I'm starting to get interested in the AA polling the US election. Every now and then you get a poll with monster AA numbers for Trump but most of the time it hovers around 5% ish.
Does anyone have any methodological insights into this?
We had the same in 08 and 12. The odd poll with a huge AA spike for the GOP candidate. Usually it was a small sample. This Florida poll of 500 will have had about 70 black voters with 17 opting for Trump. Occasionally such polls will throw up an outlier.
All of the large surveys of AA voters have Trump polling half of McCain and Romney's 5%.
The science and research industry in the UK will not be negatively affected by Brexit, Bill Gates has predicted.
Speaking during a plenary on leadership in science and innovation at the Grand Challenge Annual Meeting, the Microsoft founder added he believed there was already a stronger research relationship between the UK and the US, than between the UK and other European Union countries.
I don't understand the kerfuffle about this by-election. Letting Zac stand uncontested means he will likely win, then he can be welcomed back into the Tory party after the parliamentary LHR3 vote or a fresh GE, with his principles intact.
Standing against him divides the Tory vote and would hand the seat to the LDs. This is sensible from the Tories.
As for Ms May, she has her faults but she successfully steered herself, unopposed, to Number 10, by quietly watching all her enemies self-destruct. Politically she is astute.
Things have come to a pretty pass when it's SeanT who writes the sensible boring post, but this is exactly right. The PM didn't have much choice, and (given the likely position of the local party), she almost certainly had no choice.
Yes, it's my new persona. Boring sensible poster.
My new boring sensible opinion on Ms May is that she really is quite canny, and cunning, but she is also leading a divided party, facing an epochal challenge - with a tiny parliamentary majority.
She's a decent leader in a very difficult position. But if she can pull off a relatively pain-free Brexit, she'll go down as the greatest PM since Thatcher.
People like to have heroes and villains. Cameroons need someone to hate on because their man made a huge error.
Why on earth did he call a referendum? Madness.
Why did he resign? No one thought he had to.
We could still be the EU with David Cameron as our PM if it hadn't been for David Cameron.
No referendum pledge, no GE result.
That being the case he should have recognised Leave were going to win, and led the Leave campaign, this would have given three advantages
a) He would be running the leave referendum campaign so it could have been as immigration free, pro-free market as he liked
b) He would have won a thumping mandate of likely 70%+ to take to the EU to drive his negotiations forward
c) He would still be PM and would be able to run the negotiations any way he wanted and we would be in EEA/EFTA and Brexit in name only, very few remainers would have been that unhappy about the result, he would be riding high in the polls and a hero.
As it was his hubris has brought about the exact opposite of what he wanted.
He wanted to stay in the EU. Which renders much of the above moot.
I want lots of things I cant have, good sense is not ending up looking a fool by nailing your colours to the mast of a sinking ship.
She's a decent leader in a very difficult position. But if she can pull off a relatively pain-free Brexit, she'll go down as the greatest PM since Thatcher.
Not with all the Con REMAINERS on here. They're itching for her to fail at every turn!
In a sense Cameron proved Leave's point for it. Leave contended the British people didn;t have sovereignty, and Dave proved it, by the very act of asking for powers back.
If Dave had backed LEAVE, he would still be an MP and PM.
That's an arguable but very contentious counterfactual. At the very least it would have polarised the debate on left/right lines. It would have also made Remain a sort of anti establishment choice.
I would far rather an unprincipled pragmatist conduct the Brexit negotiations on our behalf, than a deeply principled naif.
May has spent her political career focusing on herself, as most politicians do. Having reached the top of the greasy poll, though, she now needs to focus on the country. It's understandable that she's currently dazzled in the headlights as she seeks to work out the seemingly unsolvable immigration/prosperity equation, but at some stage she does need to make call. Sustained uncertainty is not pragmatic, it is hugely damaging.
This demand is ridiculous. The British government cannot give away its negotiation strategy six months before the negotiations even begin. Quit your bitchin'
It's funny.
Those who demanded Cameron disclose what he would demand from the EU, now say Mrs May should not show her hand.
I'm starting to get interested in the AA polling the US election. Every now and then you get a poll with monster AA numbers for Trump but most of the time it hovers around 5% ish.
Does anyone have any methodological insights into this?
We had the same in 08 and 12. The odd poll with a huge AA spike for the GOP candidate. Usually it was a small sample. This Florida poll of 500 will have had about 70 black voters with 17 opting for Trump. Occasionally such polls will throw up an outlier.
All of the large surveys of AA voters have Trump polling half of McCain and Romney's 5%.
What happened to the Univision poll of Latino voters?
On the other hand, I wonder if we might see a sharp rise from the EU in particular, as those thinking of coming to Britain see that the drawbridge is about to be raised, and they make the leap.
I'd expect a drop in non-EU European migration (i.e. Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian). Anecdotally I know several people who've acquired UK passports and now feel cheated because their promised lifetime access to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk.
Its not a view that will find much sympathy with voters If for no other reason than the number of voters that go abroad any more than a couple of weeks a year on a package tour to the mediterranean is tiny, the number that have lived abroad even less.
I'm starting to get interested in the AA polling the US election. Every now and then you get a poll with monster AA numbers for Trump but most of the time it hovers around 5% ish.
Does anyone have any methodological insights into this?
We had the same in 08 and 12. The odd poll with a huge AA spike for the GOP candidate. Usually it was a small sample. This Florida poll of 500 will have had about 70 black voters with 17 opting for Trump. Occasionally such polls will throw up an outlier.
All of the large surveys of AA voters have Trump polling half of McCain and Romney's 5%.
So not his campaign's promises to fix the black community from all the shootings?
I would far rather an unprincipled pragmatist conduct the Brexit negotiations on our behalf, than a deeply principled naif.
May has spent her political career focusing on herself, as most politicians do. Having reached the top of the greasy poll, though, she now needs to focus on the country. It's understandable that she's currently dazzled in the headlights as she seeks to work out the seemingly unsolvable immigration/prosperity equation, but at some stage she does need to make call. Sustained uncertainty is not pragmatic, it is hugely damaging.
This demand is ridiculous. The British government cannot give away its negotiation strategy six months before the negotiations even begin. Quit your bitchin'
It's funny.
Those who demanded Cameron disclose what he would demand from the EU, now say Mrs May should not show her hand.
I don't care about the EU. I care about the single market.
It's shrinking as a part of world trade. The eastward expansion has been detrimental to us socially and has been of little apparent value economically.
It will only get worse with the accession of Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia....
The centre of gravity shifted fifteen/twenty years ago.
We have done the right thing, whatever the short term inconvenience for those particularly attached to the single market.
The eastping a single angle power dominating Europe. The idea extending the zone of free market liberal democracies on our own continent is detrimental to us is absurd.
You mean aside from it denuding places like Lithuania of a large chunk of its most able and educated people, comprising rather more than a third of its population, and the systematic asset stripping of exceptional talent from most of the eastern europe to provide cheap labour in the west.
" Denuded " ? " Asset Stripped " ? It's not the Atlantic Slave Trade we are talking about. The Four Freedoms were extended to them and some chose to use them. And if the brightest and best ( plus a few begging gangs ) of these countries choose to come and become richer and make us richer and repatriate a little earnings and make their home countries richer and become anglophone and anglophile before a chunk of them go back home then Hip Hip F*CKING HORRAY as far as I'm concerned.
There is almost zero evidence of them going home though, certainly not "a chunk". For a lot of people that is a problem (not me).
Also, there is zero evidence that the huge tide was about to abate. Far from it. Net migration from the EU has been rising for years, and was rising at the last count. 800,000 NI numbers were given out last year to non Brits. It was and is unsustainable, so the voters decided to not sustain it.
