Juncker plans EU military headquarters No 'Brexit effect' in latest jobs data.
I think it is becoming clear where the porkies were being told during the referendum.
We haven't Brexited yet!
Indeed with full access to all of the benefits of the EU continuing and a devaluation as stimulus things are looking ok for the moment.
I never understood the objections to an EU army. We were never obliged to join and if other countries want to join forces, what is our beef? Particularly after Brexit.
What purpose would an EU army fulfill that is not being fulfilled by NATO?
That's the question which those proposing an EU army need to answer.
Most EU nations military is barely worth its name. The only real major projection forces in Europe are that of its only two nuclear powers, the United Kingdom and France.
By uniting EU forces together then instead of a lot of meaningless military forces they could have one powerful military force that could actually be used for military projection. However that would also entail the remaining EU nations actually spending money on their military and not just relying upon the cover of NATO (and realistically that means the USA and UK) and getting protected for free.
Given the UK already had a real force, that argument did not work for us, but if they're OK with uniting it can work for them.
I thought PMQs was supposed to be 30 minutes not 45.
I think it's great that they extended it to get through the list. As the Speaker pointed out, it was ridiculously slow early on. By 12:30 they were hardly down the list at all.
They have a list? That's news to me. I thought the Speaker just called people who caught his eye.
There's alway a published list for PMQs - although IIRC the Speaker can also call on others.
The important bit is that the Government and Opposition benches alternate - so the Speaker calls others if that proves necessary.
Juncker plans EU military headquarters No 'Brexit effect' in latest jobs data.
I think it is becoming clear where the porkies were being told during the referendum.
We haven't Brexited yet!
Indeed with full access to all of the benefits of the EU continuing and a devaluation as stimulus things are looking ok for the moment.
I never understood the objections to an EU army. We were never obliged to join and if other countries want to join forces, what is our beef? Particularly after Brexit.
It would be a military structure controlled by Brussels. That alone is a very poor idea. If it was just national governments working together on a bilateral or multilateral basis it wouldn't be a problem, but this is unelected Eurocrats directing military forces. An absolutely horrible idea.
None of our business anymore, they too can do as they please.
Rather like the atmosphere in a pub when an obnoxious loudmouth leaves, I think the EU will enjoy Brexit.
I'm not so sure they will, previously the UK was an easy scapegoat for when an initiative failed to get beyond the planning stage (just like the EU has been an easy scapegoat for governments over here). Without the UK the EU will have to deliver very unpopular policies of integration and without any opposition it will lead to Brussels becoming even more unpopular. Look at the reaction from the Sweden Democrats on the EU army, the EU is already losing popularity in Sweden, forcing them into an EU army will hasten their exit plans. Delivering unbridled integration is going to be about as popular as Jezza at a Notting Hill dinner party, yet without the UK blocking these measures the EU will have no choice but to deliver them.
Any rejoicing will be limited to the undemocratic commission, at the highest level they are already realising that more EU is unpopular enough to bring down governments.
PM making a spirited defence of her schools policy, pointing out to Mr Corbyn that he was a product of the grammar system he now opposes.
Well thats the whole point May/Corbyn and loads of MPs went to Grammars "and thats why we are where we are today" says May
How many from Secondary Moderns?
If you dont think Corbyn won today you are wrong, even Tory supporting Neale and Kunsberg thought she was "on the ropes"
On the ropes, hardly. She seemed to be enjoying herself.
But she failed to answer any of Corbyn's questions and her catty remarks about it potentially being Corbyn's last PMQs were clumsy and did not cover up her very unconvincing responses.
I must have slept through the 2015 Census. When was that precisely?
You are trying to make a risible point that because we only have a census once every ten years all of the annual population statistics produced by the ONS in the interim are of little value, even though they are referenced back to the census and updated using the multitude of other statistics at the ONS's disposal, and that the use of similarly derived statistics to determine electoral boundaries in many other countries is non-contentious. And at the same time you're choosing to gloss over the evidence of manifest failings in the system of individual electoral registration, the electoral register being the only headcount in the country to have fallen over the past 5 years at a time when our adult population is rising rapidly.
The electoral register has fallen precisely because it is more reliable not because it is less!
Previously under the old system a vast number of people were recorded on the electoral register two, three or more times. Especially students and people who move regularly. My wife was recorded multiple times because she had got married and changing her name ended up with her being registered by both her maiden name and her new name and unless you actively sought to get an old record removed then it remained for two years.
Under the old system, many people were left off the register but that was balanced by the fact that some were left on at their old address as well as being registered at their new address. So in total the numbers on the register may not have been far out, which is why using electoral registers were not so contentious in the past. By contrast, under IER, no-one is on more than once, but plenty are left off, particularly under the disgraceful December 2015 register which the government manipulated to delete swathes of names against the specific recommendation of the Electoral Commission. The people missing are by and large those without a settled home which is why it is so advantageous to the Conservatives to draw up boundaries pretending that they don't exist. The December 2015 IER was highly incomplete and evidence of that is that 2 million more names were added to the electoral register in the 6 months afterwards prior to the Brexit referendum.
Oct 20: by elections for Labour MP Jo Cox in Batley & Spen and for David Cameron in Witney will be held on the same day
Are the Tories and LDs still going to stand aside in Batley & Spen?
It would be a nice gesture in recognition of Jo Cox’s death, although personally not in favour of such a move. B&S is a safe(ish) Labour seat with a 6,000 majority, Lib Dems don’t stand a chance but there is a slender one for the blues? – All rather sad and her contribution to politics should be recognised, but let’s not set these kinds of precedent, the voters should have their say.
Nobody stood aside in Eastbourne after Ian Gow died, and his death was no less brutal than Jo Cox's. In fact the Lib Dems took the seat. I don't recall but I bet nobody stood aside in Anthony Berry's seat either.
It's sentimental rubbish.
There was all this talk at the time about how it was an attack on democracy, about how keen she was on using her status as an MP to help people etc. Well, if we believe in democracy, the electorate in this constituency should have a choice of candidates to vote for.
Democracy should not be suspended at the behest of some nutter with a grievance.
Had it not been for that nutter democracy would have been suspended until 2020 anyway though. There is no right answer here but it never seemed right to me what happened in Eastbourne, the idea that you can change Parliamentary arithmetic with bullets and bombs seemed reprehensible.
Carl Bildt @carlbildt 5m5 minutes ago I think it will be noted that @JunckerEU in #SOTEU fails to say anything whatsoever on TTIP trans-Atlantic talks. Not a good sign.
It sounds like TTIP is basically parked in the STFU bay until after the French elections.
Juncker plans EU military headquarters No 'Brexit effect' in latest jobs data.
I think it is becoming clear where the porkies were being told during the referendum.
We haven't Brexited yet!
Indeed with full access to all of the benefits of the EU continuing and a devaluation as stimulus things are looking ok for the moment.
I never understood the objections to an EU army. We were never obliged to join and if other countries want to join forces, what is our beef? Particularly after Brexit.
What purpose would an EU army fulfill that is not being fulfilled by NATO?
That's the question which those proposing an EU army need to answer.
It is possible that in less than two months America elects as President a man who pulls America out of NATO.
Seems like sensible planning by the EU.
The southern Med and the EU's eastern border do need cross european cooperation in order to send immigrants back from whence they came and let Putin know forces are 'there'. That lot should not be Italy/Estonia's problem solely.
I have to say that was probably Jezza's best question time. He did well by sticking to one topic and it was noticeable that May didn't answer any of the questions.
Cameron never answered the questions either he just did it more stylishly
Theresa May is banking on Corbyn being in charge in 2020.
If for some reason he isn't...
Its because the policy is badly thought out. Patching grammar schools onto our system with a few token changes is not going to help many children and proposals do very little (nothing?) for children who are not academically gifted. I'm a supporter of grammar schools and I'm not really supportive of the proposal, that's quite damning because I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Juncker plans EU military headquarters No 'Brexit effect' in latest jobs data.
I think it is becoming clear where the porkies were being told during the referendum.
We haven't Brexited yet!
Indeed with full access to all of the benefits of the EU continuing and a devaluation as stimulus things are looking ok for the moment.
I never understood the objections to an EU army. We were never obliged to join and if other countries want to join forces, what is our beef? Particularly after Brexit.
What purpose would an EU army fulfill that is not being fulfilled by NATO?
That's the question which those proposing an EU army need to answer.
And what about the neutral states: Austria, Sweden, Ireland?
Although a remainer, an EU army - answerable to whom? - is the kind of megalomaniacal project which means it's impossible not to feel a little bit brexity at times.
