistics.
May is responsible for not knowing or controlling non EU migration. There is no reason to believe she will do better as PM.
The political climate is now totally changed. I think this will happen whoever gets to be PM.
I agree. This has been a seismic and necessary shock to the body politic. My guess (or my hope) is that we will end up with a Brexit lite that doesn't do that much damage to the country, economically, and does restore some significant sovereignty.
EEA, probably.
But everyone is now aware - very aware - that endless immigration is simply unsustainable. Next time it won't be a lost referendum, it will be civil strife. The UK government HAS to get it down to 100,000 a year, or so.
Don't worry. Our trashed reputation and s recession will bring the number right down. Maybe we'll be back to pre EU brain drains.Genius.
This. Many here seem to have forgotten the "brain drain" worries of the 1970s, when many of our best and brightest were leaving for greener pastures. The scientific world for one is aghast at the prospect of the UK leaving the EU, and I'm sure that many scientists will already be considering where else they might be gainfully employed.
I suppose May, if she wins, will do the least she can to get away with still getting a majority 2020 over the SNP/Lab coalition horror show. Same as last time. However, if I were UKIP, I'd refresh and put Suzanne Evans in charge and start campaigning in the North....
If UKIP did that and almost stopped campaigning in the South there would be much sighing of relief in the Tory party.
And it all but destroys the Labour party.
There are plenty of Tory seats in Essex and Kent, Lincolnshire and East Anglia and in the Southwest that are good prospects for them and not all Labour northern seats have a strong UKIP presence i.e. they do worse in Manchester and Liverpool for instance than they do nationwide
Ukip did better in some safe greater Manchester and "greater Liverpool seats" like Bolton north east getting 19% but since they are not a major party in Parliament t like the SNP were in Scotland they have no media attention and they won unlike the SNP, two reasons there won't be a ukip surge unless the main parties all backtrack and ignore the will of the people which let's be honest was to reduce immigration.
Bolton North East is not in Liverpool by any definition. If as is likely May agrees an EFTA deal and some free movement I would expect UKIP to poll around 25% of the vote at the next election and pick up maybe 20 to 30 seats in areas like Thurrock and Harlow and Basildon in Essex, Thanet and Rochester and Strood and Dover in Kent, Portsmouth, Mansfield and maybe Nuneaton in the Midlands, Boston and Great Yarmouth in the East and Grimsby and Rotherham and Bolton and Sunderland in the north
Merkel's office is saying that the debate in Britain over the referendum result is only just beginning and they don't want to put any pressure on the UK.
I suppose May, if she wins, will do the least she can to get away with still getting a majority 2020 over the SNP/Lab coalition horror show. Same as last time. However, if I were UKIP, I'd refresh and put Suzanne Evans in charge and start campaigning in the North....
If UKIP did that and almost stopped campaigning in the South there would be much sighing of relief in the Tory party.
And it all but destroys the Labour party.
There are plenty of Tory seats in Essex and Kent, Lincolnshire and East Anglia and in the Southwest that are good prospects for them and not all Labour northern seats have a strong UKIP presence i.e. they do worse in Manchester and Liverpool for instance than they do nationwide
Ukip did better in some safe greater Manchester and "greater Liverpool seats" like Bolton north east getting 19% but since they are not a major party in Parliament t like the SNP were in Scotland they have no media attention and they won unlike the SNP, two reasons there won't be a ukip surge unless the main parties all backtrack and ignore the will of the people which let's be honest was to reduce immigration.
Bolton North East is not in Liverpool by any definition. If as is likely May agrees an EFTA deal and some free movement I would expect UKIP to poll around 25% of the vote at the next election and pick up maybe 20 to 30 seats in areas like Thurrock and Harlow and Basildon in Essex, Thanet and Rochester and Strood and Dover in Kent, Portsmouth, Mansfield and maybe Nuneaton in the Midlands, Boston and Great Yarmouth in the East and Grimsby and Rotherham and Bolton and Sunderland in the north
I suppose May, if she wins, will do the least she can to get away with still getting a majority 2020 over the SNP/Lab coalition horror show. Same as last time. However, if I were UKIP, I'd refresh and put Suzanne Evans in charge and start campaigning in the North....