Assuming no more EU expansion for a bit, migration of EU citizens to the UK would almost certainly have abated. We've seen the same scenario many times before: an initial wave of migration that then slows and even reverses as the relative wealth of the countries equalises.
Also, to say that there's no evidence of them going home is oversimplifying the situation. In reality, migration is far more fluid with people arriving and returning all the time, even though the net figure remains positive. This is one way in which the source country also benefits from migration.
The science and research industry in the UK will not be negatively affected by Brexit, Bill Gates has predicted.
Speaking during a plenary on leadership in science and innovation at the Grand Challenge Annual Meeting, the Microsoft founder added he believed there was already a stronger research relationship between the UK and the US, than between the UK and other European Union countries.
I'm not convinced he does know what he is talking about here, although sector to sector will vary. The big advantage of the EU to us has been our ability to asset strip the best PhD and research level individuals from Europe and to gain access to the research budgets of some of the large European industrial groups.
This demand is ridiculous. The British government cannot give away its negotiation strategy six months before the negotiations even begin. Quit your bitchin'
We know something about it, so not really "given away". I think that's just to stop people drawing attention to just how empty it is. Calling it a "negotiation strategy" is a stretch. It's a contradictory mess of a partial shopping list where no-one has worked out the priorities or thought through the implications.
The EU may do something astonishing and say, let's go with it, we'll negotiate. More likely they'll say, come back when you have got yourselves organised. That's what they did to the Greek government.
I don't understand the kerfuffle about this by-election. Letting Zac stand uncontested means he will likely win, then he can be welcomed back into the Tory party after the parliamentary LHR3 vote or a fresh GE, with his principles intact.
Standing against him divides the Tory vote and would hand the seat to the LDs. This is sensible from the Tories.
As for Ms May, she has her faults but she successfully steered herself, unopposed, to Number 10, by quietly watching all her enemies self-destruct. Politically she is astute.
Things have come to a pretty pass when it's SeanT who writes the sensible boring post, but this is exactly right. The PM didn't have much choice, and (given the likely position of the local party), she almost certainly had no choice.
Yes, it's my new persona. Boring sensible poster.
My new boring sensible opinion on Ms May is that she really is quite canny, and cunning, but she is also leading a divided party, facing an epochal challenge - with a tiny parliamentary majority.
She's a decent leader in a very difficult position. But if she can pull off a relatively pain-free Brexit, she'll go down as the greatest PM since Thatcher.
People like to have heroes and villains. Cameroons need someone to hate on because their man made a huge error.
Why on earth did he call a referendum? Madness.
Why did he resign? No one thought he had to.
We could still be the EU with David Cameron as our PM if it hadn't been for David Cameron.
No referendum pledge, no GE result.
That being the case he should have recognised Leave were going to win, and led the Leave campaign, this would have given three advantages
a) He would be running the leave referendum campaign so it could have been as immigration free, pro-free market as he liked
b) He would have won a thumping mandate of likely 70%+ to take to the EU to drive his negotiations forward
c) He would still be PM and would be able to run the negotiations any way he wanted and we would be in EEA/EFTA and Brexit in name only, very few remainers would have been that unhappy about the result, he would be riding high in the polls and a hero.
As it was his hubris has brought about the exact opposite of what he wanted.
He should have stayed neutral, so much grief could have been avoided.
Mr. Jessop, worth recalling an early Clegg action that earnt him contempt was a whipped abstention on a vote to have a referendum on Lisbon, on the basis it was meaningless and the true vote (I think this was 2010 Lib Dem policy) was to have an In/Out referendum.
Interestingly, didn't Farron resign from the front bench over the vote over the referendum in 2008 or 9? He wanted one then, whilst Clegg wanted to abstain? (I hope, from memory).
No - Clegg was then arguing for an In/Out referendum, in order to avoid the issue of whether to support the Lisbon Treaty. He was therefore trying to get his MPs to abstain on the vote in support of the Lisbon Treaty. Farron resigned in order to vote for the Lisbon Treaty.
Which part of the shrivelling carcass of the EU is supposed to appeal to us?
I don't care about the EU. I care about the single market.
It's shrinking as a part of world trade. The eastward expansion has been detrimental to us socially and has been of little apparent value economically.
The eastping a single angle power dominating Europe. The idea extending the zone of free market liberal democracies on our own continent is detrimental to us is absurd.
You mean aside from it denuding places like Lithuania of a large chunk of its most able and educated people, comprising rather more than a third of its population, and the systematic asset stripping of exceptional talent from most of the eastern europe to provide cheap labour in the west.
" Denuded " ? " Asset Stripped " ? It's not the Atlantic Slave Trade we are talking about. The Four Freedoms were extended to them and some chose to use them. And if the brightest and best ( plus a few begging gangs ) of these countries choose to come and become richer and make us richer and repatriate a little earnings and make their home countries richer and become anglophone and anglophile before a chunk of them go back home then Hip Hip F*CKING HORRAY as far as I'm concerned.
There is almost zero evidence of them going home though, certainly not "a chunk". For a lot of people that is a problem (not me).
Also, there is zero evidence that the huge tide was about to abate. Far from it. Net migration from the EU has been rising for years, and was rising at the last count. 800,000 NI numbers were given out last year to non Brits. It was and is unsustainable, so the voters decided to not sustain it.
Yes you are quite right. Net migration has been rising steadily. I meant that there is considerable churn with EU migration. A significant minority do go home in anyone year. But I wasn't at all clear in my wording on that. And of course in terms of net population growth churn only reduces the rate if increase. As for your other points it's unarguable 52% - a majority voted to end FoM. As it happens I'd accept Tristan Hunt MP's description of post 2004 EU immigration as " a once in a thousand year event. " I think it's a price well worth paying for the overall package. However the scale of unusualness of it in an old country like England's history is very clear to me.
On the other hand, I wonder if we might see a sharp rise from the EU in particular, as those thinking of coming to Britain see that the drawbridge is about to be raised, and they make the leap.
I'd expect a drop in non-EU European migration (i.e. Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian). Anecdotally I know several people who've acquired UK passports and now feel cheated because their promised lifetime access to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk.
There are also more than a few people who've always had UK passports who feel cheated because their right since birth to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk!
On the other hand, I wonder if we might see a sharp rise from the EU in particular, as those thinking of coming to Britain see that the drawbridge is about to be raised, and they make the leap.
I'd expect a drop in non-EU European migration (i.e. Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian). Anecdotally I know several people who've acquired UK passports and now feel cheated because their promised lifetime access to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk.
There are also more than a few people who've always had UK passports who feel cheated because their right since birth to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk!
No matter what the new deal is, the barrier to movement will be higher than it currently is.
For a short term research contract, where the early post PhD salary is £30-£35k at best (and now 10% lower in euros), I suspect it will be more of a hindrance than you imagine.
The science and research industry in the UK will not be negatively affected by Brexit, Bill Gates has predicted.
Speaking during a plenary on leadership in science and innovation at the Grand Challenge Annual Meeting, the Microsoft founder added he believed there was already a stronger research relationship between the UK and the US, than between the UK and other European Union countries.
I'm not convinced he does know what he is talking about here, although sector to sector will vary. The big advantage of the EU to us has been our ability to asset strip the best PhD and research level individuals from Europe and to gain access to the research budgets of some of the large European industrial groups.
No one seeks to restrict the Free Movement of scientists or students. That's the UK's stated position. It would be odd if the EU unilaterally imposed its own restrictions on its own people, preventing them going to Cambridge?
I doubt much will change.