The electoral register has fallen precisely because it is more reliable not because it is less!
Previously under the old system a vast number of people were recorded on the electoral register two, three or more times. Especially students and people who move regularly. My wife was recorded multiple times because she had got married and changing her name ended up with her being registered by both her maiden name and her new name and unless you actively sought to get an old record removed then it remained for two years.
Under the old system, many people were left off the register but that was balanced by the fact that some were left on at their old address as well as being registered at their new address. So in total the numbers on the register may not have been far out, which is why using electoral registers were not so contentious in the past. By contrast, under IER, no-one is on more than once, but plenty are left off, particularly under the disgraceful December 2015 register which the government manipulated to delete swathes of names against the specific recommendation of the Electoral Commission. The people missing are by and large those without a settled home which is why it is so advantageous to the Conservatives to draw up boundaries pretending that they don't exist. The December 2015 IER was highly incomplete and evidence of that is that 2 million more names were added to the electoral register in the 6 months afterwards prior to the Brexit referendum.
You're seriously pretending that two wrongs make a right so it was OK? There is absolutely no guarantee that those names included multiple times lived in the same constituencies as those missing.
Furthermore big deal that there were extras recorded in 2016, there is always extra names added before any vote. The 2015 electoral register includes all the extra names that were added before the 2015 General Election. They're not in the 2000 register that we're currently using.
So the fair solution is to pass the current reforms as they'll be more up to date and then by following 2020 we do this all over again rather than waiting two decades to do it again.
It has allowed such states to export one potential political problem caused by the adoption of the euro.
They're not problems, they're people. They go where they can work and create wealth. This is a good thing.
And if you had read and understood my quote properly or even the full thread header (which is here BTW - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/07/12/uniting-the-country/) you'd have understood that that's precisely my point: the human consequences are being ignored and the political problem is the problem caused by having unemployed young with little hope.
What makes sense for an individual does not necessarily make sense for a society. Mass migration causes problems (as well as benefits) for both the society receiving the migrants as for the state losing them, a point usually forgotten by those keen on immigration. Look at the depopulated parts of Southern Italy, for instance. To say that it is a good thing for such areas to lose their young, for families to be split up is pretty callous. Receiving remittances is a poor substitute for having your home community effectively die.
We've been through this before. The data actually tend to indicate that the states sending the migrants generally benefit from migration, probably because migration isn't a one-way process. Many migrants return home again at intervals or permanently, bringing their newly acquired skills and approach to business back with them.
Juncker plans EU military headquarters No 'Brexit effect' in latest jobs data.
I think it is becoming clear where the porkies were being told during the referendum.
We haven't Brexited yet!
Indeed with full access to all of the benefits of the EU continuing and a devaluation as stimulus things are looking ok for the moment.
I never understood the objections to an EU army. We were never obliged to join and if other countries want to join forces, what is our beef? Particularly after Brexit.
What purpose would an EU army fulfill that is not being fulfilled by NATO?
That's the question which those proposing an EU army need to answer.
And what about the neutral states: Austria, Sweden, Ireland?
Although a remainer, an EU army - answerable to whom? - is the kind of megalomaniacal project which means it's impossible not to feel a little bit brexity at times.
Well if we hadn't voted to leave it's unlikely the EU would be pushing the army stuff so hard because we'd oppose it and then they'd blame us for it failing, but the elected leaders would breathe a sigh of relief once it was kicked off the agenda.
BRUSSELS chief Jean-Claude Juncker laid out plans to create a European army and claimed the EU was not in an existential crisis despite the Brexit vote. - In a speech this morning he said the bloc was not about to break up, but instead needed to grow closer after the UK’s historic vote to leave.
Will there ever be an eventuality where the EU calls for less need to grow closer?
I see Juncker has put free movement as a European value on par with anti-racism.
It's not a European value but it is an economic necessity. As I put it some while ago -
"FoM has allowed those Eurozone states with stagnating economies to export their young rather than than have them – unemployed, angry and potentially a destabilising force demanding change – at home.
It has allowed such states to export one potential political problem caused by the adoption of the euro. The UK has acted as a safety valve for Europe’s poorer economies."
It is the social and human consequences which the EU has ignored and it is this which has, to an extent the EU is simply refusing to accept, led to the Brexit vote.
You would have thought that losing such a large country would lead to some element of self-reflection, someone somewhere within the EU asking themselves whether the Brexit vote might possibly, just possibly, have had something to do with how the EU has itself behaved and evolved over the years. But apparently not.
Juncker plans EU military headquarters No 'Brexit effect' in latest jobs data.
I think it is becoming clear where the porkies were being told during the referendum.
We haven't Brexited yet!
Indeed with full access to all of the benefits of the EU continuing and a devaluation as stimulus things are looking ok for the moment.
I never understood the objections to an EU army. We were never obliged to join and if other countries want to join forces, what is our beef? Particularly after Brexit.
What purpose would an EU army fulfill that is not being fulfilled by NATO?
That's the question which those proposing an EU army need to answer.
Most EU nations military is barely worth its name. The only real major projection forces in Europe are that of its only two nuclear powers, the United Kingdom and France.
By uniting EU forces together then instead of a lot of meaningless military forces they could have one powerful military force that could actually be used for military projection. However that would also entail the remaining EU nations actually spending money on their military and not just relying upon the cover of NATO (and realistically that means the USA and UK) and getting protected for free.
Given the UK already had a real force, that argument did not work for us, but if they're OK with uniting it can work for them.
Thank you.
I wonder what military projection the EU would actually do. Peace-keeping? Maybe - but that can be dangerous, as we know. See Afghanistan. Fighting? And, if so, would young men and women be prepared to fight and die for the EU?
May's basic problem with the grammars policy is that its primary purpose is to keep Tory right-wingers onside as the compromises she has to make on Brexit become apparent. Obviously, that is not something she can say out loud so she is left to flounder. When you are bested by Jeremy Corbyn you are in big trouble. For a decent opposition able to engage with non-believers this is an eminently beatable government.
Carl Bildt @carlbildt 5m5 minutes ago I think it will be noted that @JunckerEU in #SOTEU fails to say anything whatsoever on TTIP trans-Atlantic talks. Not a good sign.
It sounds like TTIP is basically parked in the STFU bay until after the French elections.
Don’t think it’s just parked, with the UK no longer on-board, TTIP looks dead in the water.
you would prefer to use 2000 electoral register than the 2015 electoral register. There is no justification in that and your argument is a clear pretence for highly partisan reasons.
Try addressing my points based on something I said, rather than inventing a straw man. Maybe your need to do so is because you are motivated by partisan considerations.
I did not say that the parliamentary boundaries did not need updating. I am saying that it shouldn't be done using incomplete data which has been patently fixed. Got that?
To quote the thread: "Cam/Osbo defied the Electoral Commission to fix it that way".
PM making a spirited defence of her schools policy, pointing out to Mr Corbyn that he was a product of the grammar system he now opposes.
Well thats the whole point May/Corbyn and loads of MPs went to Grammars "and thats why we are where we are today" says May
How many from Secondary Moderns?
If you dont think Corbyn won today you are wrong, even Tory supporting Neale and Kunsberg thought she was "on the ropes"
I agree Corbyn was good today - for the first time in what seems like forever, he had questions that followed on from each other and he listened to the replies from the PM.
Theresa May is banking on Corbyn being in charge in 2020.
If for some reason he isn't...
She replied in exactly the same manner as Cameron did when he was on a sticky wicket - generalisations about Tory policy vs Labour policy, and 'not answering the question'.....
At least she doesn't go red in the face (or has that Cameron foible been quietly forgotten...?)
Oh, how the wonderful PMQ performances of Hague propelled him to Number 10.....
Carl Bildt @carlbildt 5m5 minutes ago I think it will be noted that @JunckerEU in #SOTEU fails to say anything whatsoever on TTIP trans-Atlantic talks. Not a good sign.
It sounds like TTIP is basically parked in the STFU bay until after the French elections.
Don’t think it’s just parked, with the UK no longer on-board, TTIP looks dead in the water.
Shh. Edmund doesn't like to hear the truth about his beloved EU being a backwards and inwards looking failure of a political union.
I suspect many tories will be furious May has given labour a topic they can unite around
May has an historic opportunity to capture large swathes of centrist votes from an unelectable Labour Party.
There are a number of policies, supported by centrists, which could be used to further divide Corbyn from the PLP.
Grammar schools ain't it.