If UKIP did that and almost stopped campaigning in the South there would be much sighing of relief in the Tory party.
And it all but destroys the Labour party.
There are plenty of Tory seats in Essex and Kent, Lincolnshire and East Anglia and in the Southwest that are good prospects for them and not all Labour northern seats have a strong UKIP presence i.e. they do worse in Manchester and Liverpool for instance than they do nationwide
Ukip did better in some safe greater Manchester and "greater Liverpool seats" like Bolton north east getting 19% but since they are not a major party in Parliament t like the SNP were in Scotland they have no media attention and they won unlike the SNP, two reasons there won't be a ukip surge unless the main parties all backtrack and ignore the will of the people which let's be honest was to reduce immigration.
Bolton North East is not in Liverpool by any definition. If as is likely May agrees an EFTA deal and some free movement I would expect UKIP to poll around 25% of the vote at the next election and pick up maybe 20 to 30 seats in areas like Thurrock and Harlow and Basildon in Essex, Thanet and Rochester and Strood and Dover in Kent, Portsmouth, Mansfield and maybe Nuneaton in the Midlands, Boston and Great Yarmouth in the East and Grimsby and Rotherham and Bolton and Sunderland in the north
What? Its greater Manchester.
It is not in Manchester either, Greater Manchester maybe
I suppose May, if she wins, will do the least she can to get away with still getting a majority 2020 over the SNP/Lab coalition horror show. Same as last time. However, if I were UKIP, I'd refresh and put Suzanne Evans in charge and start campaigning in the North....
If UKIP did that and almost stopped campaigning in the South there would be much sighing of relief in the Tory party.
And it all but destroys the Labour party.
There are plenty of Tory seats in Essex and Kent, Lincolnshire and East Anglia and in the Southwest that are good prospects for them and not all Labour northern seats have a strong UKIP presence i.e. they do worse in Manchester and Liverpool for instance than they do nationwide
Ukip did better in some safe greater Manchester and "greater Liverpool seats" like Bolton north east getting 19% but since they are not a major party in Parliament t like the SNP were in Scotland they have no media attention and they won unlike the SNP, two reasons there won't be a ukip surge unless the main parties all backtrack and ignore the will of the people which let's be honest was to reduce immigration.
Bolton North East is not in Liverpool by any definition. If as is likely May agrees an EFTA deal and some free movement I would expect UKIP to poll around 25% of the vote at the next election and pick up maybe 20 to 30 seats in areas like Thurrock and Harlow and Basildon in Essex, Thanet and Rochester and Strood and Dover in Kent, Portsmouth, Mansfield and maybe Nuneaton in the Midlands, Boston and Great Yarmouth in the East and Grimsby and Rotherham and Bolton and Sunderland in the north
What? Its greater Manchester.
It is not in Manchester either, Greater Manchester maybe
* no Democratic candidate has taken over the US presidency from an outgoing Democratic president since the US civil war
* the last person to succeed was James Buchanan in 1856
* since then, only five have even tried: Al Gore 2000, Hubert Humphrey 1968, Adlai Stevenson 1952, James Cox 1920, William Jennings Bryan 1896.
Truman and LBJ effectively did though they only got the presidency as their predecessor died in office. Only Bush Snr has done it for the GOP since WW2
Merkel's office is saying that the debate in Britain over the referendum result is only just beginning and they don't want to put any pressure on the UK.
Merkel's office is saying that the debate in Britain over the referendum result is only just beginning and they don't want to put any pressure on the UK.
Comments
Anyone who believes in supernatural beings with omnipotent powers should be sent to the funny corner. Religion, now...now is utterly bizarre.
