This entire thread tells me the British centre-left and left has developed a kind of Brexit dementia.
They literally cannot conceive of a successful, liberal nation outside the EU. It's bizarre.
Not really. Amber Rudd's odd nationalistic tub thumping has also drawn censure from Brexiteers. We can't help that you are too drunk or otherwise intoxicated to be in charge of your normally impressive critical capacities.
By my standards, I'm very sober. Really. Just walked from Embankment to Camden, on a lovely mild evening, after a splendid but brisk drink with an old mate.
London is RAMMED with EU tourists, by the way, all having a drink and a laugh. The stats don't lie. I looked for that hideous spike in xenophobia that sums up Brexit Britain, but couldn't see it. Perhaps I missed it in under the plane trees in Fitzroy Square.
The xenophobia is to be found in Leaverstan, not the centre of Remania. Try a pub on the Lincs coast.
I travel around the UK all the time. And the world. More than almost anyone on here, probably. The UK remains one of the most tolerant and accepting of countries, despite much provocation from liberal twits who want endless mass migration enforced on the British people til they weep.
"I travel around the UK all the time. And the world. More than almost anyone on here,
ha ha ha "more than almost anyone on here" how do you know that.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
Hmm, not so much rightwards but populist - moving leftwards economically, austerity dead, May explicitly bigging up the role of the state, there's some 'encouraging' aspects there for those on the economic left when compared to Cameron's austerity government. But definitely going right on immigration and other 'social' issues at an alarming but not surprising rate.
I always thought Amber Rudd was more of a wet tory though, i'm surprised to see her delivering a speech like this. Means May is really just directing all the orders, and hard to see how long she can continue like that with no real mandate for it.
Quite. Ps who take them on).
I agree, this government is a breath of fresh air after the dreary Cameron/Osborne years. But so was Cameron in the first few days after 13 years of New Labour. Anyway, if TSE is frothing this government might be doing something good. Goodnight.
Actually I think this could be the day the Tories lost the next election.
If this is the day the Tories lost the election, it is the day they lost it to UKIP.
Nearly all western nations are swinging quite hard to the right. The UK is no exception.
The populist, nationalist right though, not the economic, laissez-faire right
Well, I'd quite like to avoid the populist nationalist hard right winning the next election - i.e. UKIP - so I am supportive of May's attempt to accept the very clear and obvious views of the British people, and significantly reduce immigration, in a clear and judicious way as is possible.
It might harm sectors of the British economy - e.g. education, finance, and the price of my London flat - but I accept that this is what my fellow Britons want, and they really do have a point, given that immigration has been running at historically unprecedented levels, is unsustainable as it stands, and has some unpleasant social and cultural consequences.
The alternative suggested by pb lefties like Meeks and Southam is that we ignore the nasty smelly voters, impose a regime of forced mass immigration, then sit back and enjoy the election of an actual Fascist government, as will inevitably happen, if they get their way.
My alternative is that we accept this is the current view of the voting public and seek to change it.
Liberals have a choice. Do they accept that the voters are entitled to reduce levels of immigration? Or do they abandon democracy to maintain mass immigration?
Or do we seek to persuade people that vilifying foreigners and the entities that employ them is not only wrong, but harmful to British interests? As a democrat, that's my preferred option.
Not to mention that not all voters want to reduce immigration. A sizeable chunk of the 48% (and some of the 52%), don't want to control immigration, so it is right that there are parties that cater to their views as well.
England's population grew more than fourfold between 1801 and 1901. The rate of population increase that we are looking at now is nothing like that level. There is nothing unprecedented about this level of population growth. The question is not capacity but will.
Does the public have the right to reject this nevertheless? Of course it does. It doesn't make it any less stupid.
In a world that is much more mobile, we must prepare our citizens for the implications of that mobility. Shutting ourselves off from it will be counterproductive. We can choose to retreat from the world or we can choose to be part of it. Right now we are choosing to retreat from it. That looks like an absurd error to me.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
Hmm, not so much rightwards but populist - moving leftwards economically, austerity dead, May explicitly bigging up the role of the state, there's some 'encouraging' aspects there for those on the economic left when compared to Cameron's austerity government. But definitely going right on immigration and other 'social' issues at an alarming but not surprising rate.
I always thought Amber Rudd was more of a wet tory though, i'm surprised to see her delivering a speech like this. Means May is really just directing all the orders, and hard to see how long she can continue like that with no real mandate for it.
Quite. Ps who take them on).
I agree, this government is a breath of fresh air after the dreary Cameron/Osborne years. But so was Cameron in the first few days after 13 years of New Labour. Anyway, if TSE is frothing this government might be doing something good. Goodnight.
Actually I think this could be the day the Tories lost the next election.
If this is the day the Tories lost the election, it is the day they lost it to UKIP.
Nearly all western nations are swinging quite hard to the right. The UK is no exception.
The populist, nationalist right though, not the economic, laissez-faire right
Well, I'd quite like to avoid the populist nationalist hard right winning the next election - i.e. UKIP - so I am supportive of May's attempt to accept the very clear and obvious views of the British peopas will inevitably happen, if they get their way.
My alternative is that we accept this is the current view of the voting public and seek to change it.
Good. Try it in an election, or a referendum. You will, of course - let's wildly hypothesize - lose.
Then what do you do? How would you enact the will of the people?
I wouldn't, I'd have lost. But I am less convinced than you that voters prioritise reducing immigration down to 100,000 a year above all else. I think views can and will change when the full implications of such a number become clear. It won't happen overnight, but I am not without hope.
England's population grew more than fourfold between 1801 and 1901. The rate of population increase that we are looking at now is nothing like that level. There is nothing unprecedented about this level of population growth. The question is not capacity but will.
Does the public have the right to reject this nevertheless? Of course it does. It doesn't make it any less stupid.
In a world that is much more mobile, we must prepare our citizens for the implications of that mobility. Shutting ourselves off from it will be counterproductive. We can choose to retreat from the world or we can choose to be part of it. Right now we are choosing to retreat from it. That looks like an absurd error to me.
My glass ten minutes ago was a quarter full it is now three quarters full. Shall I keep filling it till it overflows.
England's population grew more than fourfold between 1801 and 1901. The rate of population increase that we are looking at now is nothing like that level. There is nothing unprecedented about this level of population growth. The question is not capacity but will.
Does the public have the right to reject this nevertheless? Of course it does. It doesn't make it any less stupid.
In a world that is much more mobile, we must prepare our citizens for the implications of that mobility. Shutting ourselves off from it will be counterproductive. We can choose to retreat from the world or we can choose to be part of it. Right now we are choosing to retreat from it. That looks like an absurd error to me.
Living conditions weren't exactly great for your average citizen between 1801-1901!
On topic, who cares? I can't imagine that more than one voter in 100 had any idea who Diane James was or that more than one in 1000 might change their vote over her.
More to the point do you think theres any value in the betting market, or is it a punter swamp ?
England's population grew more than fourfold between 1801 and 1901. The rate of population increase that we are looking at now is nothing like that level. There is nothing unprecedented about this level of population growth. The question is not capacity but will.
Does the public have the right to reject this nevertheless? Of course it does. It doesn't make it any less stupid.
In a world that is much more mobile, we must prepare our citizens for the implications of that mobility. Shutting ourselves off from it will be counterproductive. We can choose to retreat from the world or we can choose to be part of it. Right now we are choosing to retreat from it. That looks like an absurd error to me.
We aren't choosing to retreat from the world. We're simply not choosing to embrace your vision of a world without Borders.
Well, I'd quite like to avoid the populist nationalist hard right winning the next election - i.e. UKIP - so I am supportive of May's attempt to accept the very clear and obvious views of the British people, and significantly reduce immigration, in a clear and judicious way as is possible.
It might harm sectors of the British economy - e.g. education, finance, and the price of my London flat - but I accept that this is what my fellow Britons want, and they really do have a point, given that immigration has been running at historically unprecedented levels, is unsustainable as it stands, and has some unpleasant social and cultural consequences.
The alternative suggested by pb lefties like Meeks and Southam is that we ignore the nasty smelly voters, impose a regime of forced mass immigration, then sit back and enjoy the election of an actual Fascist government, as will inevitably happen, if they get their way.
My alternative is that we accept this is the current view of the voting public and seek to change it.
What arrogant crap.
Besides, that's precisely what's been happening anyway. Doesn't seem to have won hearts and minds so far.
England's population grew more than fourfold between 1801 and 1901. The rate of population increase that we are looking at now is nothing like that level. There is nothing unprecedented about this level of population growth. The question is not capacity but will.
Does the public have the right to reject this nevertheless? Of course it does. It doesn't make it any less stupid.
In a world that is much more mobile, we must prepare our citizens for the implications of that mobility. Shutting ourselves off from it will be counterproductive. We can choose to retreat from the world or we can choose to be part of it. Right now we are choosing to retreat from it. That looks like an absurd error to me.
My glass ten minutes ago was a quarter full it is now three quarters full. Shall I keep filling it till it overflows.