It's been a week now, and it's no clearer what she means, what the evidence is in favour of grammars, how she's going to get it through both parliament and the Lords, and why this is worth so much political capital.
Mystifying.
Simply shouting - as some do here - that grammars are the only way to protect lower middle class swots from the bash street gang just won't do.
May's basic problem with the grammars policy is that its primary purpose is to keep Tory right-wingers onside as the compromises she has to make on Brexit become apparent. Obviously, that is not something she can say out loud so she is left to flounder. When you are bested by Jeremy Corbyn you are in big trouble. For a decent opposition able to engage with non-believers this is an eminently beatable government.
Corbyn thrashed Owen Smith in the TV debate I watched, so he might be as good as it gets for Labour wrt PMQs
Carl Bildt @carlbildt 5m5 minutes ago I think it will be noted that @JunckerEU in #SOTEU fails to say anything whatsoever on TTIP trans-Atlantic talks. Not a good sign.
It sounds like TTIP is basically parked in the STFU bay until after the French elections.
I thought PMQs was supposed to be 30 minutes not 45.
I think it's great that they extended it to get through the list. As the Speaker pointed out, it was ridiculously slow early on. By 12:30 they were hardly down the list at all.
They have a list? That's news to me. I thought the Speaker just called people who caught his eye.
The way it works is this: the governing principle is that questions alternate between Government and Opposition, and the list is secondary to that,. Moreover, any number of supplementaries that the Speaker chooses to call (in alternating sequence as above) take precedence over the list, as does the right of the LOTO to get his 6 quesitons in. Thus, a typical seuqence might be:
1. Tory MP number 1 on the list (because he's number 1 and it doesn't yet violate the alternating princpile). The very first answer is a formality (PM's duties) and the MP hen gets to ask his question.
2. Any supplementaries to (1), in alternatiyng order, starting with an opposition member.
3. Opposition MP. If the LOTO wants to start his 6 now, he can do so. Otherwise, if number 2 on the list is from the Opposition gets called.
Supplementaries as above.
4. Tory MP number 2 on the list.
And so on. Thus even if you're not on the list you can get called for a supplementary, and this is likely if you have a clear interest (e.g. it's about your constituency, or you're a well-known expert on the issue like Frank Field on a benefits question). If you're among ther first 6-7 on the list, you'll probably get called in the end; beyond that, perhaps not.
It sounds more complicated than it is, but the net effect is that both sides get an equal number of questions.
Juncker plans EU military headquarters No 'Brexit effect' in latest jobs data.
I think it is becoming clear where the porkies were being told during the referendum.
We haven't Brexited yet!
Indeed with full access to all of the benefits of the EU continuing and a devaluation as stimulus things are looking ok for the moment.
I never understood the objections to an EU army. We were never obliged to join and if other countries want to join forces, what is our beef? Particularly after Brexit.
What purpose would an EU army fulfill that is not being fulfilled by NATO?
That's the question which those proposing an EU army need to answer.
The purpose it fulfils, in the eyes of those proposing it, is to be another trapping of EU statehood.
Quite who is going to sign up to be prepared to lay their lives in the name of Jean-Claude Drunker, is another matter.
I suspect many tories will be furious May has given labour a topic they can unite around
May has an historic opportunity to capture large swathes of centrist votes from an unelectable Labour Party.
There are a number of policies, supported by centrists, which could be used to further divide Corbyn from the PLP.
Grammar schools ain't it.
It's been a week now, and it's no clearer what she means, what the evidence is in favour of grammars, how she's going to get it through both parliament and the Lords, and why this is worth so much political capital.
Mystifying.
Simply shouting - as some do here - that grammars are the only way to protect lower middle class swots from the bash street gang just won't do.
We needed a schools revolution, she is delivering make do and mend. It's not good enough in a system that fails far too many children and leaves the poorest without enough life chances or opportunities for success.
''Rather like the atmosphere in a pub when an obnoxious loudmouth leaves, I think the EU will enjoy Brexit. ''
Speaks volumes about your view of the ordinary Britons whose money paid for your training and salary.
A lot of Britons are negative moaners. Indeed it is a core voting block for UKIP!
One cannot help also but notice the historical revisionism on here about the Cameron years. Where were Hammond and May when discussions over Libya and immigration were taking place? I seem to recall them being in the cabinet.Either they were part of the problem, or they were uselessly silent.
I thought she was fine - I accept that JC was better than usual. I also accept that the media view will be anti-May on this issue - it's a bit like fox-hunting, they just don't want to know.
Juncker plans EU military headquarters No 'Brexit effect' in latest jobs data.
I think it is becoming clear where the porkies were being told during the referendum.
We haven't Brexited yet!
Indeed with full access to all of the benefits of the EU continuing and a devaluation as stimulus things are looking ok for the moment.
I never understood the objections to an EU army. We were never obliged to join and if other countries want to join forces, what is our beef? Particularly after Brexit.
What purpose would an EU army fulfill that is not being fulfilled by NATO?
That's the question which those proposing an EU army need to answer.
It is possible that in less than two months America elects as President a man who pulls America out of NATO.
Seems like sensible planning by the EU.
Of course had EU member states stepped up to their responsibilities and properly funded their defence under NATO then an America presidential candidate might not feel aggrieved enough to pull out of NATO.
Cart before horse.
As usual - like with the ludicrous named 'State of the Union' address by Juncker, like he's Abraham Lincoln - the real objective here is political union: to bless the EU with yet another of the trappings of statehood.
BRUSSELS chief Jean-Claude Juncker laid out plans to create a European army and claimed the EU was not in an existential crisis despite the Brexit vote. - In a speech this morning he said the bloc was not about to break up, but instead needed to grow closer after the UK’s historic vote to leave.
Will there ever be an eventuality where the EU calls for less need to grow closer?
I see Juncker has put free movement as a European value on par with anti-racism.
It's not a European value but it is an economic necessity. As I put it some while ago -
"FoM has allowed those Eurozone states with stagnating economies to export their young rather than than have them – unemployed, angry and potentially a destabilising force demanding change – at home.
It has allowed such states to export one potential political problem caused by the adoption of the euro. The UK has acted as a safety valve for Europe’s poorer economies."
It is the social and human consequences which the EU has ignored and it is this which has, to an extent the EU is simply refusing to accept, led to the Brexit vote.
You would have thought that losing such a large country would lead to some element of self-reflection, someone somewhere within the EU asking themselves whether the Brexit vote might possibly, just possibly, have had something to do with how the EU has itself behaved and evolved over the years. But apparently not.
It's interesting. Throughout history, you can see examples of ruling castes who realised that the polity they ruled was failing, and who pushed through radical reform (essentially, taking the view that if we want things to stay the same, there are going to have to be changes); but, you can also (and probably more frequently) see the reverse, people who could see nothing wrong (or refused to admit anything was wrong) until disaster overtook them.
Juncker plans EU military headquarters No 'Brexit effect' in latest jobs data.
I think it is becoming clear where the porkies were being told during the referendum.
We haven't Brexited yet!
Indeed with full access to all of the benefits of the EU continuing and a devaluation as stimulus things are looking ok for the moment.
I never understood the objections to an EU army. We were never obliged to join and if other countries want to join forces, what is our beef? Particularly after Brexit.
Jeez, this 'we haven't Brexited stuff', is poor.
David Cameron:
"The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU."
The act of voting to leave would do that. His own words.
RE. the army - we were told it wasn't going to happen. It is. That's it.
It has allowed such states to export one potential political problem caused by the adoption of the euro.
They're not problems, they're people. They go where they can work and create wealth. This is a good thing.
And if you had read and understood my quote properly or even the full thread header (which is here BTW - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/07/12/uniting-the-country/) you'd have understood that that's precisely my point: the human consequences are being ignored and the political problem is the problem caused by having unemployed young with little hope.
What makes sense for an individual does not necessarily make sense for a society. Mass migration causes problems (as well as benefits) for both the society receiving the migrants as for the state losing them, a point usually forgotten by those keen on immigration. Look at the depopulated parts of Southern Italy, for instance. To say that it is a good thing for such areas to lose their young, for families to be split up is pretty callous. Receiving remittances is a poor substitute for having your home community effectively die.
We've been through this before. The data actually tend to indicate that the states sending the migrants generally benefit from migration, probably because migration isn't a one-way process. Many migrants return home again at intervals or permanently, bringing their newly acquired skills and approach to business back with them.