No. By far the more significant bits of Rudd's speech were crowded out by the ' Foreigner Lists ' row. The government is consulting on restricting which universities will have courses that qualify for Visas. We don't know that they will or if they do by how much. But... #1 Nick Timothy May's co chief of staff is on record as wanting to restrict it to Russell Group Unis. #2 May publiclly slapped down Hammond on students remaining in the net migration target.
On the other hand, I wonder if we might see a sharp rise from the EU in particular, as those thinking of coming to Britain see that the drawbridge is about to be raised, and they make the leap.
I'd expect a drop in non-EU European migration (i.e. Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian). Anecdotally I know several people who've acquired UK passports and now feel cheated because their promised lifetime access to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk.
There are also more than a few people who've always had UK passports who feel cheated because their right since birth to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk!
How often does one need to say this? Their right to live anywhere in Europe on benefits is going to go, nothing else. If they have a job offer, a university place, or money for retirement, or they simply want to travel, they will, almost certainly, still be able to live anywhere in Europe.
On the other hand, I wonder if we might see a sharp rise from the EU in particular, as those thinking of coming to Britain see that the drawbridge is about to be raised, and they make the leap.
I'd expect a drop in non-EU European migration (i.e. Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian). Anecdotally I know several people who've acquired UK passports and now feel cheated because their promised lifetime access to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk.
There are also more than a few people who've always had UK passports who feel cheated because their right since birth to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk!
How often does one need to say this? Their right to live anywhere in Europe on benefits is going to go, nothing else. If they have a job offer, a university place, or money for retirement, or they simply want to travel, they will, almost certainly, still be able to live anywhere in Europe.
Yes well I personally would be very happy with that assuming it's reciprocal - but you are assuming a version of soft brexit there, which we may like but is not nailed on by any means.
On the other hand, I wonder if we might see a sharp rise from the EU in particular, as those thinking of coming to Britain see that the drawbridge is about to be raised, and they make the leap.
I'd expect a drop in non-EU European migration (i.e. Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian). Anecdotally I know several people who've acquired UK passports and now feel cheated because their promised lifetime access to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk.
There are also more than a few people who've always had UK passports who feel cheated because their right since birth to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk!
How often does one need to say this? Their right to live anywhere in Europe on benefits is going to go, nothing else. If they have a job offer, a university place, or money for retirement, or they simply want to travel, they will, almost certainly, still be able to live anywhere in Europe.
It may be sentimental nonsense, but having 'European Union' on your passport actually means something to some people.
"Whilst it is possible that Mr Woolfe could have been pushed through the door by Mr Hookem, there is no evidence to confirm this," the report says.
A "small number of members" said they had seen Mr Woolfe strike the back of his head on a ledge immediately beneath large glass panels which lined the wall of the meeting room. They confirmed that the force of this impact was sufficient to "make them wince".
Both men then continued with the meeting before Mr Woolfe left at about 10.20.
At about midday, he collapsed while crossing a connecting bridge within the European Parliament.
The report says Mr Woolfe had told UKIP he suffered extradural haematoma, two seizures and a contusion.
It adds: "The investigation finds it reasonable to believe that the hospitalisation of Mr Woolfe was as a result of the blow he took to the back of his head, due to his fall."
The report finds that "Mr Woolfe instigated the altercation" by offering to deal with it "man to man" and it is "reasonable to assume" he meant to have a "physical altercation".
For his part, Mr Hookem "failed to give due consideration to the reputation of the party when deciding to accept Mr Woolfe's suggestion".
The party has placed a "formal reprimand" on Mr Hookem's record, "to be considered in the event of a reoccurrence of any infraction which might cause damage to the reputation of the party".
It adds that it now considers the matter "closed".
On the other hand, I wonder if we might see a sharp rise from the EU in particular, as those thinking of coming to Britain see that the drawbridge is about to be raised, and they make the leap.
I'd expect a drop in non-EU European migration (i.e. Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian). Anecdotally I know several people who've acquired UK passports and now feel cheated because their promised lifetime access to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk.
There are also more than a few people who've always had UK passports who feel cheated because their right since birth to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk!
I agree. I'm distraught. EU Citizenship is much more than a turbo charged work or residency visa. The non discrimination rights that go with it are hugely powerful to sustaining a life in another country.
There is almost zero evidence of them going home though, certainly not "a chunk". For a lot of people that is a problem (not me).
Also, there is zero evidence that the huge tide was about to abate. Far from it. Net migration from the EU has been rising for years, and was rising at the last count. 800,000 NI numbers were given out last year to non Brits. It was and is unsustainable, so the voters decided to not sustain it.
That's actually not true.
For Ireland and Spain, there is already negative net migration to the UK - as those economies have recovered, fewer Spaniards and Irish are heading here, and more are heading home.
We have seen a surge in EU immigration to the UK thanks to Bulgarians and Romanians; I suspect the net migration numbers from the rest of the EU are meaningfully lower than they have been. (The numbers are available, and if I wasn't busy, I'd run them...)
I hold by my (strong) belief that net migration to the UK will turn negative in the next five years. Partly because I think there will be a real clamping down on migration generally. Partly because there are a lot of people who are monthly workers with families back in Eastern Europe, who are now earning 25% less than they used to. Partly because there are lots of 20-26 year old Europeans who came here for fun, not for ever. And partly because the UK economy looks increasingly likely to have a slowdown in the next couple of years.
I'm starting to get interested in the AA polling the US election. Every now and then you get a poll with monster AA numbers for Trump but most of the time it hovers around 5% ish.
Does anyone have any methodological insights into this?
We had the same in 08 and 12. The odd poll with a huge AA spike for the GOP candidate. Usually it was a small sample. This Florida poll of 500 will have had about 70 black voters with 17 opting for Trump. Occasionally such polls will throw up an outlier.
All of the large surveys of AA voters have Trump polling half of McCain and Romney's 5%.
No they don't, the idea Hillary is polling better than Obama with African Americans is absurd. Trump is certainly polling better with African American men than Romney or McCain
The science and research industry in the UK will not be negatively affected by Brexit, Bill Gates has predicted.
Speaking during a plenary on leadership in science and innovation at the Grand Challenge Annual Meeting, the Microsoft founder added he believed there was already a stronger research relationship between the UK and the US, than between the UK and other European Union countries.
I'm not convinced he does know what he is talking about here, although sector to sector will vary. The big advantage of the EU to us has been our ability to asset strip the best PhD and research level individuals from Europe and to gain access to the research budgets of some of the large European industrial groups.
I thought the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was one of the biggest commissioners of scientific research in history, surely they must have at least a passing familiarity with the issues.
I have read some crap in my time but the absolute bollox from the frothers re imaginary Scottish budgets and revenue in an imaginary independent Scotland really shows how thick and ill informed posters on here are.
On the other hand, I wonder if we might see a sharp rise from the EU in particular, as those thinking of coming to Britain see that the drawbridge is about to be raised, and they make the leap.
I'd expect a drop in non-EU European migration (i.e. Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian). Anecdotally I know several people who've acquired UK passports and now feel cheated because their promised lifetime access to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk.
There are also more than a few people who've always had UK passports who feel cheated because their right since birth to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk!
And up until the referendum there were plenty of people who've always had British passports who felt cheated because they thought they would enjoy certain advantages in this country over citizens of other countries.
I've always been fascinated by political reinventions. Reading this old Mark Steyn piece, it's amazing to think that this is the same Theresa May now being fawned over by hard-right Tories and Kippers alike:
On the other hand, I wonder if we might see a sharp rise from the EU in particular, as those thinking of coming to Britain see that the drawbridge is about to be raised, and they make the leap.
I'd expect a drop in non-EU European migration (i.e. Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian). Anecdotally I know several people who've acquired UK passports and now feel cheated because their promised lifetime access to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk.