The population of England in 5000BC was maybe 5000. "Full" is not a constant and we are nowhere near "full" now if we choose not to be.
England's population grew more than fourfold between 1801 and 1901. The rate of population increase that we are looking at now is nothing like that level. There is nothing unprecedented about this level of population growth. The question is not capacity but will.
Does the public have the right to reject this nevertheless? Of course it does. It doesn't make it any less stupid.
In a world that is much more mobile, we must prepare our citizens for the implications of that mobility. Shutting ourselves off from it will be counterproductive. We can choose to retreat from the world or we can choose to be part of it. Right now we are choosing to retreat from it. That looks like an absurd error to me.
My glass ten minutes ago was a quarter full it is now three quarters full. Shall I keep filling it till it overflows.
The population of England in 5000BC was maybe 5000. "Full" is not a constant and we are nowhere near "full" now if we choose not to be.
I understand this is uncomfortable for you Richard. If Rudd disowns today's newpaper headlines and clarifies her views then I'll be happy to accept she got her messaging wrong.
It's not uncomfortable for me at all. I agree with her, David Cameron, and Theresa May that the levels of net immigration we have seen over recent years are unsustainable and are also likely to fuel discontent. Perhaps you disagree. That's fair enough, neither of us is a bad (or good) person because we think a number is too high or is not too high.
On the specifics of her speech, I haven't seen anything she needs to clarify. It all seems perfectly clear. There is zero 'vilifying' that I can see. The onus is on anyone making such an accusation to justify it.
Well, I'd quite like to avoid the populist nationalist hard right winning the next election - i.e. UKIP - so I am supportive of May's attempt to accept the very clear and obvious views of the British people, and significantly reduce immigration, in a clear and judicious way as is possible.
It might harm sectors of the British economy - e.g. education, finance, and the price of my London flat - but I accept that this is what my fellow Britons want, and they really do have a point, given that immigration has been running at historically unprecedented levels, is unsustainable as it stands, and has some unpleasant social and cultural consequences.
The alternative suggested by pb lefties like Meeks and Southam is that we ignore the nasty smelly voters, impose a regime of forced mass immigration, then sit back and enjoy the election of an actual Fascist government, as will inevitably happen, if they get their way.
My alternative is that we accept this is the current view of the voting public and seek to change it.
What arrogant crap.
Besides, that's precisely what's been happening anyway. Doesn't seem to have won hearts and minds so far.
Yep, those who oppose a 100,000 a year cap on immigration are losing the argument big time. If you think it's arrogant to continue to oppose the cap or the kind of policies Rudd is proposing, so be it.
England's population grew more than fourfold between 1801 and 1901. The rate of population increase that we are looking at now is nothing like that level. There is nothing unprecedented about this level of population growth. The question is not capacity but will.
Does the public have the right to reject this nevertheless? Of course it does. It doesn't make it any less stupid.
In a world that is much more mobile, we must prepare our citizens for the implications of that mobility. Shutting ourselves off from it will be counterproductive. We can choose to retreat from the world or we can choose to be part of it. Right now we are choosing to retreat from it. That looks like an absurd error to me.
My glass ten minutes ago was a quarter full it is now three quarters full. Shall I keep filling it till it overflows.
The population of England in 5000BC was maybe 5000. "Full" is not a constant and we are nowhere near "full" now if we choose not to be.
I've just thought of a clean, simple, non draconian, liberal way to bring down net migration.
How about all those lefties who threatened to leave the country if Boris became Mayor, the Tories get into Downing St, the Tories win the election, the nation votes Brexit, etc, etc ... actually follow through and leave the country?
Net migration will come down as incoming workers continue to come in and displace the Guardianistas who have said they'd leave already. Job done.
England's population grew more than fourfold between 1801 and 1901. The rate of population increase that we are looking at now is nothing like that level. There is nothing unprecedented about this level of population growth. The question is not capacity but will.
Does the public have the right to reject this nevertheless? Of course it does. It doesn't make it any less stupid.
In a world that is much more mobile, we must prepare our citizens for the implications of that mobility. Shutting ourselves off from it will be counterproductive. We can choose to retreat from the world or we can choose to be part of it. Right now we are choosing to retreat from it. That looks like an absurd error to me.
We aren't choosing to retreat from the world. We're simply not choosing to embrace your vision of a world without Borders.
People aren't going to get less mobile in the next generation. We can choose to try to cut ourselves off from that mobility or accept it. If we cut ourselves off, we cut ourselves off.
Well, I'd quite like to avoid the populist nationalist hard right winning the next election - i.e. UKIP - so I am supportive of May's attempt to accept the very clear and obvious views of the British people, and significantly reduce immigration, in a clear and judicious way as is possible.
It might harm sectors of the British economy - e.g. education, finance, and the price of my London flat - but I accept that this is what my fellow Britons want, and they really do have a point, given that immigration has been running at historically unprecedented levels, is unsustainable as it stands, and has some unpleasant social and cultural consequences.
The alternative suggested by pb lefties like Meeks and Southam is that we ignore the nasty smelly voters, impose a regime of forced mass immigration, then sit back and enjoy the election of an actual Fascist government, as will inevitably happen, if they get their way.
My alternative is that we accept this is the current view of the voting public and seek to change it.
What arrogant crap.
Besides, that's precisely what's been happening anyway. Doesn't seem to have won hearts and minds so far.
Yep, those who oppose a 100,000 a year cap on immigration are losing the argument big time. If you think it's arrogant to continue to oppose the cap or the kind of policies Rudd is proposing, so be it.
Sorry I do apologise, I totally misread what you were saying. Ignore.
England's population grew more than fourfold between 1801 and 1901. The rate of population increase that we are looking at now is nothing like that level. There is nothing unprecedented about this level of population growth. The question is not capacity but will.
Does the public have the right to reject this nevertheless? Of course it does. It doesn't make it any less stupid.
In a world that is much more mobile, we must prepare our citizens for the implications of that mobility. Shutting ourselves off from it will be counterproductive. We can choose to retreat from the world or we can choose to be part of it. Right now we are choosing to retreat from it. That looks like an absurd error to me.
My glass ten minutes ago was a quarter full it is now three quarters full. Shall I keep filling it till it overflows.
The population of England in 5000BC was maybe 5000. "Full" is not a constant and we are nowhere near "full" now if we choose not to be.
Who is this "we"?
Good question. The most densely populated parts of the country were entirely happy with the idea that we aren't full.
It's the bits that no one actually wants to live in that had a problem with the idea.
Hopefully UKIP will now fade away into irrelevance. After the country voted to leave the EU it's mission accomplished and I don't see the point in them now and I suspect a lot of members will feel the same.
I've just thought of a clean, simple, non draconian, liberal way to bring down net migration.
How about all those lefties who threatened to leave the country if Boris became Mayor, the Tories get into Downing St, the Tories win the election, the nation votes Brexit, etc, etc ... actually follow through and leave the country?
Net migration will come down as incoming workers continue to come in and displace the Guardianistas who have said they'd leave already. Job done.
But it would surely be offset by all the lefties coming our way when foreign right wingers get in.
Well, I'd quite like to avoid the populist nationalist hard right winning the next election - i.e. UKIP - so I am supportive of May's attempt to accept the very clear and obvious views of the British people, and significantly reduce immigration, in a clear and judicious way as is possible.
It might harm sectors of the British economy - e.g. education, finance, and the price of my London flat - but I accept that this is what my fellow Britons want, and they really do have a point, given that immigration has been running at historically unprecedented levels, is unsustainable as it stands, and has some unpleasant social and cultural consequences.
The alternative suggested by pb lefties like Meeks and Southam is that we ignore the nasty smelly voters, impose a regime of forced mass immigration, then sit back and enjoy the election of an actual Fascist government, as will inevitably happen, if they get their way.
My alternative is that we accept this is the current view of the voting public and seek to change it.
What arrogant crap.
Besides, that's precisely what's been happening anyway. Doesn't seem to have won hearts and minds so far.
Yep, those who oppose a 100,000 a year cap on immigration are losing the argument big time. If you think it's arrogant to continue to oppose the cap or the kind of policies Rudd is proposing, so be it.
Sorry I do apologise, I totally misread what you were saying. Ignore.
This entire thread tells me the British centre-left and left has developed a kind of Brexit dementia.
They literally cannot conceive of a successful, liberal nation outside the EU. It's bizarre.
Not really. Amber Rudd's odd nationalistic tub thumping has also drawn censure from Brexiteers. We can't help that you are too drunk or otherwise intoxicated to be in charge of your normally impressive critical capacities.
By my standards, I'm very sober. Really. Just walked from Embankment to Camden, on a lovely mild evening, after a splendid but brisk drink with an old mate.
London is RAMMED with EU tourists, by the way, all having a drink and a laugh. The stats don't lie. I looked for that hideous spike in xenophobia that sums up Brexit Britain, but couldn't see it. Perhaps I missed it in under the plane trees in Fitzroy Square.