Yes: Southern Italy has seen just that. Lots of migrants returning to set up businesses etc. All those Italians who left the country for the US made Italy a better place. All those Irish who migrated to the US made Ireland such a vibrant place with their newly acquired skills and approach to business. Honestly: sometimes I wonder whether people actually look at what is happening in the places they talk about.
Do you really think that all those who are fleeing Afghanistan and Syria and Pakistan and Eritrea are coming to Europe to learn some business skills and then go home?
We have a large Polish community in Britain. Personally I think they are an asset but let's not pretend that the loss of energetic and skilled people, particularly the longer it continues, is not a problem for Poland.
There are lots of benefits of immigration. But there are costs too. And it is foolish to pretend otherwise.
Theresa May is banking on Corbyn being in charge in 2020.
If for some reason he isn't...
She replied in exactly the same manner as Cameron did when he was on a sticky wicket - generalisations about Tory policy vs Labour policy, and 'not answering the question'.....
At least she doesn't go red in the face (or has that Cameron foible been quietly forgotten...?)
Oh, how the wonderful PMQ performances of Hague propelled him to Number 10.....
The adversarial PMQs format only encourages partisan points and non-answers on anything substantial. Every PM has been the same back as far as I can remember.
The format doesn't really suit Corbyn's or May's style though. The PM is clearly not her element making pre-prepared jokes, and Corbyn prefers longer questions rather than be short and to the point.
I thought she was fine - I accept that JC was better than usual. I also accept that the media view will be anti-May on this issue - it's a bit like fox-hunting, they just don't want to know.
May's basic problem with the grammars policy is that its primary purpose is to keep Tory right-wingers onside as the compromises she has to make on Brexit become apparent. Obviously, that is not something she can say out loud so she is left to flounder. When you are bested by Jeremy Corbyn you are in big trouble. For a decent opposition able to engage with non-believers this is an eminently beatable government.
You keep saying this, but I honestly don't think it's true at all: I think she really believes in them.
The trouble is that Theresa hasn't worked out yet that you can't run the country as PM like you run a major Governmental department, and that her word isn't necessarily law. It's not that simple with command and control anymore.
She's started off governing like 3rd term Thatcher c.1987-1988, in my view, whereas she really needed to govern a bit more like Thatcher 1983-1984 or John Major 1991-1992.
Juncker plans EU military headquarters No 'Brexit effect' in latest jobs data.
I think it is becoming clear where the porkies were being told during the referendum.
We haven't Brexited yet!
Indeed with full access to all of the benefits of the EU continuing and a devaluation as stimulus things are looking ok for the moment.
I never understood the objections to an EU army. We were never obliged to join and if other countries want to join forces, what is our beef? Particularly after Brexit.
What purpose would an EU army fulfill that is not being fulfilled by NATO?
That's the question which those proposing an EU army need to answer.
The purpose it fulfils, in the eyes of those proposing it, is to be another trapping of EU statehood.
Quite who is going to sign up to be prepared to lay their lives in the name of Jean-Claude Drunker, is another matter.
If at first you don’t succeed – try compulsory conscription…!
Kurt Eichenwald (Newsweek, Vanity Fair) reckons he's got a game-changing story on Trump's financial affairs and how they conflict with US national security interests.
Eichenwald's tweet in which he stated his belief that Trump was institutionalised in a mental hospital in 1990 for a nervous breakdown, explaining why he won't release his medical records, has been deleted.
Under the old system, many people were left off the register but that was balanced by the fact that some were left on at their old address as well as being registered at their new address. So in total the numbers on the register may not have been far out, which is why using electoral registers were not so contentious in the past. By contrast, under IER, no-one is on more than once, but plenty are left off, particularly under the disgraceful December 2015 register which the government manipulated to delete swathes of names against the specific recommendation of the Electoral Commission. The people missing are by and large those without a settled home which is why it is so advantageous to the Conservatives to draw up boundaries pretending that they don't exist. The December 2015 IER was highly incomplete and evidence of that is that 2 million more names were added to the electoral register in the 6 months afterwards prior to the Brexit referendum.
You're seriously pretending that two wrongs make a right so it was OK? There is absolutely no guarantee that those names included multiple times lived in the same constituencies as those missing.
Furthermore big deal that there were extras recorded in 2016, there is always extra names added before any vote. The 2015 electoral register includes all the extra names that were added before the 2015 General Election. They're not in the 2000 register that we're currently using.
So the fair solution is to pass the current reforms as they'll be more up to date and then by following 2020 we do this all over again rather than waiting two decades to do it again.
In areas with transient populations the twin problems of multiple registrations and non-registration are both likely to me more prevalent. In areas with stable populations, where people tend not to move, both problems are far less. So yes, they did tend to cancel each other out in specific areas under the old system. Under the new system they don't, because multiple registrations have ceased given the requirement for NI numbers. So now, the areas with transient populations will undercount by far more than areas with stable Conservative-voting populations. And that is by Cameron and Osborne's design.
For the same reason, that is because multiple registrations no longer occur, the huge growth in the electoral register between December 2015 and June 2016 can't be blithely dismissed in the way you choose to.
May's basic problem with the grammars policy is that its primary purpose is to keep Tory right-wingers onside as the compromises she has to make on Brexit become apparent. Obviously, that is not something she can say out loud so she is left to flounder. When you are bested by Jeremy Corbyn you are in big trouble. For a decent opposition able to engage with non-believers this is an eminently beatable government.
I feel that May has missed her chance by bottling an early election and personal mandate. Misfortune plagues the craven. See Brown.
Juncker plans EU military headquarters No 'Brexit effect' in latest jobs data.
I think it is becoming clear where the porkies were being told during the referendum.
We haven't Brexited yet!
Indeed with full access to all of the benefits of the EU continuing and a devaluation as stimulus things are looking ok for the moment.
I never understood the objections to an EU army. We were never obliged to join and if other countries want to join forces, what is our beef? Particularly after Brexit.
What purpose would an EU army fulfill that is not being fulfilled by NATO?
That's the question which those proposing an EU army need to answer.
And what about the neutral states: Austria, Sweden, Ireland?
Although a remainer, an EU army - answerable to whom? - is the kind of megalomaniacal project which means it's impossible not to feel a little bit brexity at times.
Well if we hadn't voted to leave it's unlikely the EU would be pushing the army stuff so hard because we'd oppose it and then they'd blame us for it failing, but the elected leaders would breathe a sigh of relief once it was kicked off the agenda.
If it's solely a self-defence force for a United Europe, maybe Finland, Sweden, Austria & Ireland would be quite relieved to see it grow at the expense of NATO. Possibly even Denmark would be pleased, but being in NATO could not openly say so.
Incidentally, Private Eye recently had a story of a Belgian woman who mis-programmed her sat-nav and ended up in Zagreb, presumably not having been stopped at any borders. So maybe we already have a single country, like the USA where you could drive from Seattle to Miami (4x as far).
Sounds as if May's honeymoon has come to an abrupt end. I can see the grammar-school thing being her Poll Tax. It'll be bulldozed through out of vanity and pride, then millions of parents will become resentful when their kids don't benefit. This has the potential to be absolutely toxic for the Tories. May is now utterly reliant on DD, Fox and Boris making an dazzling success of Brexit; if they muck that up Corbyn will be striding into Number 10.
May's basic problem with the grammars policy is that its primary purpose is to keep Tory right-wingers onside as the compromises she has to make on Brexit become apparent. Obviously, that is not something she can say out loud so she is left to flounder. When you are bested by Jeremy Corbyn you are in big trouble. For a decent opposition able to engage with non-believers this is an eminently beatable government.
The trouble is that Theresa hasn't worked out yet that you can't run the country as PM like you run a major Governmental department, and that her word isn't necessarily law. It's not that simple with command and control anymore.
She's started off governing like 3rd term Thatcher c.1987-1988, in my view, whereas she really needed to govern a bit more like Thatcher 1983-1984 or John Major 1991-1992.
It's early days yet, but there may be an element of that.
There does not appear to have been much opposition to her in Cabinet when she was Home Secretary - apart from possibly Gove (who? - ed.) and perhaps she's carried some of that into premiership.
It is entertaining reading her political obituary co-written by the Cameroons and Labour supporters......
Juncker plans EU military headquarters No 'Brexit effect' in latest jobs data.
I think it is becoming clear where the porkies were being told during the referendum.
We haven't Brexited yet!
Indeed with full access to all of the benefits of the EU continuing and a devaluation as stimulus things are looking ok for the moment.
I never understood the objections to an EU army. We were never obliged to join and if other countries want to join forces, what is our beef? Particularly after Brexit.