There are also more than a few people who've always had UK passports who feel cheated because their right since birth to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk!
And up until the referendum there were plenty of people who've always had British passports who felt cheated because they thought they would enjoy certain advantages in this country over citizens of other countries.
They did - the right to vote in GEs and referendums being a case in point (a right anomalously extended to Commonwealth citizens too).
On the other hand, I wonder if we might see a sharp rise from the EU in particular, as those thinking of coming to Britain see that the drawbridge is about to be raised, and they make the leap.
I'd expect a drop in non-EU European migration (i.e. Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian). Anecdotally I know several people who've acquired UK passports and now feel cheated because their promised lifetime access to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk.
There are also more than a few people who've always had UK passports who feel cheated because their right since birth to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk!
How often does one need to say this? Their right to live anywhere in Europe on benefits is going to go, nothing else. If they have a job offer, a university place, or money for retirement, or they simply want to travel, they will, almost certainly, still be able to live anywhere in Europe.
On the other hand, I wonder if we might see a sharp rise from the EU in particular, as those thinking of coming to Britain see that the drawbridge is about to be raised, and they make the leap.
I'd expect a drop in non-EU European migration (i.e. Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian). Anecdotally I know several people who've acquired UK passports and now feel cheated because their promised lifetime access to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk.
There are also more than a few people who've always had UK passports who feel cheated because their right since birth to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk!
How often does one need to say this? Their right to live anywhere in Europe on benefits is going to go, nothing else. If they have a job offer, a university place, or money for retirement, or they simply want to travel, they will, almost certainly, still be able to live anywhere in Europe.
Yes well I personally would be very happy with that assuming it's reciprocal - but you are assuming a version of soft brexit there, which we may like but is not nailed on by any means.
If you have a job offer, a university place, or money for retirement, or they simply want to travel you can get a visa to the vast majority of countries in the world, many of them by mail. Very few countries turn away profitable contributors, people who intend on being a burden to their country, not so much.
I'm starting to get interested in the AA polling the US election. Every now and then you get a poll with monster AA numbers for Trump but most of the time it hovers around 5% ish.
Does anyone have any methodological insights into this?
Someone said to me African American subsamples are like Scottish subsamples in GB wide polls.
Every so often they'll throw out a result that will make you laugh/go wow.
Dilemna
Bake off final.
I should back Andrew but Candice gives me the horn
No matter what the new deal is, the barrier to movement will be higher than it currently is.
For a short term research contract, where the early post PhD salary is £30-£35k at best (and now 10% lower in euros), I suspect it will be more of a hindrance than you imagine.
I disagree. The government has specifically said it is targetting unskilled or low skilled migration. Researchers with Phds are not low-skilled.
If the government does put up barriers to scientists then I will be the first to call them fucking idiots.
I suspect there will be a bit more paperwork for incoming academics and researchers (yes, the irony) but that's about it.
Last year net migration to the UK was c.300K. The governments restated target is 99.9k pa. Baring an economic down turn the only only way to meet that figure is to stop 200K people a year coming here a year who want to. Ending all EU migration in it's entirety , letting not one in, wouldn't have met the target last year. I'm not saying it's not possible. It's perfectly possible. I just don't buy the ' oh not much will change ' line. A 2/3rds cut in immigration is a huge change.
No matter what the new deal is, the barrier to movement will be higher than it currently is.
For a short term research contract, where the early post PhD salary is £30-£35k at best (and now 10% lower in euros), I suspect it will be more of a hindrance than you imagine.
I disagree. The government has specifically said it is targetting unskilled or low skilled migration. Researchers with Phds are not low-skilled.
If the government does put up barriers to scientists then I will be the first to call them fucking idiots.
I suspect there will be a bit more paperwork for incoming academics and researchers (yes, the irony) but that's about it.
You are easily led if you think those dullards could control anything. Best outcome will be blocking of skilled peopel and waves of low skilled economic migrants , illegals etc etc. Benefits bill will explode.
The eastping a single angle power dominating Europe. The idea extending the zone of free market liberal democracies on our own continent is detrimental to us is absurd.
You mean aside from it denuding places like Lithuania of a large chunk of its most able and educated people, comprising rather more than a third of its population, and the systematic asset stripping of exceptional talent from most of the eastern europe to provide cheap labour in the west.
" Deile before a chunk of them go back home then Hip Hip F*CKING HORRAY as far as I'm concerned.
There is almost zero evidence of them going home though, certainly not "a chunk". For a lot of people that is a problem (not me).
Also, there is zero evidence that the huge tide was about to abate. Far from it. Net migration from the EU has been rising for years, and was rising at the last count. 800,000 NI numbers were given out last year to non Brits. It was and is unsustainable, so the voters decided to not sustain it.
Assuming no more EU expansion for a bit, migration of EU citizens to the UK would almost certainly have abated. We've seen the same scenario many times before: an initial wave of migration that then slows and even reverses as the relative wealth of the countries equalises.
Also, to say that there's no evidence of them going home is oversimplifying the situation. In reality, migration is far more fluid with people arriving and returning all the time, even though the net figure remains positive. This is one way in which the source country also benefits from migration.
The "experts" have been predicting that the EU migrant numbers are "going to fall" for about a decade. The same experts also predicted 13,000 would come from Poland et al, unlike the million that actually arrived. Unsurprisingly, the voters have stopped believing them.
I don't believe them. The euro crisis is still chronic. If we'd stayed in the EU we could have faced another decade of mass unchecked migration, 400,000 a year, 500,000 - who knows. Not politically feasible.
While it's true that immigration from Eastern European countries was indeed badly underestimated, migration from the A8 countries has already started to tail off. Immigration from Romania and Bulgaria would also have started to tail off in the next few years, regardless of Brexit. This isn't a prediction by experts; it is simply extrapolating historical precedent.
On the other hand, I wonder if we might see a sharp rise from the EU in particular, as those thinking of coming to Britain see that the drawbridge is about to be raised, and they make the leap.
I'd expect a drop in non-EU European migration (i.e. Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian). Anecdotally I know several people who've acquired UK passports and now feel cheated because their promised lifetime access to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk.
There are also more than a few people who've always had UK passports who feel cheated because their right since birth to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk!
I agree. I'm distraught. EU Citizenship is much more than a turbo charged work or residency visa. The non discrimination rights that go with it are hugely powerful to sustaining a life in another country.
From my point of view, EU citizenship was an imposition. It was not something I ever wanted, or welcomed.
Afternoon all just perusing The Times...£84bn hole in public finances...GM maybe moving production of the Vauxhall Astra abroad...and Dublin making a play for the European Medicines Agency and Banking Authority.
What empowering, sovereignty-boosting reading.
Nissan walked out of a Face to Face meeting with the PM at Downing St with " the assurances I needed. " so no surprise GM will cash in as well. The first big manufacturer to announce they are pulling out *pre* Brexit will trigger a run on the £ and a political crisis. It's Corporate Welfare Christmas. Tata Steel got a £2bn promise by timing it's " closure " announcement pre referendum. " Take Back Control " my fat hairy backside.
EVERYTHING we have seen so far is positioning, a series of feints and bluffs. The banks threaten to quit so they get a better deal, the car companies, ditto, and so on, and so forth.
soon everyone will have a special deal and we will be paying both the EU charges and teh special deals, increased migration and the Tories will be very very popular indeed.
There is almost zero evidence of them going home though, certainly not "a chunk". For a lot of people that is a problem (not me).
Also, there is zero evidence that the huge tide was about to abate. Far from it. Net migration from the EU has been rising for years, and was rising at the last count. 800,000 NI numbers were given out last year to non Brits. It was and is unsustainable, so the voters decided to not sustain it.