The xenophobia is to be found in Leaverstan, not the centre of Remania. Try a pub on the Lincs coast.
I travel around the UK all the time. And the world. More than almost anyone on here, probably. The UK remains one of the most tolerant and accepting of countries, despite much provocation from liberal twits who want endless mass migration enforced on the British people til they weep.
"I travel around the UK all the time. And the world. More than almost anyone on here,
ha ha ha "more than almost anyone on here" how do you know that.
England's population grew more than fourfold between 1801 and 1901. The rate of population increase that we are looking at now is nothing like that level. There is nothing unprecedented about this level of population growth. The question is not capacity but will.
Does the public have the right to reject this nevertheless? Of course it does. It doesn't make it any less stupid.
In a world that is much more mobile, we must prepare our citizens for the implications of that mobility. Shutting ourselves off from it will be counterproductive. We can choose to retreat from the world or we can choose to be part of it. Right now we are choosing to retreat from it. That looks like an absurd error to me.
We aren't choosing to retreat from the world. We're simply not choosing to embrace your vision of a world without Borders.
People aren't going to get less mobile in the next generation. We can choose to try to cut ourselves off from that mobility or accept it. If we cut ourselves off, we cut ourselves off.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
Hmm, not so much rightwards but populist - moving leftwards economically, austerity dead, May explicitly bigging up the role of the state, there's some 'encouraging' aspects there for those on the economic left when compared to Cameron's austerity government. But definitely going right on immigration and other 'social' issues at an alarming but not surprising rate.
I always thought Amber Rudd was more of a wet tory though, i'm surprised to see her delivering a speech like this. Means May is really just directing all the orders, and hard to see how long she can continue like that with no real mandate for it.
Quite. Ps who take them on).
I agree, this government is a breath of fresh air after the dreary Cameron/Osborne years. But so was Cameron in the first few days after 13 years of New Labour. Anyway, if TSE is frothing this government might be doing something good. Goodnight.
Actually I think this could be the day the Tories lost the next election.
If this is the day the Tories lost the election, it is the day they lost it to UKIP.
Nearly all western nations are swinging quite hard to the right. The UK is no exception.
The populist, nationalist right though, not the economic, laissez-faire right
Well, I'd quite like to avoid the populist nationalist hard right winning the next election - i.e. UKIP - so I am supportive of May's attempt to accept the very clear and obvious views of the British people, and significantly reduce immigration, in a clear and judicious way as is possible.
It might harm sectors of the British economy - e.g. education, finance, and the price of my London flat - but I accept that this is what my fellow Britons want, and they really do have a point, given that immigration has been running at historically unprecedented levels, is unsustainable as it stands, and has some unpleasant social and cultural consequences.
The alternative suggested by pb lefties like Meeks and Southam is that we ignore the nasty smelly voters, impose a regime of forced mass immigration, then sit back and enjoy the election of an actual Fascist government, as will inevitably happen, if they get their way.
Yes, ignore it and we will get a very authoritarian government who will act. Goodnight
Liberals have a choice. Do they accept that the voters are entitled to reduce levels of immigration? Or do they abandon democracy to maintain mass immigration?
Or do we seek to persuade people that vilifying foreigners and the entities that employ them is not only wrong, but harmful to British interests? As a democrat, that's my preferred option.
Not to mention that not all voters want to reduce immigration. A sizeable chunk of the 48% (and some of the 52%), don't want to control immigration, so it is right that there are parties that cater to their views as well.
Endless polls show that a majority of Brits are WAY more skeptical and negative about immigration than us nice liberal people.
This is one of the main forces behind Brexit. Ignoring it is madness. And stores up deeper trouble. We should accept the will of voters, and bring net migration down. For the preservation of our nation and our democracy.
Yep, the liberal left has lost the argument big time, for now and for what seems to be the forseeable future. It lost because it was arrogant, isolated, too frequently contemptuous and perenially tin-eared. We have to accept all that. But I don't think that means we should just acquiesce to something we believe is wrong or not call out policies we believe to be wrong. We believe what we believe. And history shows time and again that minority views, doggedly held and constantly argued, become majority ones. It's not a choice between strictly capped immigration and unlimited immigration. There are a wide variety of options.
England's population grew more than fourfold between 1801 and 1901. The rate of population increase that we are looking at now is nothing like that level. There is nothing unprecedented about this level of population growth. The question is not capacity but will.
Does the public have the right to reject this nevertheless? Of course it does. It doesn't make it any less stupid.
In a world that is much more mobile, we must prepare our citizens for the implications of that mobility. Shutting ourselves off from it will be counterproductive. We can choose to retreat from the world or we can choose to be part of it. Right now we are choosing to retreat from it. That looks like an absurd error to me.
No, the question is culture and crowds. People don't like to see their neighbourhood culturally change, and they don't like to see their GP's surgery crowded with foreigners. And they're not overjoyed when their lovely capital city, which they built, becomes so popular and desirable few of them can afford to live there. (I know this is hard for lucky London property owners to admit, but it is true)
The irony of the Brexit vote is that - my guess says - most of the anti-migrant sentiment was, surely, directed at Muslim immigrants, but voters weren't given a vote on that, so they pulled the only anti-immigration lever they had. Either way it should not be ignored.
Night night.
And we return to point about the referendum being won on xenophobia, with the consequences for the country I noted below and you find irksome. You may find it tedious but I'm not going to stop pointing out just how bad for the country this is.
This entire thread tells me the British centre-left and left has developed a kind of Brexit dementia.
They literally cannot conceive of a successful, liberal nation outside the EU. It's bizarre.
Not really. Amber Rudd's odd nationalistic tub thumping has also drawn censure from Brexiteers. We can't help that you are too drunk or otherwise intoxicated to be in charge of your normally impressive critical capacities.
By my standards, I'm very sober. Really. Just walked from Embankment to Camden, on a lovely mild evening, after a splendid but brisk drink with an old mate.
London is RAMMED with EU tourists, by the way, all having a drink and a laugh. The stats don't lie. I looked for that hideous spike in xenophobia that sums up Brexit Britain, but couldn't see it. Perhaps I missed it in under the plane trees in Fitzroy Square.
The xenophobia is to be found in Leaverstan, not the centre of Remania. Try a pub on the Lincs coast.
I travel around the UK all the time. And the world. More than almost anyone on here, probably. The UK remains one of the most tolerant and accepting of countries, despite much provocation from liberal twits who want endless mass migration enforced on the British people til they weep.
"I travel around the UK all the time. And the world. More than almost anyone on here,
ha ha ha "more than almost anyone on here" how do you know that.
He's a travel journalist.
I am a an airline pilot.
So you'd be familiar with the word almost? </blockquote You missed he/she also said probably...
England's population grew more than fourfold between 1801 and 1901. The rate of population increase that we are looking at now is nothing like that level. There is nothing unprecedented about this level of population growth. The question is not capacity but will.
Does the public have the right to reject this nevertheless? Of course it does. It doesn't make it any less stupid.
In a world that is much more mobile, we must prepare our citizens for the implications of that mobility. Shutting ourselves off from it will be counterproductive. We can choose to retreat from the world or we can choose to be part of it. Right now we are choosing to retreat from it. That looks like an absurd error to me.
My glass ten minutes ago was a quarter full it is now three quarters full. Shall I keep filling it till it overflows.
The population of England in 5000BC was maybe 5000. "Full" is not a constant and we are nowhere near "full" now if we choose not to be.
Who is this "we"?
Good question. The most densely populated parts of the country were entirely happy with the idea that we aren't full.
It's the bits that no one actually wants to live in that had a problem with the idea.
The most densely parts that are full of immigrants what point are you making.
England's population grew more than fourfold between 1801 and 1901. The rate of population increase that we are looking at now is nothing like that level. There is nothing unprecedented about this level of population growth. The question is not capacity but will.
Does the public have the right to reject this nevertheless? Of course it does. It doesn't make it any less stupid.
In a world that is much more mobile, we must prepare our citizens for the implications of that mobility. Shutting ourselves off from it will be counterproductive. We can choose to retreat from the world or we can choose to be part of it. Right now we are choosing to retreat from it. That looks like an absurd error to me.
We aren't choosing to retreat from the world. We're simply not choosing to embrace your vision of a world without Borders.
The distinction between borders and mobility is a worthwhile one. Mobility can actually enhance the importance of borders, rather than detract from it, because the larger the scale of the mobility, the more important the tools for managing it become.
This is consistent with the way that laws establishing a framework for the control of immigration, in both the UK and USA, were erected in response to massively increased mobility of the late industrial age. When the vast majority of Britain's population growth was internal, there was essentially no effort to "manage" immigration, because there was no need.
For comparison, global capital can now flow in previously unthinkable quantities, at an astonishing technologically-enabled pace. But such rapid movements can be deeply destabilising, so that it is now unfashionable to favour free movement of capital at all costs - in certain crisis-hit economies, capital controls are seen as sound policy and a proportionate response. And the capacity to execute such a policy swiftly is more important because of that mobility, not despite it.