What purpose would an EU army fulfill that is not being fulfilled by NATO?
That's the question which those proposing an EU army need to answer.
It is possible that in less than two months America elects as President a man who pulls America out of NATO.
Seems like sensible planning by the EU.
Of course had EU member states stepped up to their responsibilities and properly funded their defence under NATO then an America presidential candidate might not feel aggrieved enough to pull out of NATO.
Cart before horse.
As usual - like with the ludicrous named 'State of the Union' address by Juncker, like he's Abraham Lincoln - the real objective here is political union: to bless the EU with yet another of the trappings of statehood.
Junker is loathsome, although probably good craic for a drink down the pub. Very similar to Farage.
Shouldn't she be concentrating on German citizens with an immigrant background first, don't they have a higher unemployment rate.
For some reason, German employers are reluctant to employ people who don't have the skills they're looking for and don't speak German.
Imagine Cameron or May encouraging Royal Mail to take on refugees when we have thousands of unemployed Britons, it would go down like a cold bucket of sick. Tho Labour had Mandelson and his search parties.
Number 10 now backsliding on grammars.....'consultation....'....'green paper....'.....'oooh-er'.
I posted it here when May won. She is the anti-solution. She is everything we don;t need in a Prime Minister right now.
May is PM because she was better than Leadsom. That's all.
She is having to learn on the job.
She needs to focus and, like it or not, her role - and what she will be judged by - is to implement Brexit successfully.
Making sure that domestic policies are focused on the C1s and C2s etc is all great but at the moment it is coming across as being more about showing people how much she despised Cameron and Osborne and their policies and how different she is rather than about demonstrating a thoughtful approach to how the government can help such people.
Juncker plans EU military headquarters No 'Brexit effect' in latest jobs data.
I think it is becoming clear where the porkies were being told during the referendum.
We haven't Brexited yet!
Indeed with full access to all of the benefits of the EU continuing and a devaluation as stimulus things are looking ok for the moment.
I never understood the objections to an EU army. We were never obliged to join and if other countries want to join forces, what is our beef? Particularly after Brexit.
What purpose would an EU army fulfill that is not being fulfilled by NATO?
That's the question which those proposing an EU army need to answer.
It is possible that in less than two months America elects as President a man who pulls America out of NATO.
Seems like sensible planning by the EU.
Of course had EU member states stepped up to their responsibilities and properly funded their defence under NATO then an America presidential candidate might not feel aggrieved enough to pull out of NATO.
Cart before horse.
As usual - like with the ludicrous named 'State of the Union' address by Juncker, like he's Abraham Lincoln - the real objective here is political union: to bless the EU with yet another of the trappings of statehood.
Junker is loathsome, although probably good craic for a drink down the pub. Very similar to Farage.
Farage's tirade at Junker was far more complimentary than the one he launched at Van Rumpoy. I think there is a bit of a mirror there he can see.
Juncker plans EU military headquarters No 'Brexit effect' in latest jobs data.
I think it is becoming clear where the porkies were being told during the referendum.
We haven't Brexited yet!
Indeed with full access to all of the benefits of the EU continuing and a devaluation as stimulus things are looking ok for the moment.
I never understood the objections to an EU army. We were never obliged to join and if other countries want to join forces, what is our beef? Particularly after Brexit.
What purpose would an EU army fulfill that is not being fulfilled by NATO?
That's the question which those proposing an EU army need to answer.
It is possible that in less than two months America elects as President a man who pulls America out of NATO.
Seems like sensible planning by the EU.
Of course had EU member states stepped up to their responsibilities and properly funded their defence under NATO then an America presidential candidate might not feel aggrieved enough to pull out of NATO.
Cart before horse.
As usual - like with the ludicrous named 'State of the Union' address by Juncker, like he's Abraham Lincoln - the real objective here is political union: to bless the EU with yet another of the trappings of statehood.
Junker is loathsome, although probably good craic for a drink down the pub. Very similar to Farage.
I think get into an argument with him down the pub if he still had power.
Or just laugh at him and change the subject if he didn't.
Kurt Eichenwald (Newsweek, Vanity Fair) reckons he's got a game-changing story on Trump's financial affairs and how they conflict with US national security interests.
Eichenwald's tweet in which he stated his belief that Trump was institutionalised in a mental hospital in 1990 for a nervous breakdown, explaining why he won't release his medical records, has been deleted.
Kaine and Pence both look like good value to me.
Can't we just have the election postponed six months, start the primaries again and have debates on policy, rather than personal narcissism from both candidates.
Let's go with something like Paul Ryan and Elizabeth Warren, two good people who didn't stand first time around.
May's basic problem with the grammars policy is that its primary purpose is to keep Tory right-wingers onside as the compromises she has to make on Brexit become apparent. Obviously, that is not something she can say out loud so she is left to flounder. When you are bested by Jeremy Corbyn you are in big trouble. For a decent opposition able to engage with non-believers this is an eminently beatable government.
The trouble is that Theresa hasn't worked out yet that you can't run the country as PM like you run a major Governmental department, and that her word isn't necessarily law. It's not that simple with command and control anymore.
She's started off governing like 3rd term Thatcher c.1987-1988, in my view, whereas she really needed to govern a bit more like Thatcher 1983-1984 or John Major 1991-1992.
It's early days yet, but there may be an element of that.
There does not appear to have been much opposition to her in Cabinet when she was Home Secretary - apart from possibly Gove (who? - ed.) and perhaps she's carried some of that into premiership.
It is entertaining reading her political obituary co-written by the Cameroons and Labour supporters......
It's clear from TSE (who is our inside Cameroon agent) that they want to see her cut down to size.
May's basic problem with the grammars policy is that its primary purpose is to keep Tory right-wingers onside as the compromises she has to make on Brexit become apparent. Obviously, that is not something she can say out loud so she is left to flounder. When you are bested by Jeremy Corbyn you are in big trouble. For a decent opposition able to engage with non-believers this is an eminently beatable government.
I feel that May has missed her chance by bottling an early election and personal mandate. Misfortune plagues the craven. See Brown.
Differences are:
(1) Brown engineered Blair's downfall; May did not for Cameron (2) Brown squashed all opposition; May was happy for a fight (3) May's premiership came about from the Brexit mandate; Brown had none
Brown was a borderline psychopath. May is not.
They are, however, both control freaks and workaholics but May slightly less so IMHO and she has a better idea of what she wants to do with her premiership, whereas being PM was almost the be-all-and-end-all for Brown.
Kurt Eichenwald (Newsweek, Vanity Fair) reckons he's got a game-changing story on Trump's financial affairs and how they conflict with US national security interests.
Eichenwald's tweet in which he stated his belief that Trump was institutionalised in a mental hospital in 1990 for a nervous breakdown, explaining why he won't release his medical records, has been deleted.
Kaine and Pence both look like good value to me.
It'll have no effect on the presidential race, just like all the other dirty smears by the desperate, sleazy liberal Main Stream Media.
Juncker plans EU military headquarters No 'Brexit effect' in latest jobs data.
I think it is becoming clear where the porkies were being told during the referendum.
We haven't Brexited yet!
Indeed with full access to all of the benefits of the EU continuing and a devaluation as stimulus things are looking ok for the moment.
I never understood the objections to an EU army. We were never obliged to join and if other countries want to join forces, what is our beef? Particularly after Brexit.
What purpose would an EU army fulfill that is not being fulfilled by NATO?
That's the question which those proposing an EU army need to answer.
It is possible that in less than two months America elects as President a man who pulls America out of NATO.
Seems like sensible planning by the EU.
Of course had EU member states stepped up to their responsibilities and properly funded their defence under NATO then an America presidential candidate might not feel aggrieved enough to pull out of NATO.
Cart before horse.
As usual - like with the ludicrous named 'State of the Union' address by Juncker, like he's Abraham Lincoln - the real objective here is political union: to bless the EU with yet another of the trappings of statehood.
Junker is loathsome, although probably good craic for a drink down the pub. Very similar to Farage.
Farage's tirade at Junker was far more complimentary than the one he launched at Van Rumpoy. I think there is a bit of a mirror there he can see.
I take it you mean 'mirror there he can see through the drunken haze....
May's basic problem with the grammars policy is that its primary purpose is to keep Tory right-wingers onside as the compromises she has to make on Brexit become apparent. Obviously, that is not something she can say out loud so she is left to flounder. When you are bested by Jeremy Corbyn you are in big trouble. For a decent opposition able to engage with non-believers this is an eminently beatable government.