But now Crabb and Leadsom have come out, how many happy, clapper, bible thumping Tory MP's are there? Too many.
I prefer politicians who don't wear their faith on their sleeves - ideally those who have no faith in any religion whatsoever.
I know politics is not always totally rational (the events of the past two weeks demonstrates that) but I prefer it carried out by those who at least try to use reason.
(and I know that this will not be a popular position - but faith is at the heart of so many of the world's problems that I will always strongly argue that a world without religion would be a better place)
Out of interest.. Have you had a chance to draft a reply to my email?
No doubt Arron Banks is thinking the same thing kind of thoughts - about rebranding UKIP/pheonixing something else, but the risks of splitting the vote are massive.
Cameron, Farage and Farron all Christians. Clegg was agnostic, attends church because of his misses.
While one would have to be a complete crazy to say all is well in the Eurozone right now, employment is growing very rapidly in Spain and Ireland, and pretty well in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and most of the rest of the bloc. It's only really Italy and (to a lesser extent) France that look really troubled. Basically, those that took their austerity medicine and liberalised their labour markets are moving in the right direction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KQ-Ol1-xPc
You are probably correct on the genetics thing dictating how long we live and what we die of but I have lived longer than all my forebears except one and my elder brother has lived longer than anyone in the family tree. So perhaps it is not a universal rule.
Alot of those voters will only turn up once every 20 years though - they need to find someone other than Farage methinks.
When you consider how well Hofer, Le Pen, Denmark Freedom party etc - UKIP has done poorly imo.
It has to be said that EU net migration would drop dramatically without any other changes if the EU sorted itself out. Problem is you need nation states to lead their people, and listen to them as well. The big issue with the EU is that it does neither it simply dictates.
Of more concern is the quote from Leadsom that leaving the EU would lead to an economic disaster. She needs to be able to successfully explain this away. If this damages her with the MPs who will benefit most? Gove would be the obvious one but if reports from connected PBers here are to be believed he is now anathema to most Tory voters. If true this ought to be filtering through to MPs and affect their choice. So if not Gove it must be Fox. He is the third of The Three Brexiteers and it would be a big surprise if there was no Brexiteer in the final two.
It's an unlikely outcome from here I know, for Fox to pull off a surprise but I've backed him at 110 to win the contest (now 120-150!) and I've backed May/Fox for the final two with Ladbrokes at 25/1.
I'll come back to what you said earlier, "All faiths should be kept out of politics". So are you suggesting that someone who has a religious belief should be barred from standing for public office?
With regards to faith and politics - those who justify their political positions on the basis of their faith should not be part of our political system. Allowing the teachings of any religion to determine public policy is a bad, bad way of operating any modern democracy.
*sips bedtime whisky*
Thing is, Being a 'Christian', probably more so than any other religion apart from possibly Islam, could mean almost any point along a sliding scale. Even within the broad church that is the CofE, there's a full spectrum ranging from full-on bible-brandishing evangelical to wishy-washy liberal Anglo-Catholicism, which from a policy-impact point of view is probably minimal.
Because both the strengths of the belief and the beliefs themselves vary so wildly (more so than people brought up as Atheists often realise) it's not always easy to predict the extent to which profession of the faith will impact on a politicians personal character, or indeed their policy making.
I get the impression that May is probably in the benign, middle of the road, church fetey sort of camp - any impact her faith has on her is likely to be of the 'making her a slightly kinder, more tolerant sort of person' variety. (She may even be 'towards the top of the candle', which would be absolutely fine with me.)
Crabb seems to be further down the evangelical nutjob scale and indeed has some views that liberal Christians would take issue with - let alone everybody else.
No idea about Leadsom, probably somewhere in the middle, leaning towards the Crabby end but a bit more guarded about it.
While I'd be slightly uncomfortable with an overtly evangelical Prime Minister, I think even the likes of Crabb would wind their neck in if actually in power on the basis that society and parliament are both hugely diverse in religiosity and anyone preaching too much fire and brimstone ain't gonna last long.