A generation from now, there may be perhaps one billion more people in Africa and Asia who have the financial means to come to live in Britain (because they are sufficiently better-off to be able to afford the plane ticket or the university place or whatever) and yet whose economic situation, and quality of life in other ways (healthcare, educational opportunities, political stability, pollution levels, greater personal freedom), would still be much rosier here than there. This increased mobility doesn't immediately strike me as worthy of sticking on a pro-immigration poster as one of my Top Ten Reasons To Abolish Borders NOW.
England's population grew more than fourfold between 1801 and 1901. The rate of population increase that we are looking at now is nothing like that level. There is nothing unprecedented about this level of population growth. The question is not capacity but will.
Does the public have the right to reject this nevertheless? Of course it does. It doesn't make it any less stupid.
In a world that is much more mobile, we must prepare our citizens for the implications of that mobility. Shutting ourselves off from it will be counterproductive. We can choose to retreat from the world or we can choose to be part of it. Right now we are choosing to retreat from it. That looks like an absurd error to me.
My glass ten minutes ago was a quarter full it is now three quarters full. Shall I keep filling it till it overflows.
The population of England in 5000BC was maybe 5000. "Full" is not a constant and we are nowhere near "full" now if we choose not to be.
Who is this "we"?
Good question. The most densely populated parts of the country were entirely happy with the idea that we aren't full.
It's the bits that no one actually wants to live in that had a problem with the idea.
I'll be honest with you, I'd like to live as far away from other people as possible
England's population grew more than fourfold between 1801 and 1901. The rate of population increase that we are looking at now is nothing like that level. There is nothing unprecedented about this level of population growth. The question is not capacity but will.
Does the public have the right to reject this nevertheless? Of course it does. It doesn't make it any less stupid.
In a world that is much more mobile, we must prepare our citizens for the implications of that mobility. Shutting ourselves off from it will be counterproductive. We can choose to retreat from the world or we can choose to be part of it. Right now we are choosing to retreat from it. That looks like an absurd error to me.
We aren't choosing to retreat from the world. We're simply not choosing to embrace your vision of a world without Borders.
The distinction between borders and mobility is a worthwhile one. Mobility can actually enhance the importance of borders, rather than detract from it, because the larger the scale of the mobility, the more important the tools for managing it become.
This is consistent with the way that laws establishing a framework for the control of immigration, in both the UK and USA, were erected in response to massively increased mobility of the late industrial age. When the vast majority of Britain's population growth was internal, there was essentially no effort to "manage" immigration, because there was no need.
For comparison, global capital can now flow in previously unthinkable quantities, at an astonishing technologically-enabled pace. But such rapid movements can be deeply destabilising, so that it is now unfashionable to favour free movement of capital at all costs - in certain crisis-hit economies, capital controls are seen as sound policy and a proportionate response. And the capacity to execute such a policy swiftly is more important because of that mobility, not despite it.
A generation from now, there may be perhaps one billion more people in Africa and Asia who have the financial means to come to live in Britain (because they are sufficiently better-off to be able to afford the plane ticket or the university place or whatever) and yet whose economic situation, and quality of life in other ways (healthcare, educational opportunities, political stability, pollution levels, greater personal freedom), would still be much rosier here than there. This increased mobility doesn't immediately strike me as worthy of sticking on a pro-immigration poster as one of my Top Ten Reasons To Abolish Borders NOW.
"The new spirit of puritanism can be found in the Conservative Party, too. A ruthless purge of the plutocrats has taken place. By holding the EU referendum, David Cameron, an Old Etonian descended from a long line of stockbrokers, took a gamble that did not pay off. He knew he had to go, and Theresa May has since sacked most of his coterie."
I can't understand the objection to what Amber Rudd has announced. Weaning businesses off cheap labour is essential to getting the numbers down significantly. Firms like ASOS and Sports Direct that have huge warehouses in places like Derby and take advantage of tax breaks, allow agencies to recruit directly from Eastern Europe without even advertising the jobs in the UK, even though they are located in areas of high unemployment of UK nationals. This cannot be right and cannot be allowed to continue. The imported workers are on minimum wage and claiming a plethora of benefits such as housing benefit, tax credits etc. These workers are not needed in the numbers they are coming when there are British people willing and able to do the jobs but not given the opportunity.
Tonight is one of those occasions when some posters on here seem to be getting way, way over-excited about what Theresa May is doing.
I doubt 90% of people in this country are going to perceive any discernible philosophical difference between Cameron and May.
Take the economy - May is no longer going for a surplus - well, Cameron wouldn't have gone for a surplus under Brexit either. I doubt there will be any significant difference between what May / Hammond do and what Cameron / Osborne would have done.
Yet people are winding themselves up into a frenzy?
The overwhelming majority of Centre Right voters want a moderate, mainstream, sensible, responsible Government. They got that with Cameron and they'll also get it with May.
People need to calm down and stop looking for things to get upset about.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
There is literally no way of getting immigration down, to 100,000 a year or so, without being seriously "rightwing".
Every single poll shows that Brits want this: immigration severely reduced. Indeed many polls show a plurality of Brits want ZERO net migration.
The referendum was a wake up call. You either bend to the will of the electorate now, and seriously but democratically reduce migration, which will indeed hurt, or you do nothing - like Labour and Corbyn - and you risk the people electing a Far Right government, which they will do, eventually.
See Holland, Austria, France, Sweden, Finland, all with rising Far Right parties that might seize power soon enough.
What would you do?
I am sure you're right. I understand voters want less immigration. But Rudd is not thwarting the far right, she is aping it. At some point, politicians have to lead. Rudd, though, is taking the easy path by scapegoating foreigners and seeking to make them feel as unwelcome and as unwanted as possible. That will be noticed by all those countries we are supposed to want to open up to, and it will not diminish the far right, it will embolden it.
Yawn. Liberal wibbling
Tell me, how would you get net migration down to, say, 100,000?
A rarity, but I agree with SeanT.
There is no way to get immigration down to target without fiecely right wing policies.
Stop most immigration (including family reunion and students), deport as many asylum seekers as possible, and make recent immigrants unwelcome so that they return from whence they came.
How else is it to be done?
The one policy that would reduce EU migration is to only allow British passport holders to claim benefits like Housing benefit, Working tax credit, Child Tax credits, Child Benefit etc. Cameron knew that, in one of his speeches he detailed how migrants could claim thousands of pounds extra on top of wages. It's why he tried to get the four year waiting period for benefits from his so called renegotiation with the EU commission. Without access to these benefits, it would not be worth a lot of EU migrants coming here to take low paid jobs because they would not be able to afford housing etc.
The Tories are heading rightwards at a rapid rate. Corbyn is the enabler, but it's no excuse. Horrible, horrible stuff from Amber Rudd.
There is literally no way of getting immigration down, to 100,000 a year or so, without being seriously "rightwing".
Every single poll shows that Brits want this: immigration severely reduced. Indeed many polls show a plurality of Brits want ZERO net migration.
The referendum was a wake up call. You either bend to the will of the electorate now, and seriously but democratically reduce migration, which will indeed hurt, or you do nothing - like Labour and Corbyn - and you risk the people electing a Far Right government, which they will do, eventually.
See Holland, Austria, France, Sweden, Finland, all with rising Far Right parties that might seize power soon enough.
What would you do?
I am sure you're right. I understand voters want less immigration. But Rudd is not thwarting the far right, she is aping it. At some point, politicians have to lead. Rudd, though, is taking the easy path by scapegoating foreigners and seeking to make them feel as unwelcome and as unwanted as possible. That will be noticed by all those countries we are supposed to want to open up to, and it will not diminish the far right, it will embolden it.
Yawn. Liberal wibbling
Tell me, how would you get net migration down to, say, 100,000?
A rarity, but I agree with SeanT.
There is no way to get immigration down to target without fiecely right wing policies.
Stop most immigration (including family reunion and students), deport as many asylum seekers as possible, and make recent immigrants unwelcome so that they return from whence they came.
How else is it to be done?
The one policy that would reduce EU migration is to only allow British passport holders to claim benefits like Housing benefit, Working tax credit, Child Tax credits, Child Benefit etc. Cameron knew that, in one of his speeches he detailed how migrants could claim thousands of pounds extra on top of wages. It's why he tried to get the four year waiting period for benefits from his so called renegotiation with the EU commission. Without access to these benefits, it would not be worth a lot of EU migrants coming here to take low paid jobs because they would not be able to afford housing etc.
Heaven forbid we reform the benefits system for British nationals too.
I am sure you're right. I understand voters want less immigration. But Rudd is not thwarting the far right, she is aping it. At some point, politicians have to lead. Rudd, though, is taking the easy path by scapegoating foreigners and seeking to make them feel as unwelcome and as unwanted as possible. That will be noticed by all those countries we are supposed to want to open up to, and it will not diminish the far right, it will embolden it.