That's actually not true.
For Ireland and Spain, there is already negative net migration to the UK - as those economies have recovered, fewer Spaniards and Irish are heading here, and more are heading home.
We have seen a surge in EU immigration to the UK thanks to Bulgarians and Romanians; I suspect the net migration numbers from the rest of the EU are meaningfully lower than they have been. (The numbers are available, and if I wasn't busy, I'd run them...)
I hold by my (strong) belief that net migration to the UK will turn negative in the next five years. Partly because I think there will be a real clamping down on migration generally. Partly because there are a lot of people who are monthly workers with families back in Eastern Europe, who are now earning 25% less than they used to. Partly because there are lots of 20-26 year old Europeans who came here for fun, not for ever. And partly because the UK economy looks increasingly likely to have a slowdown in the next couple of years.
Migration from Romania and Bulgaria is rising, it's about level from the A8 (Poland etc), it's rising very strongly from the original EU14.
When you say EU14 is rising, what you mean is "rose sharply between 2010 and 2014, but has now flattened out", with the annual rate going from 79,000 in 2014 and 2015 to 78,000 now.
The EU2 (Bulgaria and Romania) has gone from almost nothing in 2012, to 59,000 (annual rate) in 2016. Those two (small) countries account for almost as much net migration as the EU14.
The EU8 had net migration above 50,000 in every year before 2007, but has been below in every year since, and is now running at less than half (40,000 vs 87,000) the rate it was at in 2007.
Total EU net migration is 180,000 a year right now, only a smidgen off last year's 184,000. I'll wager you £1,000 that it will be below 150,000 next year if you like.
What's all this standing aside crap about? There's a by-election, every party should be fielding a candidate. Especially so, given that the resigning MP is standing as an independent having quit his party.
It would be like the Tories not contesting the Rochester & Strood by election when Mark Reckless defected.
Shameful from Mrs May.
Don't be silly.
It's a simply tactical decision.
Best outcome (for May) is a loyal backbencher Second best is Zac Worst is a LibDem
Big risk if you field your own candidate that you get the worst outcome (splitting the vote) - it would also have to be a pro Heathrow candidate (otherwise what's the point) and therefore almost certain to get mullered.
Therefore reluctantly going for B is the best option. Cost is, of course, the risk of messaging to other backbenchers that they can rebel. But I think you can present this as a special case - he had made a promise to resign. If anyone else tries it you come down on them like a ton of bricks (and it's unlikely they would be in such a unique position from a tactical perspective)
On the other hand, I wonder if we might see a sharp rise from the EU in particular, as those thinking of coming to Britain see that the drawbridge is about to be raised, and they make the leap.
I'd expect a drop in non-EU European migration (i.e. Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian). Anecdotally I know several people who've acquired UK passports and now feel cheated because their promised lifetime access to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk.
There are also more than a few people who've always had UK passports who feel cheated because their right since birth to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk!
How often does one need to say this? Their right to live anywhere in Europe on benefits is going to go, nothing else. If they have a job offer, a university place, or money for retirement, or they simply want to travel, they will, almost certainly, still be able to live anywhere in Europe.
It may be sentimental nonsense, but having 'European Union' on your passport actually means something to some people.
Unfortunately for you, it only means something to about 5-10% of Brits. Sorry. You are still free to move to the EU before we leave it. Maybe seize the moment?
Indeed. They are an extreme but vocal minority. Thankfully the vast majority of this country do not share their dream of destroying the nation state.
Thinking about Zac, he's got a few problems (that may or may not) be serious:
"Mr Goldsmith, you are running as an Independent, but were previously a Conservative, were the Conservative Mayoral candidate, and have no opposition from an official Conservative candidate. Can you confirm you will not be the Conservative candidate in 2020?"
It's a tough one for him. "No, I can't" = I'm an Independent solely to avoid losing this seat. "Yes, I can" = I have no political ambition other than being the Richmond Park MP.
I haven't thought about it. I want to focus on what matters to my constituents and that is this awful decision on Heathrow etc etc
No they don't, the idea Hillary is polling better than Obama with African Americans is absurd. Trump is certainly polling better with African American men than Romney or McCain
No matter what the new deal is, the barrier to movement will be higher than it currently is.
For a short term research contract, where the early post PhD salary is £30-£35k at best (and now 10% lower in euros), I suspect it will be more of a hindrance than you imagine.
I disagree. The government has specifically said it is targetting unskilled or low skilled migration. Researchers with Phds are not low-skilled.
If the government does put up barriers to scientists then I will be the first to call them fucking idiots.
I suspect there will be a bit more paperwork for incoming academics and researchers (yes, the irony) but that's about it.
Last year net migration to the UK was c.300K. The governments restated target is 99.9k pa. Baring an economic down turn the only only way to meet that figure is to stop 200K people a year coming here a year who want to. Ending all EU migration in it's entirety , letting not one in, wouldn't have met the target last year. I'm not saying it's not possible. It's perfectly possible. I just don't buy the ' oh not much will change ' line. A 2/3rds cut in immigration is a huge change.
Net migration, excluding Brits, was 370,000. Including Brits going abroad, it was 327,000.
We will have a more than 100% change in net migration over the next five years.
On the other hand, I wonder if we might see a sharp rise from the EU in particular, as those thinking of coming to Britain see that the drawbridge is about to be raised, and they make the leap.
I'd expect a drop in non-EU European migration (i.e. Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian). Anecdotally I know several people who've acquired UK passports and now feel cheated because their promised lifetime access to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk.
There are also more than a few people who've always had UK passports who feel cheated because their right since birth to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk!
I agree. I'm distraught. EU Citizenship is much more than a turbo charged work or residency visa. The non discrimination rights that go with it are hugely powerful to sustaining a life in another country.
From my point of view, EU citizenship was an imposition. It was not something I ever wanted, or welcomed.
I'm sure far more people in the UK feel like you rather than me. It's also a relatively recent concept. Nevertheless ideally Britons who held it on 23/6 would be able to go opt into keeping it. Though that's not practical and won't happen.
No matter what the new deal is, the barrier to movement will be higher than it currently is.
For a short term research contract, where the early post PhD salary is £30-£35k at best (and now 10% lower in euros), I suspect it will be more of a hindrance than you imagine.
I disagree. The government has specifically said it is targetting unskilled or low skilled migration. Researchers with Phds are not low-skilled.
If the government does put up barriers to scientists then I will be the first to call them fucking idiots.
I suspect there will be a bit more paperwork for incoming academics and researchers (yes, the irony) but that's about it.
Last year net migration to the UK was c.300K. The governments restated target is 99.9k pa. Baring an economic down turn the only only way to meet that figure is to stop 200K people a year coming here a year who want to. Ending all EU migration in it's entirety , letting not one in, wouldn't have met the target last year. I'm not saying it's not possible. It's perfectly possible. I just don't buy the ' oh not much will change ' line. A 2/3rds cut in immigration is a huge change.
Net migration is a bit of a bogus figure as it assumes that the spending power and drain on resources of the one out to the one in is the same.
What's better for the economy - 4 retired pensioners with a large bank balance, BUPA coverage enjoying their twilight abroad or a low skilled worker with a non English speaking wife and 2 kids who need education, healthcare etc.
The eastping a single angle power dominating Europe. The idea extending the zone of free market liberal democracies on our own continent is detrimental to us is absurd.
You mean aside from it denuding places like Lithuania of a large chunk of its most able and educated people, comprising rather more than a third of its population, and the systematic asset stripping of exceptional talent from most of the eastern europe to provide cheap labour in the west.