Even leaving aside the negative effect that this would have on diversity (no Muslim MPs, no Jews, no Christians etc.) would you also ban, say, black MPs whose political position has been determined by racism they have experienced because of their colour? Female MPs who have Feminism-influenced standpoints? Engels-admirers who grew up in poverty?
People are who they are, and their political beliefs can be influenced by a huge range of factors, of which their right to exercise religious freedom is just one. Disqualifying vast numbers of politicians simply because of the factors and life circumstances that led them to arrive where they happen to be is IMHO far more dangerous than any of said politicians beliefs are likely to be. And indeed less democratic.
I do think that with minor adjustments the same could be said of politicians over the last few hundred years. Elizabeth I was a very clever lady.
It is not about banning people (and I will not allow you to paint me as anti-Muslim - as that is what you appear to be wanting me to say) - it is about wanting candidates for political office to demonstrate clearly that their positions are rationally developed and rationally held.
It is getting late shall we leave it there.
It sounded strange to hear about a spectrum stretching from evangelical fire-and-brimstone at one end to "wishy-washy liberal Anglo-Catholic" at the other. I was going to ask where Opus Dei and the sedevacantists fitted in, until I realised you were only talking about the C of E
I was once told by a humanist who ministrated at funerals that all religions teach as a main plank of their faith that people have to act in a certain way in this life in order to do well in the afterlife. Well they don't. He was right ideological when I said that. He said well, er, er, they may say they don't but they do really. I strongly suspect he was reacting against the religious faith of his parents.
"Evidence"? Sheesh. I'm quite sure that like everyone else you often act not on a basis that's 100% determined by "evidence". Rationalism can function essentially in the same way as religious faith, and as for pragmatism it can convey an outlook similar to that of a Nazi truth dentist. Let's all get in touch with our irrational sides, okay? Lol.
Just as there are religious people who are atheists, there are also people critical of the role of religion in society who believe in God.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3671725/We-affected-not-having-children-coped-Exclusive-interview-Theresa-reveals-softer-steely-favourite-PM-says-EU-chiefs-talk-UK-Brexit.html
While accusing Leadsom of 'hypocrisy' for 'changing her mind':
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3671760/Tory-leadership-hopeful-Vote-Leave-campaigner-Andrea-Leadsom-previously-said-Brexit-disaster.html
It’s no surprise to see that Leadsom’s backers include Iain Duncan Smith, the worst Tory leader in modern memory, whose embittered Cabinet resignation three months ago effectively fired the starting gun on this crisis.
More emollient Brexiteers such as Chris Grayling are backing Mrs May. The Leader of the House argued publicly and privately for Cameron to stay regardless of the referendum result, to ensure stability.
World events have shown how civil wars spiral out of control. As these people play a self-serving game of thrones, the country’s stability lies in ruins.
If Leadsom can shrug this off then May's got problems.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19mKbV0UnIbX_lbiinKiquP0ghiFpsMl0owUO6_TJyzI/edit#gid=0
* no Democratic candidate has taken over the US presidency from an outgoing Democratic president since the US civil war
* the last person to succeed was James Buchanan in 1856
* since then, only five have even tried: Al Gore 2000, Hubert Humphrey 1968, Adlai Stevenson 1952, James Cox 1920, William Jennings Bryan 1896.
https://xkcd.com/1122/
Seriously tho Trump will win Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia and the white house.
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/brexit-bundesregierung-hofft-auf-sinneswandel-grossbritanniens-a-1100899.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/state/
If the coronation of May&Remainiacs succeeds, the SoS charged with 'brexit negotiations' could be Ken Clarke.
Was Wendell Willkie in 1940 the last major-party candidate before Donald Trump not to have held public office?
And the only President (so far) not to have been a Congressman, Senator, Governor, Veep or a General was... Hoover.