Yawn. Liberal wibbling
Tell me, how would you get net migration down to, say, 100,000?
A rarity, but I agree with SeanT.
There is no way to get immigration down to target without fiecely right wing policies.
Stop most immigration (including family reunion and students), deport as many asylum seekers as possible, and make recent immigrants unwelcome so that they return from whence they came.
How else is it to be done?
The one policy that would reduce EU migration is to only allow British passport holders to claim benefits like Housing benefit, Working tax credit, Child Tax credits, Child Benefit etc. Cameron knew that, in one of his speeches he detailed how migrants could claim thousands of pounds extra on top of wages. It's why he tried to get the four year waiting period for benefits from his so called renegotiation with the EU commission. Without access to these benefits, it would not be worth a lot of EU migrants coming here to take low paid jobs because they would not be able to afford housing etc.
Heaven forbid we reform the benefits system for British nationals too.
We could reform the benefits system and adopt a contributory system that Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium and France have and that would also end the right of EU migrants to claim the day they come to UK. But it would also involve significant increases in the value of benefits and the amount we spend on welfare. France spends close to 500billion Euros on social welfare, Britain with much much lower cash benefits spends a total of £180bn. The best option would be to restrict entitlement to welfare to UK passport holders, outside of the EU it can be done perfectly legally and would cut significantly the number of EU nationals coming here to work in low paid jobs, which is the majority.
Kaine grinningly says he's against the death penalty for religious reasons but nonetheless upheld it when governor of Virginia. What a hypocrite. Maybe that makes sense to a Jesuit? I thought he was going to say he stood aside and let the decision be made by someone else, but no. He also sounded as though he was reciting words he'd memorised.
I travel around the UK all the time. And the world. More than almost anyone on here, probably. The UK remains one of the most tolerant and accepting of countries, despite much provocation from liberal twits who want endless mass migration enforced on the British people til they weep.
"I travel around the UK all the time. And the world. More than almost anyone on here,
ha ha ha "more than almost anyone on here" how do you know that.
He's a travel journalist.
I am a an airline pilot.
So you'd be familiar with the word almost?
You missed he/she also said probably...
No I didn't I thought you did. So that's not just one qualifier to the statement but two. The fact you're a pilot doesn't change the idea a travel journalist is probably almost one of the most traveled individuals here.
England's population grew more than fourfold between 1801 and 1901. The rate of population increase that we are looking at now is nothing like that level. There is nothing unprecedented about this level of population growth. The question is not capacity but will.
Does the public have the right to reject this nevertheless? Of course it does. It doesn't make it any less stupid.
In a world that is much more mobile, we must prepare our citizens for the implications of that mobility. Shutting ourselves off from it will be counterproductive. We can choose to retreat from the world or we can choose to be part of it. Right now we are choosing to retreat from it. That looks like an absurd error to me.
No, the question is culture and crowds. People don't like to see their neighbourhood culturally change, and they don't like to see their GP's surgery crowded with foreigners. And they're not overjoyed when their lovely capital city, which they built, becomes so popular and desirable few of them can afford to live there. (I know this is hard for lucky London property owners to admit, but it is true)
The irony of the Brexit vote is that - my guess says - most of the anti-migrant sentiment was, surely, directed at Muslim immigrants, but voters weren't given a vote on that, so they pulled the only anti-immigration lever they had. Either way it should not be ignored.
Night night.
I'm not going to stop pointing out just how bad for the country this is.
It was a good debate. It gave a clear flavour of each candidate and was policy focused. I though Kaine was by far the better communicator but could have come across as too aggressive.
I travel around the UK all the time. And the world. More than almost anyone on here, probably. The UK remains one of the most tolerant and accepting of countries, despite much provocation from liberal twits who want endless mass migration enforced on the British people til they weep.
"I travel around the UK all the time. And the world. More than almost anyone on here,
ha ha ha "more than almost anyone on here" how do you know that.
He's a travel journalist.
I am a an airline pilot.
So you'd be familiar with the word almost?
You missed he/she also said probably...
No I didn't I thought you did. So that's not just one qualifier to the statement but two. The fact you're a pilot doesn't change the idea a travel journalist is probably almost one of the most traveled individuals here.
I too am well travelled - and suspect a Travel Journalist sees more of 'the world' than someone who spends a lot of his life 35,000 feet above it.
I also agree that the UK is one of the most liberal, tolerant places on the planet.
I regularly hear from highly educated upper middle class Asians views which would make a British bin man blush.
I think the debate showed that both sides have exhausted their negative attacks on each other. Whoever wins the town-hall debate this Sunday is going to have to display a whole different skill set (empathy, listening, the ability to resemble an actual human being) that really hasn't been called on before.
I regularly hear from highly educated upper middle class Asians views which would make a British bin man blush.
Many of them voted for Brexit...
And why shouldn't they?
While the 'Liberal Elite' to use a phrase du jour have done very well out of globalisation and mass immigration, they haven't - and have exercised their right to tell the government to do things differently. I think May understands this, and will act on it.
I too am well travelled - and suspect a Travel Journalist sees more of 'the world' than someone who spends a lot of his life 35,000 feet above it.
I'd hope that yr airline pilot's view of the world is a little less chemically enhanced than yr travel journalist's
I suspect travel journalists (and not necessarily through their own fault) see the world as people think it should be rather than the real world.
Just like Hollywood's version of London had everyone wearing bowler hats long after they had disappeared. And everyone in Africa lives in picturesque poverty in pretty mud and thatch villages with lions prowling in the background.
I doubt Sean is paid to see the dull concrete and glass buildings in Sao Paolo or the middle class sprawl (rather than the townships) in Jo'burg. Which one is the real world?
On topic, who cares? I can't imagine that more than one voter in 100 had any idea who Diane James was or that more than one in 1000 might change their vote over her.
More to the point do you think theres any value in the betting market, or is it a punter swamp ?
I disagree Alastair, on the basis that a divided UKIP is less able to reposition post referendum, and her resignation is both a cause and symptom of that
I regularly hear from highly educated upper middle class Asians views which would make a British bin man blush.
Many of them voted for Brexit...
And why shouldn't they?
While the 'Liberal Elite' to use a phrase du jour have done very well out of globalisation and mass immigration, they haven't - and have exercised their right to tell the government to do things differently. I think May understands this, and will act on it.
It is interesting that some, like myself and many others here with politicians like Hannan and Boris, voted for Brexit based on a belief that the EU was acting as a brake on further globalisation with the rest of the world; while many others with leaders like Farage did so to halt globalisation.
I still hope the Tories are going to go for a global Vote Leave Brexit and not an insular Leave.EU one.
I too am well travelled - and suspect a Travel Journalist sees more of 'the world' than someone who spends a lot of his life 35,000 feet above it.
I'd hope that yr airline pilot's view of the world is a little less chemically enhanced than yr travel journalist's
I suspect travel journalists (and not necessarily through their own fault) see the world as people think it should be rather than the real world.
Just like Hollywood's version of London had everyone wearing bowler hats long after they had disappeared. And everyone in Africa lives in picturesque poverty in pretty mud and thatch villages with lions prowling in the background.
I doubt Sean is paid to see the dull concrete and glass buildings in Sao Paolo or the middle class sprawl (rather than the townships) in Jo'burg. Which one is the real world?
both travel journalists and airline pilots spend rather more time in hotels than the real world, I suppose.
One can only relate one's own experience, I guess.
I regularly hear from highly educated upper middle class Asians views which would make a British bin man blush.
Many of them voted for Brexit...
And why shouldn't they?
While the 'Liberal Elite' to use a phrase du jour have done very well out of globalisation and mass immigration, they haven't - and have exercised their right to tell the government to do things differently. I think May understands this, and will act on it.
I still hope the Tories are going to go for a global Vote Leave Brexit and not an insular Leave.EU one.
The rhetoric is for the former - time will tell on the actions.
Odd really that the one party that stood against Europe now emulates the EU principle of rotating its leadership every 6 months by rotating its own leadership every 6 weeks........
What a time to be alive. Its like November 1990 to June 2016 was just a bad dream...
Love the bit that calls the Labour Party "Divisive" turn one of their favourite lefty soundbite words on themselves.
"Theresa May will today condemn the metropolitan elite for sneering at millions of ordinary Britons over immigration. In words that will resonate across the country, the Prime Minister will criticise those who try to dismiss the concerns of many voters as ‘parochial’. And she will savage the political and chattering classes who think the public’s patriotism is ‘distasteful’ and their views on crime ‘illiberal’.
In her keynote speech to the Tory party conference today, Mrs May will make a pitch to claim the ‘centre ground’ of British politics – and drive the ‘divisive’ Labour Party further into the wilderness. She will also pledge to lead a Government that is unafraid to challenge big business and intervene on behalf of workers on low and middle incomes.