The trouble is that Theresa hasn't worked out yet that you can't run the country as PM like you run a major Governmental department, and that her word isn't necessarily law. It's not that simple with command and control anymore.
She's started off governing like 3rd term Thatcher c.1987-1988, in my view, whereas she really needed to govern a bit more like Thatcher 1983-1984 or John Major 1991-1992.
It's early days yet, but there may be an element of that.
There does not appear to have been much opposition to her in Cabinet when she was Home Secretary - apart from possibly Gove (who? - ed.) and perhaps she's carried some of that into premiership.
It is entertaining reading her political obituary co-written by the Cameroons and Labour supporters......
It's clear from TSE (who is our inside Cameroon agent) that they want to see her cut down to size.
May's basic problem with the grammars policy is that its primary purpose is to keep Tory right-wingers onside as the compromises she has to make on Brexit become apparent. Obviously, that is not something she can say out loud so she is left to flounder. When you are bested by Jeremy Corbyn you are in big trouble. For a decent opposition able to engage with non-believers this is an eminently beatable government.
The trouble is that Theresa hasn't worked out yet that you can't run the country as PM like you run a major Governmental department, and that her word isn't necessarily law. It's not that simple with command and control anymore.
She's started off governing like 3rd term Thatcher c.1987-1988, in my view, whereas she really needed to govern a bit more like Thatcher 1983-1984 or John Major 1991-1992.
It's early days yet, but there may be an element of that.
There does not appear to have been much opposition to her in Cabinet when she was Home Secretary - apart from possibly Gove (who? - ed.) and perhaps she's carried some of that into premiership.
It is entertaining reading her political obituary co-written by the Cameroons and Labour supporters......
It's clear from TSE (who is our inside Cameroon agent) that they want to see her cut down to size.
If so, then she brought it on herself with her rudeness.
How could she sit in his cabinet for six years, then ignore him following her win?
May's basic problem with the grammars policy is that its primary purpose is to keep Tory right-wingers onside as the compromises she has to make on Brexit become apparent. Obviously, that is not something she can say out loud so she is left to flounder. When you are bested by Jeremy Corbyn you are in big trouble. For a decent opposition able to engage with non-believers this is an eminently beatable government.
The trouble is that Theresa hasn't worked out yet that you can't run the country as PM like you run a major Governmental department, and that her word isn't necessarily law. It's not that simple with command and control anymore.
She's started off governing like 3rd term Thatcher c.1987-1988, in my view, whereas she really needed to govern a bit more like Thatcher 1983-1984 or John Major 1991-1992.
It's early days yet, but there may be an element of that.
There does not appear to have been much opposition to her in Cabinet when she was Home Secretary - apart from possibly Gove (who? - ed.) and perhaps she's carried some of that into premiership.
It is entertaining reading her political obituary co-written by the Cameroons and Labour supporters......
It's clear from TSE (who is our inside Cameroon agent) that they want to see her cut down to size.
Last two National Opinion Polls in USA (Ipsos and LATimes) reporting 2 1/2% swing to Trump over the weekend. That would give him all the swing states listed except New Jersey, Minnesota and Virginia.
May's basic problem with the grammars policy is that its primary purpose is to keep Tory right-wingers onside as the compromises she has to make on Brexit become apparent. Obviously, that is not something she can say out loud so she is left to flounder. When you are bested by Jeremy Corbyn you are in big trouble. For a decent opposition able to engage with non-believers this is an eminently beatable government.
Corbyn thrashed Owen Smith in the TV debate I watched, so he might be as good as it gets for Labour wrt PMQs
Once Corbyn wins this time, he can change the leadership election rules making it easy for an ally of his to get on the ballot in future. Then, in 208/19 he can stand down for 'health reasons' and have Clive Lewis or some other Corbynista take over.
If the Corbynistas are smart they will get a fresh faced one to lead them into the next election - without all the baggage that Corbyn comes with. Focus on issues that majority of people care about/have merit (more on rising inequality etc, less on trident). Tone down slightly the radical rhetoric (campaign in prose, govern in poetry).
That, combined with hoping brexit goes south, is probably their most realistic chance of winning the next election (still not saying it's probable, just the best chance they have)
May's basic problem with the grammars policy is that its primary purpose is to keep Tory right-wingers onside as the compromises she has to make on Brexit become apparent. Obviously, that is not something she can say out loud so she is left to flounder. When you are bested by Jeremy Corbyn you are in big trouble. For a decent opposition able to engage with non-believers this is an eminently beatable government.
The trouble is that Theresa hasn't worked out yet that you can't run the country as PM like you run a major Governmental department, and that her word isn't necessarily law. It's not that simple with command and control anymore.
She's started off governing like 3rd term Thatcher c.1987-1988, in my view, whereas she really needed to govern a bit more like Thatcher 1983-1984 or John Major 1991-1992.
It's early days yet, but there may be an element of that.
There does not appear to have been much opposition to her in Cabinet when she was Home Secretary - apart from possibly Gove (who? - ed.) and perhaps she's carried some of that into premiership.
It is entertaining reading her political obituary co-written by the Cameroons and Labour supporters......
It's clear from TSE (who is our inside Cameroon agent) that they want to see her cut down to size.
If so, then she brought it on herself with her rudeness.
How could she sit in his cabinet for six years, then ignore him following her win?
It says a lot about her character, or lack of it.
It does indeed.
She went to the G20 meeting without speaking to Dave. She went there unprepared. She let the country down with her approach.
The controversial head of the European Commission has denied that he has a problem with alcohol during an interview in which he drank four glasses of champagne.
May's basic problem with the grammars policy is that its primary purpose is to keep Tory right-wingers onside as the compromises she has to make on Brexit become apparent. Obviously, that is not something she can say out loud so she is left to flounder. When you are bested by Jeremy Corbyn you are in big trouble. For a decent opposition able to engage with non-believers this is an eminently beatable government.
The trouble is that Theresa hasn't worked out yet that you can't run the country as PM like you run a major Governmental department, and that her word isn't necessarily law. It's not that simple with command and control anymore.
She's started off governing like 3rd term Thatcher c.1987-1988, in my view, whereas she really needed to govern a bit more like Thatcher 1983-1984 or John Major 1991-1992.
It's early days yet, but there may be an element of that.
There does not appear to have been much opposition to her in Cabinet when she was Home Secretary - apart from possibly Gove (who? - ed.) and perhaps she's carried some of that into premiership.
It is entertaining reading her political obituary co-written by the Cameroons and Labour supporters......
It's clear from TSE (who is our inside Cameroon agent) that they want to see her cut down to size.
Inside Cameroon agent? Lolz.
Please! I'm the inside Osbornite agent on PB.
Same. You are obvs very close to those to them in the ex. CCHQ / No.10 operation, and know an awful lot about it as well as sympathising with them personally.
Not criticising. I think it's both valuable and revealing.
May's basic problem with the grammars policy is that its primary purpose is to keep Tory right-wingers onside as the compromises she has to make on Brexit become apparent. Obviously, that is not something she can say out loud so she is left to flounder. When you are bested by Jeremy Corbyn you are in big trouble. For a decent opposition able to engage with non-believers this is an eminently beatable government.
The trouble is that Theresa hasn't worked out yet that you can't run the country as PM like you run a major Governmental department, and that her word isn't necessarily law. It's not that simple with command and control anymore.
She's started off governing like 3rd term Thatcher c.1987-1988, in my view, whereas she really needed to govern a bit more like Thatcher 1983-1984 or John Major 1991-1992.
It's early days yet, but there may be an element of that.
There does not appear to have been much opposition to her in Cabinet when she was Home Secretary - apart from possibly Gove (who? - ed.) and perhaps she's carried some of that into premiership.
It is entertaining reading her political obituary co-written by the Cameroons and Labour supporters......
It's clear from TSE (who is our inside Cameroon agent) that they want to see her cut down to size.
And if you had read and understood my quote properly or even the full thread header (which is here BTW - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/07/12/uniting-the-country/) you'd have understood that that's precisely my point: the human consequences are being ignored and the political problem is the problem caused by having unemployed young with little hope.
What makes sense for an individual does not necessarily make sense for a society. Mass migration causes problems (as well as benefits) for both the society receiving the migrants as for the state losing them, a point usually forgotten by those keen on immigration. Look at the depopulated parts of Southern Italy, for instance. To say that it is a good thing for such areas to lose their young, for families to be split up is pretty callous. Receiving remittances is a poor substitute for having your home community effectively die.