" Deile before a chunk of them go back home then Hip Hip F*CKING HORRAY as far as I'm concerned.
Then out last year to non Brits. It was and is unsustainable, so the voters decided to not sustain it.
Assuming no more EU expansion for a bit, migration of EU citizens to the UK would almost certainly have abated. We've seen the same scenario many times before: an initial wave of migration that then slows and even reverses as the relative wealth of the countries equalises.
Also, to say that there's no evidence of them going home is oversimplifying the situation. In reality, migration is far more fluid with people arriving and returning all the time, even though the net figure remains positive. This is one way in which the source country also benefits from migration.
The "eade of mass unchecked migration, 400,000 a year, 500,000 - who knows. Not politically feasible.
While it's true that immigration from Eastern European countries was indeed badly underestimated, migration from the A8 countries has already started to tail off. Immigration from Romania and Bulgaria would also have started to tail off in the next few years, regardless of Brexit. This isn't a prediction by experts; it is simply extrapolating historical precedent.
If you look at the stats the recent unexpected surge in EU migration has, in fact, come from the original EU 14. It's gone from about 50,000 a year in 1991, to 75,000 in 2007, and its leapt to nearly 150,000 a year since the crash. And it hasn't budged from that for several quarters.
The historical precedent here is eurogeddon. Given that eurogeddon is ongoing, and there is little or zero growth in much of southern Europe, its likely this migration would continue for quite a while. Except, Brexit.
The Tory decision to stand aside is bizarre and stupid. It gives free rein to other MPs to do just as Goldsmith has. Labour just wants to avoid another hugely embarrassing wipeout.
It's not, when you think about it.
Zac promised at the 2015 general election that he would resign and fight a by-election if the government backed LHR3 - as it now has, and as he has.
If his threat to do so was so unacceptable, he should never have been approved as a Conservative candidate. On the other hand, if that threat was acceptable, then it follows that the party ought to tolerate the inevitable consequence should the circumstances come about.
In fact, not only was Goldsmith approved as a candidate for 2015 but he was further honoured by the party when it chose him to be the London mayoral candidate; one of the most high-profile positions in the party.
The reality is that whether he's taking the Conservative whip or not, he'll still vote pretty much exactly the same either way so in terms of the government's majority, it makes virtually no difference. How he goes about winning a nomination for 2020 is a different matter. I doubt he'd get a second clear run.
On the other hand, I wonder if we might see a sharp rise from the EU in particular, as those thinking of coming to Britain see that the drawbridge is about to be raised, and they make the leap.
I'd expect a drop in non-EU European migration (i.e. Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian). Anecdotally I know several people who've acquired UK passports and now feel cheated because their promised lifetime access to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk.
There are also more than a few people who've always had UK passports who feel cheated because their right since birth to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk!
How often does one need to say this? Their right to live anywhere in Europe on benefits is going to go, nothing else. If they have a job offer, a university place, or money for retirement, or they simply want to travel, they will, almost certainly, still be able to live anywhere in Europe.
It may be sentimental nonsense, but having 'European Union' on your passport actually means something to some people.
Unfortunately for you, it only means something to about 5-10% of Brits. Sorry. You are still free to move to the EU before we leave it. Maybe seize the moment?
Indeed. They are an extreme but vocal minority. Thankfully the vast majority of this country do not share their dream of destroying the nation state.
European Citizenship is held via national Citizenship. Noone is a Citizen of the European Union alone.
Mr. Jessop, worth recalling an early Clegg action that earnt him contempt was a whipped abstention on a vote to have a referendum on Lisbon, on the basis it was meaningless and the true vote (I think this was 2010 Lib Dem policy) was to have an In/Out referendum.
Interestingly, didn't Farron resign from the front bench over the vote over the referendum in 2008 or 9? He wanted one then, whilst Clegg wanted to abstain? (I hope, from memory).
No - Clegg was then arguing for an In/Out referendum, in order to avoid the issue of whether to support the Lisbon Treaty. He was therefore trying to get his MPs to abstain on the vote in support of the Lisbon Treaty. Farron resigned in order to vote for the Lisbon Treaty.
On the other hand, I wonder if we might see a sharp rise from the EU in particular, as those thinking of coming to Britain see that the drawbridge is about to be raised, and they make the leap.
I'd expect a drop in non-EU European migration (i.e. Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian). Anecdotally I know several people who've acquired UK passports and now feel cheated because their promised lifetime access to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk.
There are also more than a few people who've always had UK passports who feel cheated because their right since birth to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk!
How often does one need to say this? Their right to live anywhere in Europe on benefits is going to go, nothing else. If they have a job offer, a university place, or money for retirement, or they simply want to travel, they will, almost certainly, still be able to live anywhere in Europe.
It may be sentimental nonsense, but having 'European Union' on your passport actually means something to some people.
Unfortunately for you, it only means something to about 5-10% of Brits. Sorry. You are still free to move to the EU before we leave it. Maybe seize the moment?
Indeed. They are an extreme but vocal minority. Thankfully the vast majority of this country do not share their dream of destroying the nation state.
European Citizenship is held via national Citizenship. Noone is a Citizen of the European Union alone.
It was yet another example of creeping federalism.
No matter what the new deal is, the barrier to movement will be higher than it currently is.
For a short term research contract, where the early post PhD salary is £30-£35k at best (and now 10% lower in euros), I suspect it will be more of a hindrance than you imagine.
I disagree. The government has specifically said it is targetting unskilled or low skilled migration. Researchers with Phds are not low-skilled.
If the government does put up barriers to scientists then I will be the first to call them fucking idiots.
I suspect there will be a bit more paperwork for incoming academics and researchers (yes, the irony) but that's about it.
Last year net migration to the UK was c.300K. The governments restated target is 99.9k pa. Baring an economic down turn the only only way to meet that figure is to stop 200K people a year coming here a year who want to. Ending all EU migration in it's entirety , letting not one in, wouldn't have met the target last year. I'm not saying it's not possible. It's perfectly possible. I just don't buy the ' oh not much will change ' line. A 2/3rds cut in immigration is a huge change.
I don't believe TMay will get close to her tens of thousands figure. Note how she has been careful to say "It will take time"
I reckon she'll get it under 200,000, perhaps as low as 150,000, perhaps more by luck than skill (because of the slowing economy, etc), - and that will satisfy voters. She will be able to say "we halved net migration". It'll do.
It'll do for the Tories. It won't do for Labour who probably won't ever win another election because their core voters are so unhappy about the levels of immigration over the last 20 years.
No matter what the new deal is, the barrier to movement will be higher than it currently is.
For a short term research contract, where the early post PhD salary is £30-£35k at best (and now 10% lower in euros), I suspect it will be more of a hindrance than you imagine.
I disagree. The government has specifically said it is targetting unskilled or low skilled migration. Researchers with Phds are not low-skilled.
If the government does put up barriers to scientists then I will be the first to call them fucking idiots.
I suspect there will be a bit more paperwork for incoming academics and researchers (yes, the irony) but that's about it.
Last year net migration to the UK was c.300K. The governments restated target is 99.9k pa. Baring an economic down turn the only only way to meet that figure is to stop 200K people a year coming here a year who want to. Ending all EU migration in it's entirety , letting not one in, wouldn't have met the target last year. I'm not saying it's not possible. It's perfectly possible. I just don't buy the ' oh not much will change ' line. A 2/3rds cut in immigration is a huge change.
Net migration is a bit of a bogus figure as it assumes that the spending power and drain on resources of the one out to the one in is the same.
What's better for the economy - 4 retired pensioners with a large bank balance, BUPA coverage enjoying their twilight abroad or a low skilled worker with a non English speaking wife and 2 kids who need education, healthcare etc.
Oh I agree completely. And at a subconscious level so do the voters. Leave knew exactly what it was doing by going on Turks ( non EU, Brown, Muslims ) rather than the Polish Plumber. Ditto Farage's genius ' Breaking Point ' poster using refugees to reference the ' Britain isn't working ' classic.
Which prominent Remainer politician do you think said this in the last few weeks.
"Unhelpful belligerency" in Brussels about the Brexit vote and "obduracy" on the subject of FOM "could bring the EU down".
Also if the EU Commission did not re-examine itself "the sick man of Europe would end up being Europe itself".
Particular criticism was directed at Mr Juncker for lacking "the capacity" to understand the effects of his words on British public opinion.
Interestingly, one of the reasons this politician says Britain never became attached to the European ideal is because "the legal system and constitutional culture is so different" and went on to attack the "huge transfers of power to the centre without popular consent".
Yes, I did say this was a prominent Remainer politician.
Funny how the idea of building a runway over the top of the M25 has only emerged today.
I believe it was part of the original proposals submitted to the commission. I think the difference today is they are talking about slightly elevating the runway, rather than boring a tunnel for the motorway.
What's all this standing aside crap about? There's a by-election, every party should be fielding a candidate. Especially so, given that the resigning MP is standing as an independent having quit his party.
It would be like the Tories not contesting the Rochester & Strood by election when Mark Reckless defected.
Shameful from Mrs May.
Don't be silly.
From your lips to god's ear.....
TSE is just upset that he won't be able to write a 'May must resign' thread after the bye-election.....
On the other hand, I wonder if we might see a sharp rise from the EU in particular, as those thinking of coming to Britain see that the drawbridge is about to be raised, and they make the leap.
I'd expect a drop in non-EU European migration (i.e. Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian). Anecdotally I know several people who've acquired UK passports and now feel cheated because their promised lifetime access to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk.
There are also more than a few people who've always had UK passports who feel cheated because their right since birth to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk!
I agree. I'm distraught. EU Citizenship is much more than a turbo charged work or residency visa. The non discrimination rights that go with it are hugely powerful to sustaining a life in another country.
From my point of view, EU citizenship was an imposition. It was not something I ever wanted, or welcomed.
Indeed. It wasn't a die in the last ditch thing by any means, but the way the "European Union" appeared on passports post Maastricht or the flag on driving licences was just bloody annoying. Imposing symbols in the hope it would engender some sort of faux "Europeaness". Backfired with many of us. Glad they will presumably be phased out.
The Lib Dem candidate needs to clarify what her position is on Israel and anti-Semitism. Deeply worrying to see her happily associating with the odious Jenny Tonge. I would be very surprised if she was unaware of what bile Tonge has been spouting over the years.
No matter what the new deal is, the barrier to movement will be higher than it currently is.
For a short term research contract, where the early post PhD salary is £30-£35k at best (and now 10% lower in euros), I suspect it will be more of a hindrance than you imagine.
I disagree. The government has specifically said it is targetting unskilled or low skilled migration. Researchers with Phds are not low-skilled.
If the government does put up barriers to scientists then I will be the first to call them fucking idiots.
I suspect there will be a bit more paperwork for incoming academics and researchers (yes, the irony) but that's about it.
Last year net migration to the UK was c.300K. The governments restated target is 99.9k pa. Baring an economic down turn the only only way to meet that figure is to stop 200K people a year coming here a year who want to. Ending all EU migration in it's entirety , letting not one in, wouldn't have met the target last year. I'm not saying it's not possible. It's perfectly possible. I just don't buy the ' oh not much will change ' line. A 2/3rds cut in immigration is a huge change.
Net migration, excluding Brits, was 370,000. Including Brits going abroad, it was 327,000.
We will have a more than 100% change in net migration over the next five years.
If the EU represents only 20% of the world then if EU immigrants are on the same basis as others then net inward migration from the EU could reduce to 30,000 and the total to 150,000 non EU plus 30,000 EU.
I live in Richmond Park and I will vote Lib Dem in the by-election to defeat a silver spooned toff with scant regard for the cost to the taxpayer. It is all just a game to Goldsmith. What does he hope to achieve? Anything short than a bigger majority than in 2015 will be a repudiation. So Goldsmith has to get 23,000 plus to come out of this with his dignity in tact!
No matter what the new deal is, the barrier to movement will be higher than it currently is.
For a short term research contract, where the early post PhD salary is £30-£35k at best (and now 10% lower in euros), I suspect it will be more of a hindrance than you imagine.
I disagree. The government has specifically said it is targetting unskilled or low skilled migration. Researchers with Phds are not low-skilled.
If the government does put up barriers to scientists then I will be the first to call them fucking idiots.
I suspect there will be a bit more paperwork for incoming academics and researchers (yes, the irony) but that's about it.
Last year net migration to the UK was c.300K. The governments restated target is 99.9k pa. Baring an economic down turn the only only way to meet that figure is to stop 200K people a year coming here a year who want to. Ending all EU migration in it's entirety , letting not one in, wouldn't have met the target last year. I'm not saying it's not possible. It's perfectly possible. I just don't buy the ' oh not much will change ' line. A 2/3rds cut in immigration is a huge change.
Net migration is a bit of a bogus figure as it assumes that the spending power and drain on resources of the one out to the one in is the same.
What's better for the economy - 4 retired pensioners with a large bank balance, BUPA coverage enjoying their twilight abroad or a low skilled worker with a non English speaking wife and 2 kids who need education, healthcare etc.
Oh I agree completely. And at a subconscious level so do the voters. Leave knew exactly what it was doing by going on Turks ( non EU, Brown, Muslims ) rather than the Polish Plumber. Ditto Farage's genius ' Breaking Point ' poster using refugees to reference the ' Britain isn't working ' classic.
I've never met a brown Turkish person.
I worked on two pieces of well known social research in the months preceding both the 2015 GE and 2016 Referendum and concerns expressed by respondents about the calibre and volume of immigration (one of the research topics) seemed to be pretty colourblind to me.
The over-riding attitude amongst nearly all was - must speak English, must integrate, must be independent, should be skilled. And that was the view of white and brown respondents.
I live in Richmond Park and I will vote Lib Dem in the by-election to defeat a silver spooned toff with scant regard for the cost to the taxpayer. It is all just a game to Goldsmith. What does he hope to achieve? Anything short than a bigger majority than in 2015 will be a repudiation. So Goldsmith has to get 23,000 plus to come out of this with his dignity in tact!
Turnout will be down, that's guaranteed. Vote share percent, or the majority in percent is a better indicator.
Comments
All of the large surveys of AA voters have Trump polling half of McCain and Romney's 5%.
The science and research industry in the UK will not be negatively affected by Brexit, Bill Gates has predicted.
Speaking during a plenary on leadership in science and innovation at the Grand Challenge Annual Meeting, the Microsoft founder added he believed there was already a stronger research relationship between the UK and the US, than between the UK and other European Union countries.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-10-26/bill-gates-brexit-will-not-affect-science-and-research/
Those who demanded Cameron disclose what he would demand from the EU, now say Mrs May should not show her hand.
And vice versa.
Clinton 43 .. Trump 37
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/IPSOSNAT.pdf
Also, to say that there's no evidence of them going home is oversimplifying the situation. In reality, migration is far more fluid with people arriving and returning all the time, even though the net figure remains positive. This is one way in which the source country also benefits from migration.
Trump has zero chance with Black voters.
Look how they've prospered under Obama.
great one Trump
https://twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/status/791307271817101313
The EU may do something astonishing and say, let's go with it, we'll negotiate. More likely they'll say, come back when you have got yourselves organised. That's what they did to the Greek government.