And she will take the elite to task for failing to stand up for their interests for years – and sneering at their concerns. Setting out her vision for running Britain, Mrs May will tell delegates in Birmingham: ‘Just listen to the way a lot of politicians and commentators talk about the public. Mrs May, pictured at the conference, will criticise those who 'sneer at' and 'dismiss' voters concerns over immigration
Mrs May, pictured at the conference, will criticise those who 'sneer at' and 'dismiss' voters concerns over immigration ‘They find their patriotism distasteful, their concerns about immigration parochial, their views about crime illiberal, their attachment to their job security inconvenient. ‘They find the fact that more than seventeen million people voted to leave the European Union simply bewildering.’"
England's population grew more than fourfold between 1801 and 1901. The rate of population increase that we are looking at now is nothing like that level. There is nothing unprecedented about this level of population growth. The question is not capacity but will.
Does the public have the right to reject this nevertheless? Of course it does. It doesn't make it any less stupid.
In a world that is much more mobile, we must prepare our citizens for the implications of that mobility. Shutting ourselves off from it will be counterproductive. We can choose to retreat from the world or we can choose to be part of it. Right now we are choosing to retreat from it. That looks like an absurd error to me.
No, the question is culture and crowds. People don't like to see their neighbourhood culturally change, and they don't like to see their GP's surgery crowded with foreigners. And they're not overjoyed when their lovely capital city, which they built, becomes so popular and desirable few of them can afford to live there. (I know this is hard for lucky London property owners to admit, but it is true)
The irony of the Brexit vote is that - my guess says - most of the anti-migrant sentiment was, surely, directed at Muslim immigrants, but voters weren't given a vote on that, so they pulled the only anti-immigration lever they had. Either way it should not be ignored.
Night night.
I'm not going to stop pointing out just how bad for the country this is.
Narrow win for the GOP ticket will change the media narrative before the Sunday POTUS debate. Will Trump be able to take take this forward?
He desperately needs a narrative change!
pence won that on style, but he basically lied when he denied all the crap things trump said. may come up in the next few days...
I've wondered.... you comment on nothing but the US election, yet you said you have no experience of America. Does British politics not interest you? I suppose you could be from a third country.
Narrow win for the GOP ticket will change the media narrative before the Sunday POTUS debate. Will Trump be able to take take this forward?
He desperately needs a narrative change!
Trump has had an awful 10 days highlighted by the poor polling. Pence's narrow win will provide a much needed fillip but can Donald hold it together for 90 minutes in a town hall setting on Sunday with likely hostile questions from ordinary voters and with Clinton baiting him at every opportunity?
Narrow win for the GOP ticket will change the media narrative before the Sunday POTUS debate. Will Trump be able to take take this forward?
He desperately needs a narrative change!
Trump has had an awful 10 days highlighted by the poor polling. Pence's narrow win will provide a much needed fillip but can Donald hold it together for 90 minutes in a town hall setting on Sunday with likely hostile questions from ordinary voters and with Clinton baiting him at every opportunity?
Hhhhmmmm ....
He needs a sojourn at the gay pleasure grounds of Auchentennach Castle.... come to think of it, so do I
FWIW I've had a crumple free, surprisingly small, transparent new plastic fiver on Laddies' 16/1 offer against Lisa Duffy becoming the next UKIP leader. DYOR.
Narrow win for the GOP ticket will change the media narrative before the Sunday POTUS debate. Will Trump be able to take take this forward?
He desperately needs a narrative change!
Trump has had an awful 10 days highlighted by the poor polling. Pence's narrow win will provide a much needed fillip but can Donald hold it together for 90 minutes in a town hall setting on Sunday with likely hostile questions from ordinary voters and with Clinton baiting him at every opportunity?
Hhhhmmmm ....
He needs a sojourn at the gay pleasure grounds of Auchentennach Castle.... come to think of it, so do I
Back of the queue buddy .... the PB waiting list is full ..
England's population grew more than fourfold between 1801 and 1901. The rate of population increase that we are looking at now is nothing like that level. There is nothing unprecedented about this level of population growth. The question is not capacity but will.
Does the public have the right to reject this nevertheless? Of course it does. It doesn't make it any less stupid.
In a world that is much more mobile, we must prepare our citizens for the implications of that mobility. Shutting ourselves off from it will be counterproductive. We can choose to retreat from the world or we can choose to be part of it. Right now we are choosing to retreat from it. That looks like an absurd error to me.
No, the question is culture and crowds. People don't like to see their neighbourhood culturally change, and they don't like to see their GP's surgery crowded with foreigners. And they're not overjoyed when their lovely capital city, which they built, becomes so popular and desirable few of them can afford to live there. (I know this is hard for lucky London property owners to admit, but it is true)
The irony of the Brexit vote is that - my guess says - most of the anti-migrant sentiment was, surely, directed at Muslim immigrants, but voters weren't given a vote on that, so they pulled the only anti-immigration lever they had. Either way it should not be ignored.
Night night.
I'm not going to stop pointing out just how bad for the country this is.
Any plans to leave?
What an odd question.
Why is it an odd question?
You tirelessly tell us what an unredeemable sh@thole the country is going to turn into, so one is forced to wonder why a well educated, prosperous, foreign property owning chap like yourself would wish to stay here....
Narrow win for the GOP ticket will change the media narrative before the Sunday POTUS debate. Will Trump be able to take take this forward?
He desperately needs a narrative change!
Trump has had an awful 10 days highlighted by the poor polling. Pence's narrow win will provide a much needed fillip but can Donald hold it together for 90 minutes in a town hall setting on Sunday with likely hostile questions from ordinary voters and with Clinton baiting him at every opportunity?
Hhhhmmmm ....
He needs a sojourn at the gay pleasure grounds of Auchentennach Castle.... come to think of it, so do I
Back of the queue buddy .... the PB waiting list is full ..
I'll just have to go and find some second-rate gay pleasure grounds... harumph.
What's wrong with British Jobs for British Workers? I've made this point several times - being an internationalist doesn't mean having to asset strip eastern Europe of well educated hard working people to work cleaning jobs or in Starbucks in western Europe. This is not remotely a UK issue, my Spanish family see the same in their country, colleague at work is half Italian, his family in Italy all complain about it.
The EU driving free movement of Labour is the problem, and increasingly the people of Europe aren't willing to put up with it any longer. Some people dislike the cultural impact - personally I laugh at this as it suggests "English" to be a single culture. Others the financial. Whatever, this is democracy and if the majority decide they don't want something any longer then either the politicians deliver or we elect different politicians. Personally I'd rather have mainstream politicians deliver this than replace them with frootloop crazy ones.
Then there's the elephant in the room. 30 years of ThatchBlairism have taught us that it's OK to be selfish, that it doesn't matter about other people, that your value is defined by what generation iPhone you have and if it's not good enough don't worry about hard work because the X-Factor will save you and if not borrow it. I've worked for businesses where the factory on the edge of major conurbations are full of migrants. Pay and conditions were decent, but local people didn't want the jobs. And our union guy said that when local yoof turned up they generally didn't work and had attitude problems. As a nation we need to face into what we have educated people to become and try and reinstil the work ethic. That to get somewhere in life and have basic pride in yourself you need to work for it. And hopefully then we stop the lazy persecution of the people who can't work so that future governments don't copy IDS by finding it acceptable for disabled people to commit suicide having had their welfare support and dignity removed.
Narrow win for the GOP ticket will change the media narrative before the Sunday POTUS debate. Will Trump be able to take take this forward?
He desperately needs a narrative change!
Trump has had an awful 10 days highlighted by the poor polling. Pence's narrow win will provide a much needed fillip but can Donald hold it together for 90 minutes in a town hall setting on Sunday with likely hostile questions from ordinary voters and with Clinton baiting him at every opportunity?
Hhhhmmmm ....
He needs a sojourn at the gay pleasure grounds of Auchentennach Castle.... come to think of it, so do I
Back of the queue buddy .... the PB waiting list is full ..
I'll just have to go and find some second-rate gay pleasure grounds... harumph.
"Harrumph" is such a fine old-fashioned word, in fact rather a gay word I would suggest.
That is factually correct, since EU countries will blackmail us on the status of british nationals you need to hold EU nationals as hostages too.
Indeed. It is impossible for a UK government to hold any other position until the rights of UK citizens in the EU are guaranteed.
But it's an absurd position. Even if we were going to do mass deportations of EU citizens, how would we do it? We don't know who they are, where they live or where they came from. In any case many will be eligible for UK citizenship.
Same would be true of UK citizens in the EU.
Wouldn't be too complicated. All firms in the UK are required by law to keep a copy of "proof of right to work in the UK" for all employees. If that proof is an EU passport and if the EU citizens lost their right to work in the UK then all companies could be instructed to take action accordingly.
I think this would be an utterly terrible idea and am not proposing it ... but its not impossible.
And it only covers EU citizens who are working. What about the unemployed, students, self-employed, spouses etc?
I travel around the UK all the time. And the world. More than almost anyone on here, probably. The UK remains one of the most tolerant and accepting of countries, despite much provocation from liberal twits who want endless mass migration enforced on the British people til they weep.