We've been through this before. The data actually tend to indicate that the states sending the migrants generally benefit from migration, probably because migration isn't a one-way process. Many migrants return home again at intervals or permanently, bringing their newly acquired skills and approach to business back with them.
Yes: Southern Italy has seen just that. Lots of migrants returning to set up businesses etc. All those Italians who left the country for the US made Italy a better place. All those Irish who migrated to the US made Ireland such a vibrant place with their newly acquired skills and approach to business. Honestly: sometimes I wonder whether people actually look at what is happening in the places they talk about.
Do you really think that all those who are fleeing Afghanistan and Syria and Pakistan and Eritrea are coming to Europe to learn some business skills and then go home?
We have a large Polish community in Britain. Personally I think they are an asset but let's not pretend that the loss of energetic and skilled people, particularly the longer it continues, is not a problem for Poland.
There are lots of benefits of immigration. But there are costs too. And it is foolish to pretend otherwise.
I suggest you take your own advice and compare the economies of modern-day Italy and Ireland with the situation in those countries half a century ago. I was thinking more of the Baltic states, but Ireland and Italy are indeed older examples of the benefits that a migratory population can bring. I'm not saying there are no disadvantages, but migration can indeed benefit both the source and destination countries.
A personal anecdote: The parents of one of my son's former classmates, both doctors who immigrated to the UK from India a couple of decades ago, have now returned to India to found a new hospital.
May's basic problem with the grammars policy is that its primary purpose is to keep Tory right-wingers onside as the compromises she has to make on Brexit become apparent. Obviously, that is not something she can say out loud so she is left to flounder. When you are bested by Jeremy Corbyn you are in big trouble. For a decent opposition able to engage with non-believers this is an eminently beatable government.
The trouble is that Theresa hasn't worked out yet that you can't run the country as PM like you run a major Governmental department, and that her word isn't necessarily law. It's not that simple with command and control anymore.
She's started off governing like 3rd term Thatcher c.1987-1988, in my view, whereas she really needed to govern a bit more like Thatcher 1983-1984 or John Major 1991-1992.
It's early days yet, but there may be an element of that.
There does not appear to have been much opposition to her in Cabinet when she was Home Secretary - apart from possibly Gove (who? - ed.) and perhaps she's carried some of that into premiership.
It is entertaining reading her political obituary co-written by the Cameroons and Labour supporters......
It's clear from TSE (who is our inside Cameroon agent) that they want to see her cut down to size.
If so, then she brought it on herself with her rudeness.
How could she sit in his cabinet for six years, then ignore him following her win?
It says a lot about her character, or lack of it.
It does indeed.
She went to the G20 meeting without speaking to Dave. She went there unprepared. She let the country down with her approach.
Not getting the lay of the land was stupid, as was blaming the Chinese for the Hinkley review, she should have said that the deal doesn't represent value for money any more and the French have yet to show that it can be built on time.
I think May suffers from not thinking her positions through to the end. Her grammar school policy is another example of this. The inevitable question when introducing a policy that is in favour of academic excellence is what about those who are not academically excellent, she has no answers.
May's basic problem with the grammars policy is that its primary purpose is to keep Tory right-wingers onside as the compromises she has to make on Brexit become apparent. Obviously, that is not something she can say out loud so she is left to flounder. When you are bested by Jeremy Corbyn you are in big trouble. For a decent opposition able to engage with non-believers this is an eminently beatable government.
The trouble is that Theresa hasn't worked out yet that you can't run the country as PM like you run a major Governmental department, and that her word isn't necessarily law. It's not that simple with command and control anymore.
She's started off governing like 3rd term Thatcher c.1987-1988, in my view, whereas she really needed to govern a bit more like Thatcher 1983-1984 or John Major 1991-1992.
It's early days yet, but there may be an element of that.
There does not appear to have been much opposition to her in Cabinet when she was Home Secretary - apart from possibly Gove (who? - ed.) and perhaps she's carried some of that into premiership.
It is entertaining reading her political obituary co-written by the Cameroons and Labour supporters......
It's clear from TSE (who is our inside Cameroon agent) that they want to see her cut down to size.
Doesn't she know her place?
Uppity grammar school girl who got into Oxford!
When's that ever worked?
Oxford has low standards. They even let in Polly Toynbee. With only one 'E' apparently.
The controversial head of the European Commission has denied that he has a problem with alcohol during an interview in which he drank four glasses of champagne.
It's a bit soon to be writing her off. The problem for Trump is that if you give him the Romney states + Maine CD2 + Iowa + Ohio + Florida + Nevada that still only takes him to 266.
He still needs one of Pennsylvania, New Hampshire or Wisconsin to get him over the line and none of these states are quite within reach at the moment.
May's basic problem with the grammars policy is that its primary purpose is to keep Tory right-wingers onside as the compromises she has to make on Brexit become apparent. Obviously, that is not something she can say out loud so she is left to flounder. When you are bested by Jeremy Corbyn you are in big trouble. For a decent opposition able to engage with non-believers this is an eminently beatable government.
The trouble is that Theresa hasn't worked out yet that you can't run the country as PM like you run a major Governmental department, and that her word isn't necessarily law. It's not that simple with command and control anymore.
She's started off governing like 3rd term Thatcher c.1987-1988, in my view, whereas she really needed to govern a bit more like Thatcher 1983-1984 or John Major 1991-1992.
It's early days yet, but there may be an element of that.
There does not appear to have been much opposition to her in Cabinet when she was Home Secretary - apart from possibly Gove (who? - ed.) and perhaps she's carried some of that into premiership.
It is entertaining reading her political obituary co-written by the Cameroons and Labour supporters......
It's clear from TSE (who is our inside Cameroon agent) that they want to see her cut down to size.
If so, then she brought it on herself with her rudeness.
How could she sit in his cabinet for six years, then ignore him following her win?
It says a lot about her character, or lack of it.
It does indeed.
She went to the G20 meeting without speaking to Dave. She went there unprepared. She let the country down with her approach.
Not getting the lay of the land was stupid, as was blaming the Chinese for the Hinkley review, she should have said that the deal doesn't represent value for money any more and the French have yet to show that it can be built on time.
I think May suffers from not thinking her positions through to the end. Her grammar school policy is another example of this. The inevitable question when introducing a policy that is in favour of academic excellence is what about those who are not academically excellent, she has no answers.
After the handbrake being slammed on Hinkley, both BBC and ITV now run pieces saying they think it will be given green light soon.
May's basic problem with the grammars policy is that its primary purpose is to keep Tory right-wingers onside as the compromises she has to make on Brexit become apparent. Obviously, that is not something she can say out loud so she is left to flounder. When you are bested by Jeremy Corbyn you are in big trouble. For a decent opposition able to engage with non-believers this is an eminently beatable government.
The trouble is that Theresa hasn't worked out yet that you can't run the country as PM like you run a major Governmental department, and that her word isn't necessarily law. It's not that simple with command and control anymore.
She's started off governing like 3rd term Thatcher c.1987-1988, in my view, whereas she really needed to govern a bit more like Thatcher 1983-1984 or John Major 1991-1992.
It's early days yet, but there may be an element of that.
There does not appear to have been much opposition to her in Cabinet when she was Home Secretary - apart from possibly Gove (who? - ed.) and perhaps she's carried some of that into premiership.
It is entertaining reading her political obituary co-written by the Cameroons and Labour supporters......
It's clear from TSE (who is our inside Cameroon agent) that they want to see her cut down to size.
If so, then she brought it on herself with her rudeness.
How could she sit in his cabinet for six years, then ignore him following her win?
It says a lot about her character, or lack of it.
She went to the G20 meeting without speaking to Dave. She went there unprepared. She let the country down with her approach.
So this is the line from Osborne's bunker.......
Curiously enough, journalists at the time wrote:
As first days go at an international school, the G20 passed off alright for the new pupil.
Theresa May met all the right people, the language differences did not trouble her and she refused to allow the big boys to bully her behind the bike sheds. The prime minister held her own.
Comments
The current constituency size range is an absolute joke - the revisions will be infinitely fairer.
By uniting EU forces together then instead of a lot of meaningless military forces they could have one powerful military force that could actually be used for military projection. However that would also entail the remaining EU nations actually spending money on their military and not just relying upon the cover of NATO (and realistically that means the USA and UK) and getting protected for free.
Given the UK already had a real force, that argument did not work for us, but if they're OK with uniting it can work for them.
Yes, a complete disaster for May.......
Any rejoicing will be limited to the undemocratic commission, at the highest level they are already realising that more EU is unpopular enough to bring down governments.
She seemed to be enjoying herself.
But she failed to answer any of Corbyn's questions and her catty remarks about it potentially being Corbyn's last PMQs were clumsy and did not cover up her very unconvincing responses.
Theresa May is banking on Corbyn being in charge in 2020.
If for some reason he isn't...
After that performance its already dead in the water.
What a dreadful, incompetent start.
In a few months time the tories will realise, to their absolute horror, what they have done. Can they change horses again and get away with it?
Although a remainer, an EU army - answerable to whom? - is the kind of megalomaniacal project which means it's impossible not to feel a little bit brexity at times.
Furthermore big deal that there were extras recorded in 2016, there is always extra names added before any vote. The 2015 electoral register includes all the extra names that were added before the 2015 General Election. They're not in the 2000 register that we're currently using.
So the fair solution is to pass the current reforms as they'll be more up to date and then by following 2020 we do this all over again rather than waiting two decades to do it again.
https://youtu.be/2GDM772Ro-8
I wonder what military projection the EU would actually do. Peace-keeping? Maybe - but that can be dangerous, as we know. See Afghanistan. Fighting? And, if so, would young men and women be prepared to fight and die for the EU?
I did not say that the parliamentary boundaries did not need updating. I am saying that it shouldn't be done using incomplete data which has been patently fixed. Got that?
To quote the thread: "Cam/Osbo defied the Electoral Commission to fix it that way".
At least she doesn't go red in the face (or has that Cameron foible been quietly forgotten...?)
Oh, how the wonderful PMQ performances of Hague propelled him to Number 10.....
I posted it here when May won. She is the anti-solution. She is everything we don;t need in a Prime Minister right now.
There are a number of policies, supported by centrists, which could be used to further divide Corbyn from the PLP.
Grammar schools ain't it.
It's been a week now, and it's no clearer what she means, what the evidence is in favour of grammars, how she's going to get it through both parliament and the Lords, and why this is worth so much political capital.
Mystifying.
Simply shouting - as some do here - that grammars are the only way to protect lower middle class swots from the bash street gang just won't do.
1. Tory MP number 1 on the list (because he's number 1 and it doesn't yet violate the alternating princpile). The very first answer is a formality (PM's duties) and the MP hen gets to ask his question.
2. Any supplementaries to (1), in alternatiyng order, starting with an opposition member.
3. Opposition MP. If the LOTO wants to start his 6 now, he can do so. Otherwise, if number 2 on the list is from the Opposition gets called.
Supplementaries as above.
4. Tory MP number 2 on the list.
And so on. Thus even if you're not on the list you can get called for a supplementary, and this is likely if you have a clear interest (e.g. it's about your constituency, or you're a well-known expert on the issue like Frank Field on a benefits question). If you're among ther first 6-7 on the list, you'll probably get called in the end; beyond that, perhaps not.
It sounds more complicated than it is, but the net effect is that both sides get an equal number of questions.
To be Machiavellian for a moment then getting Labour to unite behind Corbyn in the final week of their Leadership campaign is quite an achievement
Quite who is going to sign up to be prepared to lay their lives in the name of Jean-Claude Drunker, is another matter.
One cannot help also but notice the historical revisionism on here about the Cameron years. Where were Hammond and May when discussions over Libya and immigration were taking place? I seem to recall them being in the cabinet.Either they were part of the problem, or they were uselessly silent.
Cart before horse.
As usual - like with the ludicrous named 'State of the Union' address by Juncker, like he's Abraham Lincoln - the real objective here is political union: to bless the EU with yet another of the trappings of statehood.
Childish? Yes, but it made me feel better.
And he should.
David Cameron:
"The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU."
The act of voting to leave would do that. His own words.
RE. the army - we were told it wasn't going to happen. It is. That's it.
This is why remain lost.
Do you really think that all those who are fleeing Afghanistan and Syria and Pakistan and Eritrea are coming to Europe to learn some business skills and then go home?
We have a large Polish community in Britain. Personally I think they are an asset but let's not pretend that the loss of energetic and skilled people, particularly the longer it continues, is not a problem for Poland.
There are lots of benefits of immigration. But there are costs too. And it is foolish to pretend otherwise.
The format doesn't really suit Corbyn's or May's style though. The PM is clearly not her element making pre-prepared jokes, and Corbyn prefers longer questions rather than be short and to the point.
The trouble is that Theresa hasn't worked out yet that you can't run the country as PM like you run a major Governmental department, and that her word isn't necessarily law. It's not that simple with command and control anymore.
She's started off governing like 3rd term Thatcher c.1987-1988, in my view, whereas she really needed to govern a bit more like Thatcher 1983-1984 or John Major 1991-1992.
Eichenwald's tweet in which he stated his belief that Trump was institutionalised in a mental hospital in 1990 for a nervous breakdown, explaining why he won't release his medical records, has been deleted.
Kaine and Pence both look like good value to me.
For the same reason, that is because multiple registrations no longer occur, the huge growth in the electoral register between December 2015 and June 2016 can't be blithely dismissed in the way you choose to.
Incidentally, Private Eye recently had a story of a Belgian woman who mis-programmed her sat-nav and ended up in Zagreb, presumably not having been stopped at any borders. So maybe we already have a single country, like the USA where you could drive from Seattle to Miami (4x as far).
There does not appear to have been much opposition to her in Cabinet when she was Home Secretary - apart from possibly Gove (who? - ed.) and perhaps she's carried some of that into premiership.
It is entertaining reading her political obituary co-written by the Cameroons and Labour supporters......
She is having to learn on the job.
She needs to focus and, like it or not, her role - and what she will be judged by - is to implement Brexit successfully.
Making sure that domestic policies are focused on the C1s and C2s etc is all great but at the moment it is coming across as being more about showing people how much she despised Cameron and Osborne and their policies and how different she is rather than about demonstrating a thoughtful approach to how the government can help such people.
Removing a bias is not introducing a bias.
The reason it's "so favourable" is because the drift has gone on for so long that the bias to Labour has grown so large.
Or just laugh at him and change the subject if he didn't.
Let's go with something like Paul Ryan and Elizabeth Warren, two good people who didn't stand first time around.
Trump's now in the lead in Ohio in the 4-way RCP polling average:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5970.html
(1) Brown engineered Blair's downfall; May did not for Cameron
(2) Brown squashed all opposition; May was happy for a fight
(3) May's premiership came about from the Brexit mandate; Brown had none
Brown was a borderline psychopath. May is not.
They are, however, both control freaks and workaholics but May slightly less so IMHO and she has a better idea of what she wants to do with her premiership, whereas being PM was almost the be-all-and-end-all for Brown.
Please! I'm the inside Osbornite agent on PB.
How could she sit in his cabinet for six years, then ignore him following her win?
It says a lot about her character, or lack of it.
It's gone from stumble, to stagger, to collapse - their Clinton pool reporter still sounds like Nicholas Witchell covering QEII mind.
If the Corbynistas are smart they will get a fresh faced one to lead them into the next election - without all the baggage that Corbyn comes with. Focus on issues that majority of people care about/have merit (more on rising inequality etc, less on trident). Tone down slightly the radical rhetoric (campaign in prose, govern in poetry).
That, combined with hoping brexit goes south, is probably their most realistic chance of winning the next election (still not saying it's probable, just the best chance they have)
She went to the G20 meeting without speaking to Dave. She went there unprepared. She let the country down with her approach.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/14/jean-claude-juncker-denies-alcohol-problem-during-interview-in-w
Matt Forney
Holy shit. The DNC has an automated system that allows them to rewrite state voter rolls. #DNCLeak #DNCLeaks https://t.co/LskcnamVzA
Not criticising. I think it's both valuable and revealing.
Uppity grammar school girl who got into Oxford!
When's that ever worked?
A personal anecdote: The parents of one of my son's former classmates, both doctors who immigrated to the UK from India a couple of decades ago, have now returned to India to found a new hospital.
I think May suffers from not thinking her positions through to the end. Her grammar school policy is another example of this. The inevitable question when introducing a policy that is in favour of academic excellence is what about those who are not academically excellent, she has no answers.
He still needs one of Pennsylvania, New Hampshire or Wisconsin to get him over the line and none of these states are quite within reach at the moment.
I'm neutral on HRC/Trump, though Trump has improved since I took that position. Are you still on Hillary ?
Curiously enough, journalists at the time wrote:
As first days go at an international school, the G20 passed off alright for the new pupil.
Theresa May met all the right people, the language differences did not trouble her and she refused to allow the big boys to bully her behind the bike sheds. The prime minister held her own.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37289673