A ) The LD's win
B ) Zac wins
I'd say the LD's win in 2 or possibly 3 of those simulations.
The odds say 4-5.
The odds are wrong.
Buy Zac, sell LD's.
'It's understandable that she's currently dazzled in the headlights as she seeks to work out the seemingly unsolvable immigration/prosperity equation'
So there was no prosperity prior to opening the floodgates to mass immigration in 2004 ?
No matter what the new deal is, the barrier to movement will be higher than it currently is.
For a short term research contract, where the early post PhD salary is £30-£35k at best (and now 10% lower in euros), I suspect it will be more of a hindrance than you imagine.
AZ - Clinton 41 .. Trump 42 - Sample 1,550
VA - Clinton 48 .. Trump 39 - Sample 2,459
GA - Clinton 44 .. Trump 47 - Sample 2,235
CO - Clinton 44 .. Trump 38 - Sample 1,595
FL - Clinton 47 .. Trump 44 - Sample 2,765
NC - Clinton 47 .. Trump 43 - Sample 1,825
NH - Clinton 49 .. Trump 37 - Sample 779
PA - Clinton 48 .. Trump 42 - Sample 2.131
IA - Clinton 40 .. Trump 44 - Sample 1,229
OH - Clinton 40 .. Trump 45 - Sample 1,995
UT - Clinton 26 .. Trump 33 .. McMullin 29 - Sample 969
All via 538
"Whilst it is possible that Mr Woolfe could have been pushed through the door by Mr Hookem, there is no evidence to confirm this," the report says.
A "small number of members" said they had seen Mr Woolfe strike the back of his head on a ledge immediately beneath large glass panels which lined the wall of the meeting room. They confirmed that the force of this impact was sufficient to "make them wince".
Both men then continued with the meeting before Mr Woolfe left at about 10.20.
At about midday, he collapsed while crossing a connecting bridge within the European Parliament.
The report says Mr Woolfe had told UKIP he suffered extradural haematoma, two seizures and a contusion.
It adds: "The investigation finds it reasonable to believe that the hospitalisation of Mr Woolfe was as a result of the blow he took to the back of his head, due to his fall."
The report finds that "Mr Woolfe instigated the altercation" by offering to deal with it "man to man" and it is "reasonable to assume" he meant to have a "physical altercation".
For his part, Mr Hookem "failed to give due consideration to the reputation of the party when deciding to accept Mr Woolfe's suggestion".
The party has placed a "formal reprimand" on Mr Hookem's record, "to be considered in the event of a reoccurrence of any infraction which might cause damage to the reputation of the party".
It adds that it now considers the matter "closed".
Brexit cttee elected - Burt, Caulfield. Gove, Jenkyns, Lefroy, Lilley, McCartney, Mackinlay, Raab, Whittingdale 8 Leave 2 Remain.
For Ireland and Spain, there is already negative net migration to the UK - as those economies have recovered, fewer Spaniards and Irish are heading here, and more are heading home.
We have seen a surge in EU immigration to the UK thanks to Bulgarians and Romanians; I suspect the net migration numbers from the rest of the EU are meaningfully lower than they have been. (The numbers are available, and if I wasn't busy, I'd run them...)
I hold by my (strong) belief that net migration to the UK will turn negative in the next five years. Partly because I think there will be a real clamping down on migration generally. Partly because there are a lot of people who are monthly workers with families back in Eastern Europe, who are now earning 25% less than they used to. Partly because there are lots of 20-26 year old Europeans who came here for fun, not for ever. And partly because the UK economy looks increasingly likely to have a slowdown in the next couple of years.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
http://www.steynonline.com/6400/the-habits-of-liberty
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/791307225969127424
Bake off final.
I should back Andrew but Candice gives me the horn
tough decision
The EU2 (Bulgaria and Romania) has gone from almost nothing in 2012, to 59,000 (annual rate) in 2016. Those two (small) countries account for almost as much net migration as the EU14.
The EU8 had net migration above 50,000 in every year before 2007, but has been below in every year since, and is now running at less than half (40,000 vs 87,000) the rate it was at in 2007.
Total EU net migration is 180,000 a year right now, only a smidgen off last year's 184,000. I'll wager you £1,000 that it will be below 150,000 next year if you like.
It's a simply tactical decision.
Best outcome (for May) is a loyal backbencher
Second best is Zac
Worst is a LibDem
Big risk if you field your own candidate that you get the worst outcome (splitting the vote) - it would also have to be a pro Heathrow candidate (otherwise what's the point) and therefore almost certain to get mullered.
Therefore reluctantly going for B is the best option. Cost is, of course, the risk of messaging to other backbenchers that they can rebel. But I think you can present this as a special case - he had made a promise to resign. If anyone else tries it you come down on them like a ton of bricks (and it's unlikely they would be in such a unique position from a tactical perspective)
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-in-fourth-place-among-black-voters/
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293752-trumps-popularity-with-african-american-voters-polling-at
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/13/new-polls-in-pennsylvania-and-ohio-show-donald-trump-with-0-percent-of-the-black-vote/
We will have a more than 100% change in net migration over the next five years.
The comments below the line on Guido Fawkes are amusing.
http://order-order.com/2016/10/26/soubry-kept-off-brexit-committee/
What's better for the economy - 4 retired pensioners with a large bank balance, BUPA coverage enjoying their twilight abroad or a low skilled worker with a non English speaking wife and 2 kids who need education, healthcare etc.
Clinton 28 .. Trump 33 .. McMullin 29
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/utah/election_2016_utah_president
Even as a Bob Dylan fan I admired the invective.
which is funny since they voted aginst it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37764732
A happy side effect of Anthropological global warming:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/the-world-is-getting-greener-why-does-no-one-want-to-know/
(Obvious when you think about it)
So the Lib Dems will make it a referendum on Brexit, although...
https://twitter.com/laura_k_hughes/status/791318850134499328
A little quiz for you.
Which prominent Remainer politician do you think said this in the last few weeks.
"Unhelpful belligerency" in Brussels about the Brexit vote and "obduracy" on the subject of FOM "could bring the EU down".
Also if the EU Commission did not re-examine itself "the sick man of Europe would end up being Europe itself".
Particular criticism was directed at Mr Juncker for lacking "the capacity" to understand the effects of his words on British public opinion.
Interestingly, one of the reasons this politician says Britain never became attached to the European ideal is because "the legal system and constitutional culture is so different" and went on to attack the "huge transfers of power to the centre without popular consent".
Yes, I did say this was a prominent Remainer politician.
TSE is just upset that he won't be able to write a 'May must resign' thread after the bye-election.....
"Blog has been removed
Sorry, the blog at sarahjolney.blogspot.com has been removed. This address is not available for new blogs."
Thankfully Google Cache comes to the rescue;
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AurPf63gGE4J:sarahjolney.blogspot.com/2016/10/is-it-ok-for-remainer-to-speak.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
This is a referendum about the Government's policies on LHR and Brexit which to most of the people of Richmond is a big double fail.
I worked on two pieces of well known social research in the months preceding both the 2015 GE and 2016 Referendum and concerns expressed by respondents about the calibre and volume of immigration (one of the research topics) seemed to be pretty colourblind to me.
The over-riding attitude amongst nearly all was - must speak English, must integrate, must be independent, should be skilled. And that was the view of white and brown respondents.
This isn't selective quoting, it is misquoting.
Good evening, Miss Cyclefree.
https://twitter.com/politicoeurope/status/791307253613793280
See http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/725440/Mike-Hookem-Martin-Schulz-EU-sue
“Those who put politics ahead of prosperity might want to think twice.”