"I travel around the UK all the time. And the world. More than almost anyone on here,
ha ha ha "more than almost anyone on here" how do you know that.
He's a travel journalist.
I am a an airline pilot.
So you'd be familiar with the word almost?
You missed he/she also said probably...
No I didn't I thought you did. So that's not just one qualifier to the statement but two. The fact you're a pilot doesn't change the idea a travel journalist is probably almost one of the most traveled individuals here.
And is going to be taking rather more interest in what is at the other end than a pilot who typically wont get further than a hotel next to the airport before flying back the next day.
What's wrong with British Jobs for British Workers?.
Getting British workers to do them?
An interesting thought for those who are upset by the idea of listing the employment of foreigners.
There are several factory sites that I am aware of, where pretty much the entire workforce is from a single immigrant group - a single eastern European country. A few management roles are UK nationals.
So there are a number of places which have *no* non-white ethnic minority participation.
I thought that kind of thing was supposed to be bad?
This is nothing less than a reformation in the Church of Conservatism, with the authority of Brussels cast as a modern-day Rome. Cameron tried to manage the old schism but the suspicion lingered that his loyalties were divided; that he read from a vernacular Tory bible at home and then jumped on the Eurostar to kiss the papal commission’s ring. Now Theresa May stands before her party like Elizabeth I: a true, Protestant queen, their own Gloriana.
What's wrong with British Jobs for British Workers? I've made this point several times - being an internationalist doesn't mean having to asset strip eastern Europe of well educated hard working people to work cleaning jobs or in Starbucks in western Europe. This is not remotely a UK issue, my Spanish family see the same in their country, colleague at work is half Italian, his family in Italy all complain about it.
The EU driving free movement of Labour is the problem, and increasingly the people of Europe aren't willing to put up with it any longer. Some people dislike the cultural impact - personally I laugh at this as it suggests "English" to be a single culture. Others the financial. Whatever, this is democracy and if the majority decide they don't want something any longer then either the politicians deliver or we elect different politicians. Personally I'd rather have mainstream politicians deliver this than replace them with frootloop crazy ones.
Then there's the elephant in the room. 30 years of ThatchBlairism have taught us that it's OK to be selfish, that it doesn't matter about other people, that your value is defined by what generation iPhone you have and if it's not good enough don't worry about hard work because the X-Factor will save you and if not borrow it. I've worked for businesses where the factory on the edge of major conurbations are full of migrants. Pay and conditions were decent, but local people didn't want the jobs. And our union guy said that when local yoof turned up they generally didn't work and had attitude problems. As a nation we need to face into what we have educated people to become and try and reinstil the work ethic. That to get somewhere in life and have basic pride in yourself you need to work for it. And hopefully then we stop the lazy persecution of the people who can't work so that future governments don't copy IDS by finding it acceptable for disabled people to commit suicide having had their welfare support and dignity removed.
What's wrong with British jobs for British workers, apart from being illegal on a job ad at the time Gordon Brown said it, is that it's economically illiterate.
I too am well travelled - and suspect a Travel Journalist sees more of 'the world' than someone who spends a lot of his life 35,000 feet above it.
I'd hope that yr airline pilot's view of the world is a little less chemically enhanced than yr travel journalist's
I suspect travel journalists (and not necessarily through their own fault) see the world as people think it should be rather than the real world.
Just like Hollywood's version of London had everyone wearing bowler hats long after they had disappeared. And everyone in Africa lives in picturesque poverty in pretty mud and thatch villages with lions prowling in the background.
I doubt Sean is paid to see the dull concrete and glass buildings in Sao Paolo or the middle class sprawl (rather than the townships) in Jo'burg. Which one is the real world?
Joburg - if you look out of the window as the plane comes in you get a pretty good idea of the extent of both middle class sprawl and townships - and their quite often cheek by jowl nature.
What's wrong with British Jobs for British Workers?.
Getting British workers to do them?
I covered that - we need to educate people that work pays the bills. A big step would be getting it so that work does pay the bills. I still remember Iain Duncan Scum visiting Merthyr Tydfil talking about the high unemployment and saying "there are jobs in Cardiff".
True. But when the people out of work have kids, the jobs are shift work, and if there was the childcare, public transport to get people to and from the jobs and the jobs paid enough to cover those costs then people might take then. But as was pointed out the jobs are minimum wage or close to it, public transport stops too early and costs too much and the childcare element as anyone with kids will tell you costs a fortune.
Its no wonder people "wont" work. Work need to be viable.
What's wrong with British Jobs for British Workers? I've made this point several times - being an internationalist doesn't mean having to asset strip eastern Europe of well educated hard working people to work cleaning jobs or in Starbucks in western Europe. This is not remotely a UK issue, my Spanish family see the same in their country, colleague at work is half Italian, his family in Italy all complain about it.
The EU driving free movement of Labour is the problem, and increasingly the people of Europe aren't willing to put up with it any longer. Some people dislike the cultural impact - personally I laugh at this as it suggests "English" to be a single culture. Others the financial. Whatever, this is democracy and if the majority decide they don't want something any longer then either the politicians deliver or we elect different politicians. Personally I'd rather have mainstream politicians deliver this than replace them with frootloop crazy ones.
Then there's the elephant in the room. 30 years of ThatchBlairism have taught us that it's OK to be selfish, that it doesn't matter about other people, that your value is defined by what generation iPhone you have and if it's not good enough don't worry about hard work because the X-Factor will save you and if not borrow it. I've worked for businesses where the factory on the edge of major conurbations are full of migrants. Pay and conditions were decent, but local people didn't want the jobs. And our union guy said that when local yoof turned up they generally didn't work and had attitude problems. As a nation we need to face into what we have educated people to become and try and reinstil the work ethic. That to get somewhere in life and have basic pride in yourself you need to work for it. And hopefully then we stop the lazy persecution of the people who can't work so that future governments don't copy IDS by finding it acceptable for disabled people to commit suicide having had their welfare support and dignity removed.
And the Leave Campaign ( as opposed to Brexit per se ) was a hugely successful attempt to distract from your second point by blaming your first point. Thanks making your second point much worse.
I know how to get net migration down to 100,000 : organise a mass emigration of Leave voters.
Seriously though, this is the most ridiculous part about that target that everyone forgets. The government has no control over emigration. You could halve immigration and you'd still breach the target if emigration fell as well.
What's wrong with British Jobs for British Workers? I've made this point several times - being an internationalist doesn't mean having to asset strip eastern Europe of well educated hard working people to work cleaning jobs or in Starbucks in western Europe. This is not remotely a UK issue, my Spanish family see the same in their country, colleague at work is half Italian, his family in Italy all complain about it.
The EU driving free movement of Labour is the problem, and increasingly the people of Europe aren't willing to put up with it any longer. Some people dislike the cultural impact - personally I laugh at this as it suggests "English" to be a single culture. Others the financial. Whatever, this is democracy and if the majority decide they don't want something any longer then either the politicians deliver or we elect different politicians. Personally I'd rather have mainstream politicians deliver this than replace them with frootloop crazy ones.
Then there's the elephant in the room. 30 years of ThatchBlairism have taught us that it's OK to be selfish, that it doesn't matter about other people, that your value is defined by what generation iPhone you have and if it's not good enough don't worry about hard work because the X-Factor will save you and if not borrow it. I've worked for businesses where the factory on the edge of major conurbations are full of migrants. Pay and conditions were decent, but local people didn't want the jobs. And our union guy said that when local yoof turned up they generally didn't work and had attitude problems. As a nation we need to face into what we have educated people to become and try and reinstil the work ethic. That to get somewhere in life and have basic pride in yourself you need to work for it. And hopefully then we stop the lazy persecution of the people who can't work so that future governments don't copy IDS by finding it acceptable for disabled people to commit suicide having had their welfare support and dignity removed.
Your opening makes it sound like the EU has organised mass transportation of slave labour. The EU Treaties offer *freedom* of movement to employers and employees. By all means argue that freedom is harmful to others but don't pretend it's not a freedom gladly used on both sides.
OT ground-game news: The Trump people in my Twitter stream think the RNC is deliberately sabotaging Trump.
I guess the reality is some kind of wacky mix-up where the Trump campaign thought the RNC were taking care of GOTV and the RNC thought the Trump campaign was doing it.
I know how to get net migration down to 100,000 : organise a mass emigration of Leave voters.
Seriously though, this is the most ridiculous part about that target that everyone forgets. The government has no control over emigration. You could halve immigration and you'd still breach the target if emigration fell as well.
Not to mention they have no control of immigration of UK nationals currently living overseas, who presumably still have the right to return. If the UK-EU deal screws things up for those people then we could be talking about quite significant numbers.
I see the 'inclusive' brigade got a bit het up yesterday against what is basically sensible and remarkably measured policy bearing in mind the Brexit vote.
The bit that always gets me is, cf the tweet below 'us decent folk', the people who consider themselves 'decent' are generally unwilling to accept that the views of others might have some validity.
Comments
Does the public have the right to reject this nevertheless? Of course it does. It doesn't make it any less stupid.
In a world that is much more mobile, we must prepare our citizens for the implications of that mobility. Shutting ourselves off from it will be counterproductive. We can choose to retreat from the world or we can choose to be part of it. Right now we are choosing to retreat from it. That looks like an absurd error to me.
Besides, that's precisely what's been happening anyway. Doesn't seem to have won hearts and minds so far.
On the specifics of her speech, I haven't seen anything she needs to clarify. It all seems perfectly clear. There is zero 'vilifying' that I can see. The onus is on anyone making such an accusation to justify it.
How about all those lefties who threatened to leave the country if Boris became Mayor, the Tories get into Downing St, the Tories win the election, the nation votes Brexit, etc, etc ... actually follow through and leave the country?
Net migration will come down as incoming workers continue to come in and displace the Guardianistas who have said they'd leave already. Job done.
It's the bits that no one actually wants to live in that had a problem with the idea.
This is consistent with the way that laws establishing a framework for the control of immigration, in both the UK and USA, were erected in response to massively increased mobility of the late industrial age. When the vast majority of Britain's population growth was internal, there was essentially no effort to "manage" immigration, because there was no need.
For comparison, global capital can now flow in previously unthinkable quantities, at an astonishing technologically-enabled pace. But such rapid movements can be deeply destabilising, so that it is now unfashionable to favour free movement of capital at all costs - in certain crisis-hit economies, capital controls are seen as sound policy and a proportionate response. And the capacity to execute such a policy swiftly is more important because of that mobility, not despite it.
A generation from now, there may be perhaps one billion more people in Africa and Asia who have the financial means to come to live in Britain (because they are sufficiently better-off to be able to afford the plane ticket or the university place or whatever) and yet whose economic situation, and quality of life in other ways (healthcare, educational opportunities, political stability, pollution levels, greater personal freedom), would still be much rosier here than there. This increased mobility doesn't immediately strike me as worthy of sticking on a pro-immigration poster as one of my Top Ten Reasons To Abolish Borders NOW.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/10/new-puritans-what-theresa-may-and-jeremy-corbyn-have-common
I doubt 90% of people in this country are going to perceive any discernible philosophical difference between Cameron and May.
Take the economy - May is no longer going for a surplus - well, Cameron wouldn't have gone for a surplus under Brexit either. I doubt there will be any significant difference between what May / Hammond do and what Cameron / Osborne would have done.
Yet people are winding themselves up into a frenzy?
The overwhelming majority of Centre Right voters want a moderate, mainstream, sensible, responsible Government. They got that with Cameron and they'll also get it with May.
People need to calm down and stop looking for things to get upset about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stbZhrB4HoU
Hillary chose the wrong VP candidate, Trump the right one.
Trump and Pence should switch roles.
Back to bed.
Question on North Korea and the answers are knockabout on the Clinton and Trump foundations.
Pence should be the Presidential candidate, Trump the VP one.
Pence has won this debate by as much as Hillary won her debate:
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/783493946391531520
Half the focus group say they're more likely to vote for Trump now.
I also agree that the UK is one of the most liberal, tolerant places on the planet.
I regularly hear from highly educated upper middle class Asians views which would make a British bin man blush.
While the 'Liberal Elite' to use a phrase du jour have done very well out of globalisation and mass immigration, they haven't - and have exercised their right to tell the government to do things differently. I think May understands this, and will act on it.
Just like Hollywood's version of London had everyone wearing bowler hats long after they had disappeared. And everyone in Africa lives in picturesque poverty in pretty mud and thatch villages with lions prowling in the background.
I doubt Sean is paid to see the dull concrete and glass buildings in Sao Paolo or the middle class sprawl (rather than the townships) in Jo'burg. Which one is the real world?
I still hope the Tories are going to go for a global Vote Leave Brexit and not an insular Leave.EU one.
One can only relate one's own experience, I guess.
Pence 48 .. Kaine 42
Narrow win for the GOP ticket will change the media narrative before the Sunday POTUS debate. Will Trump be able to take take this forward?
Love the bit that calls the Labour Party "Divisive" turn one of their favourite lefty soundbite words on themselves.
"Theresa May will today condemn the metropolitan elite for sneering at millions of ordinary Britons over immigration.
In words that will resonate across the country, the Prime Minister will criticise those who try to dismiss the concerns of many voters as ‘parochial’.
And she will savage the political and chattering classes who think the public’s patriotism is ‘distasteful’ and their views on crime ‘illiberal’.
In her keynote speech to the Tory party conference today, Mrs May will make a pitch to claim the ‘centre ground’ of British politics – and drive the ‘divisive’ Labour Party further into the wilderness.
She will also pledge to lead a Government that is unafraid to challenge big business and intervene on behalf of workers on low and middle incomes.
And she will take the elite to task for failing to stand up for their interests for years – and sneering at their concerns.
Setting out her vision for running Britain, Mrs May will tell delegates in Birmingham: ‘Just listen to the way a lot of politicians and commentators talk about the public.
Mrs May, pictured at the conference, will criticise those who 'sneer at' and 'dismiss' voters concerns over immigration
Mrs May, pictured at the conference, will criticise those who 'sneer at' and 'dismiss' voters concerns over immigration
‘They find their patriotism distasteful, their concerns about immigration parochial, their views about crime illiberal, their attachment to their job security inconvenient.
‘They find the fact that more than seventeen million people voted to leave the European Union simply bewildering.’"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3822338/May-savages-liberal-elite-PM-uses-keynote-speech-Tory-conference-condemn-sneer-ordinary-Britons-worries-reach-millions-blue-collar-workers.html
At times a little too interventionist for my tastes but pretty good stuff.
https://twitter.com/tiernandouieb/status/783428339461713921
Hhhhmmmm ....
FWIW I've had a crumple free, surprisingly small, transparent new plastic fiver on Laddies' 16/1 offer against Lisa Duffy becoming the next UKIP leader.
DYOR.
(Good morning Rob and everyone)
What is it with UKIP and application forms?
You tirelessly tell us what an unredeemable sh@thole the country is going to turn into, so one is forced to wonder why a well educated, prosperous, foreign property owning chap like yourself would wish to stay here....
The EU driving free movement of Labour is the problem, and increasingly the people of Europe aren't willing to put up with it any longer. Some people dislike the cultural impact - personally I laugh at this as it suggests "English" to be a single culture. Others the financial. Whatever, this is democracy and if the majority decide they don't want something any longer then either the politicians deliver or we elect different politicians. Personally I'd rather have mainstream politicians deliver this than replace them with frootloop crazy ones.
Then there's the elephant in the room. 30 years of ThatchBlairism have taught us that it's OK to be selfish, that it doesn't matter about other people, that your value is defined by what generation iPhone you have and if it's not good enough don't worry about hard work because the X-Factor will save you and if not borrow it. I've worked for businesses where the factory on the edge of major conurbations are full of migrants. Pay and conditions were decent, but local people didn't want the jobs. And our union guy said that when local yoof turned up they generally didn't work and had attitude problems. As a nation we need to face into what we have educated people to become and try and reinstil the work ethic. That to get somewhere in life and have basic pride in yourself you need to work for it. And hopefully then we stop the lazy persecution of the people who can't work so that future governments don't copy IDS by finding it acceptable for disabled people to commit suicide having had their welfare support and dignity removed.
Apparently so.
There are several factory sites that I am aware of, where pretty much the entire workforce is from a single immigrant group - a single eastern European country. A few management roles are UK nationals.
So there are a number of places which have *no* non-white ethnic minority participation.
I thought that kind of thing was supposed to be bad?
This is nothing less than a reformation in the Church of Conservatism, with the authority of Brussels cast as a modern-day Rome. Cameron tried to manage the old schism but the suspicion lingered that his loyalties were divided; that he read from a vernacular Tory bible at home and then jumped on the Eurostar to kiss the papal commission’s ring. Now Theresa May stands before her party like Elizabeth I: a true, Protestant queen, their own Gloriana.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/05/birmingham-witnessing-tory-reformation-conservative-conference-brexit
True. But when the people out of work have kids, the jobs are shift work, and if there was the childcare, public transport to get people to and from the jobs and the jobs paid enough to cover those costs then people might take then. But as was pointed out the jobs are minimum wage or close to it, public transport stops too early and costs too much and the childcare element as anyone with kids will tell you costs a fortune.
Its no wonder people "wont" work. Work need to be viable.
Seriously though, this is the most ridiculous part about that target that everyone forgets. The government has no control over emigration. You could halve immigration and you'd still breach the target if emigration fell as well.
I guess the reality is some kind of wacky mix-up where the Trump campaign thought the RNC were taking care of GOTV and the RNC thought the Trump campaign was doing it.
The bit that always gets me is, cf the tweet below 'us decent folk', the people who consider themselves 'decent' are generally unwilling to accept that the views of others might have some validity.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose....