Man sings "Running Round Tottenham" song on a train. For the full lyrics, intended to offend Tottenham Hotspur supporters, click here. (Warning: they include the word "w*llies" and a reference to male genital mutilation.)
I'd expect that the average potential UKIP voter will continue to believe that Nigel Farage is UKIP leader for a long time to come. In substance it's entirely possible that they would be right as well.
Bruno Waterfield Oh dear. @EU_Commission lectures Czechs for having a “narrow” view of Castro - the Cuban leader supported the crushing of the Prague Spring
EU Commision does not speak with one voice shocker:
Outside of the Islington bubble, the party is waking up to what actually matters to working class voters.
My timeline is rammed full of journalists sneering and cheap point scoring about UKIP and Nuttal.
I thought after Brexit, the penny would drop - it didn't. Then after Trump... and it didn't. And now Nuttal and they resort to silly playground name-calling.
I honestly don't think they'll ever get it until Labour get wiped out a la SNP in Scotland. And even then they still won't get it.
It's such an entrenched groupthink mindset that they reinforce to each other.
I can't think of an issue that totally demonstrates the yawning gulf between the majority of Labour front benchers and their core vote outside Islington than this.
It's visceral stuff that can't be handwaved away or smothered with name calling.
Except it isn't that simple. We keep hearing about the white working class, but just have a look at what it looks like nowadays. I'll be meeting my white working class family members on the south coast this Xmas. Most of us look like the Anglo Saxons who beat the Britons at nearby Pevensey Castle in the fifth century and may well have been here ever since. But they'll be a couple of North African muslims that have married in and an American jew flying in from Berlin. The plain fact is that the white working class isn't all that white any more. Any policy on immigration is going to offend somebody, especially if it involves sending current residents back. It's easy to mock Corbyn, but that is about the only easy thing about this issue. There is plenty that Theresa May can do to get it wrong.
Labour don't need a policy of sending anyone back just a sensible control on low skilled migration from wihin and outside the e.u. Some wwc supporters won't be satisfoed with this but enough will be to hold on to their current seats and they will gain new ones with other sensible policies.
Bruno Waterfield Oh dear. @EU_Commission lectures Czechs for having a “narrow” view of Castro - the Cuban leader supported the crushing of the Prague Spring
Outside of the Islington bubble, the party is waking up to what actually matters to working class voters.
My timeline is rammed full of journalists sneering and cheap point scoring about UKIP and Nuttal.
I thought after Brexit, the penny would drop - it didn't. Then after Trump... and it didn't. And now Nuttal and they resort to silly playground name-calling.
I honestly don't think they'll ever get it until Labour get wiped out a la SNP in Scotland. And even then they still won't get it.
It's such an entrenched groupthink mindset that they reinforce to each other.
They need to talk to their journo colleagues on regional papers like The Northern Echo. Then they might start to get it.
Seriously believe Nuttall means Labour's entire election campaign will (and should be) focused on losing no more ground in its heartlands. Though I know they forgot about trying to win when they re-elected Corbyn.
How do they do that when hamstrung with the kind of thinking shown in Don's article?
Man sings "Running Round Tottenham" song on a train. For the full lyrics, intended to offend Tottenham Hotspur supporters, click here. (Warning: they include the word "w*llies" and a reference to male genital mutilation.)
If this was a new phenomenon it might be newsworthy, but there have been allusions to the alleged basis of Spurs support for generations. Suspect that Jews who are supporters of other London treams join in.
Outside of the Islington bubble, the party is waking up to what actually matters to working class voters.
My timeline is rammed full of journalists sneering and cheap point scoring about UKIP and Nuttal.
I thought after Brexit, the penny would drop - it didn't. Then after Trump... and it didn't. And now Nuttal and they resort to silly playground name-calling.
I honestly don't think they'll ever get it until Labour get wiped out a la SNP in Scotland. And even then they still won't get it.
It's such an entrenched groupthink mindset that they reinforce to each other.
They need to talk to their journo colleagues on regional papers like The Northern Echo. Then they might start to get it.
I wonder how easy it would be to federalise immigration/work permits to a regional level in the UK?
Theoretically London and Scotland could retain free movement of people, and NI numbers could be developed to allow workers to only find employment with companies in certain areas, while other areas could develop quota's.
Could this be the hallowed 'middle ground' between free market access and controls on EU immigration? Or a bureaucratic nightmare?
It's an interesting thought. IIUC the LibDems were advocating a regional immigration policy, and you could take it to another level with local referendums and thing. The bureaucracy would be a huge waste of time and money but then all immigration bureaucracy is a huge waste of time and money.
The political difficulty is that the voters think that immigration is something that can be controlled at the border, and will find the idea of controlling it somewhere else unintuitive. To make matters worse there would be more than zero people who worked where they weren't supposed to, and the press would find these people and make it look like it was happening all the time.
Outside of the Islington bubble, the party is waking up to what actually matters to working class voters.
My timeline is rammed full of journalists sneering and cheap point scoring about UKIP and Nuttal.
I thought after Brexit, the penny would drop - it didn't. Then after Trump... and it didn't. And now Nuttal and they resort to silly playground name-calling.
I honestly don't think they'll ever get it until Labour get wiped out a la SNP in Scotland. And even then they still won't get it.
It's such an entrenched groupthink mindset that they reinforce to each other.
They need to talk to their journo colleagues on regional papers like The Northern Echo. Then they might start to get it.
Outside of the Islington bubble, the party is waking up to what actually matters to working class voters.
My timeline is rammed full of journalists sneering and cheap point scoring about UKIP and Nuttal.
I thought after Brexit, the penny would drop - it didn't. Then after Trump... and it didn't. And now Nuttal and they resort to silly playground name-calling.
I honestly don't think they'll ever get it until Labour get wiped out a la SNP in Scotland. And even then they still won't get it.
It's such an entrenched groupthink mindset that they reinforce to each other.
They need to talk to their journo colleagues on regional papers like The Northern Echo. Then they might start to get it.
Outside of the Islington bubble, the party is waking up to what actually matters to working class voters.
My timeline is rammed full of journalists sneering and cheap point scoring about UKIP and Nuttal.
I thought after Brexit, the penny would drop - it didn't. Then after Trump... and it didn't. And now Nuttal and they resort to silly playground name-calling.
I honestly don't think they'll ever get it until Labour get wiped out a la SNP in Scotland. And even then they still won't get it.
It's such an entrenched groupthink mindset that they reinforce to each other.
They need to talk to their journo colleagues on regional papers like The Northern Echo. Then they might start to get it.
What is to get is that the centre-left/left isn't addressing the issues that concern the typical working class traditionally Labour-voting family across the country. Blair thought that these voters 'has nowhere else to go'; he was wrong.
Labour have had a problem with immigration for at least 20 years - when the economy was booming there was a big pull factor and the public didn't seem too bothered. Once the skids come off suddenly its a big problem because "They Took Our Jobs".
We fix the immigration question by fixing the economy. People who have a job that pays the bills are less bothered about migration - and having done a fair bit of door knocking in 90% white areas a lot of the "migrants" they are worried about aren't living where they are.
But anyway it doesn't matter. UKIP have finally appointed the right leader, he will unahamedly play the race card and UKIP will clean up across the North and Midlands. Amongst all the chaos of 2016 - a world that seems too scary complex and depressing - they want softly spoken magic spells not longer term complex solutions.
Hartlepool and Stoke sound well within reach to UKIP now
Perhaps, but unless UKIP can do serious well it's just going to impact Labour/Tory races.
I don't think Nuttal does anything in Labour / Tory races. His entire raison d'etre is for UKIP to do in traditional Labour voting heartlands of the Midlands and North what the SNP did in Scotland.
And chances are that is exactly what he will do...
Outside of the Islington bubble, the party is waking up to what actually matters to working class voters.
My timeline is rammed full of journalists sneering and cheap point scoring about UKIP and Nuttal.
I thought after Brexit, the penny would drop - it didn't. Then after Trump... and it didn't. And now Nuttal and they resort to silly playground name-calling.
I honestly don't think they'll ever get it until Labour get wiped out a la SNP in Scotland. And even then they still won't get it.
It's such an entrenched groupthink mindset that they reinforce to each other.
They need to talk to their journo colleagues on regional papers like The Northern Echo. Then they might start to get it.
Hartlepool and Stoke sound well within reach to UKIP now
Perhaps, but unless UKIP can do serious well it's just going to impact Labour/Tory races.
I don't think Nuttal does anything in Labour / Tory races. His entire raison d'etre is for UKIP to do in traditional Labour voting heartlands of the Midlands and North what the SNP did in Scotland.
And chances are that is exactly what he will do...
I mean, in the North, unless UKIP can start getting 35% of the vote, the result will be Labour holds or Con gains (as Labour voters go UKIP).
Outside of the Islington bubble, the party is waking up to what actually matters to working class voters.
My timeline is rammed full of journalists sneering and cheap point scoring about UKIP and Nuttal.
I thought after Brexit, the penny would drop - it didn't. Then after Trump... and it didn't. And now Nuttal and they resort to silly playground name-calling.
I honestly don't think they'll ever get it until Labour get wiped out a la SNP in Scotland. And even then they still won't get it.
It's such an entrenched groupthink mindset that they reinforce to each other.
They need to talk to their journo colleagues on regional papers like The Northern Echo. Then they might start to get it.
Labour have had a problem with immigration for at least 20 years - when the economy was booming there was a big pull factor and the public didn't seem too bothered. Once the skids come off suddenly its a big problem because "They Took Our Jobs".
We fix the immigration question by fixing the economy. People who have a job that pays the bills are less bothered about migration - and having done a fair bit of door knocking in 90% white areas a lot of the "migrants" they are worried about aren't living where they are.
But anyway it doesn't matter. UKIP have finally appointed the right leader, he will unahamedly play the race card and UKIP will clean up across the North and Midlands. Amongst all the chaos of 2016 - a world that seems too scary complex and depressing - they want softly spoken magic spells not longer term complex solutions.
You win extra brownie points for the Pink Floyd reference. Well played sir, well played.
Farage is now running the Trump playbook (the new manual for all aspiring politicians), which basically consists of saying anything, what ever comes into your head, as long as it is eye-catching enough to get the media to cover it.
Bought second hand at a LibDem jumble sale, and signed on the frontispiece by Lord Rennard.....
I wonder how easy it would be to federalise immigration/work permits to a regional level in the UK?
Theoretically London and Scotland could retain free movement of people, and NI numbers could be developed to allow workers to only find employment with companies in certain areas, while other areas could develop quota's.
Could this be the hallowed 'middle ground' between free market access and controls on EU immigration? Or a bureaucratic nightmare?
It's an interesting thought. IIUC the LibDems were advocating a regional immigration policy, and you could take it to another level with local referendums and thing. The bureaucracy would be a huge waste of time and money but then all immigration bureaucracy is a huge waste of time and money.
The political difficulty is that the voters think that immigration is something that can be controlled at the border, and will find the idea of controlling it somewhere else unintuitive. To make matters worse there would be more than zero people who worked where they weren't supposed to, and the press would find these people and make it look like it was happening all the time.
1. Has to be done through work permits. 2. Start to charge the employer £10k per work permit. Problem of regional working can then be managed and the system would be revenue positive.
Working class Labour voters are not suddenly going to vote for a party led by a hardline right-winger who is opposed to trade unions and wants to privatise the NHS just because he has a Scouse accent. There is undoubtedly a huge open goal for UKIP in the North and Midlands, but the party has to move left and it has to start working hard on a constituency by constituency level to make the breakthroughs. That's what the SNP did in Scotland. It was not enough for Labour to be useless, voters had to see that the alternative was worth the bother.
Labour have had a problem with immigration for at least 20 years - when the economy was booming there was a big pull factor and the public didn't seem too bothered. Once the skids come off suddenly its a big problem because "They Took Our Jobs".
We fix the immigration question by fixing the economy. People who have a job that pays the bills are less bothered about migration - and having done a fair bit of door knocking in 90% white areas a lot of the "migrants" they are worried about aren't living where they are.
But anyway it doesn't matter. UKIP have finally appointed the right leader, he will unahamedly play the race card and UKIP will clean up across the North and Midlands. Amongst all the chaos of 2016 - a world that seems too scary complex and depressing - they want softly spoken magic spells not longer term complex solutions.
I do not agree that Labour voters in the Midlands and North have been waiting for a hardline right-winger with a regional accent to play the race card before they abandon the Labour party.
I'd expect that the average potential UKIP voter will continue to believe that Nigel Farage is UKIP leader for a long time to come. In substance it's entirely possible that they would be right as well.
Labour have had a problem with immigration for at least 20 years - when the economy was booming there was a big pull factor and the public didn't seem too bothered. Once the skids come off suddenly its a big problem because "They Took Our Jobs".
We fix the immigration question by fixing the economy. People who have a job that pays the bills are less bothered about migration - and having done a fair bit of door knocking in 90% white areas a lot of the "migrants" they are worried about aren't living where they are.
But anyway it doesn't matter. UKIP have finally appointed the right leader, he will unahamedly play the race card and UKIP will clean up across the North and Midlands. Amongst all the chaos of 2016 - a world that seems too scary complex and depressing - they want softly spoken magic spells not longer term complex solutions.
I do not agree that Labour voters in the Midlands and North have been waiting for a hardline right-winger with a regional accent to play the race card before they abandon the Labour party.
So if the Kippers take another slice of the Labour vote, the LibDems get a bit of an anti-Jezza bounce-back and the Tories take the votes from the people buying all of the nice new houses, Con gain.
(For illustration purposes only - I know the boundaries are changing)
I can't think of an issue that totally demonstrates the yawning gulf between the majority of Labour front benchers and their core vote outside Islington than this.
It's visceral stuff that can't be handwaved away or smothered with name calling.
Except it isn't that simple. We keep hearing about the white working class, but just have a look at what it looks like nowadays. I'll be meeting my white working class family members on the south coast this Xmas. Most of us look like the Anglo Saxons who beat the Britons at nearby Pevensey Castle in the fifth century and may well have been here ever since. But they'll be a couple of North African muslims that have married in and an American jew flying in from Berlin. The plain fact is that the white working class isn't all that white any more. Any policy on immigration is going to offend somebody, especially if it involves sending current residents back. It's easy to mock Corbyn, but that is about the only easy thing about this issue. There is plenty that Theresa May can do to get it wrong.
Labour don't need a policy of sending anyone back just a sensible control on low skilled migration from wihin and outside the e.u. Some wwc supporters won't be satisfoed with this but enough will be to hold on to their current seats and they will gain new ones with other sensible policies.
It really is not that hard.
+1
It is an immensely patronising, middle class view that the white working class is composed of people who obsess about immigration above all else. It's important, to be sure; but there are many other issues they care about. If UKIP clean up it will be cause the party moves left and Labour remains mired in its comfort zone; not because all of a sudden there is a hard-line, right-wing race-baiter with a Scouse accent for people to vote for.
Labour have had a problem with immigration for at least 20 years - when the economy was booming there was a big pull factor and the public didn't seem too bothered. Once the skids come off suddenly its a big problem because "They Took Our Jobs".
We fix the immigration question by fixing the economy. People who have a job that pays the bills are less bothered about migration - and having done a fair bit of door knocking in 90% white areas a lot of the "migrants" they are worried about aren't living where they are.
But anyway it doesn't matter. UKIP have finally appointed the right leader, he will unahamedly play the race card and UKIP will clean up across the North and Midlands. Amongst all the chaos of 2016 - a world that seems too scary complex and depressing - they want softly spoken magic spells not longer term complex solutions.
I do not agree that Labour voters in the Midlands and North have been waiting for a hardline right-winger with a regional accent to play the race card before they abandon the Labour party.
On economic policy UKIP are not right wing.
Wanting to privatise the NHS is pretty right wing.
Working class Labour voters are not suddenly going to vote for a party led by a hardline right-winger who is opposed to trade unions and wants to privatise the NHS just because he has a Scouse accent. There is undoubtedly a huge open goal for UKIP in the North and Midlands, but the party has to move left and it has to start working hard on a constituency by constituency level to make the breakthroughs. That's what the SNP did in Scotland. It was not enough for Labour to be useless, voters had to see that the alternative was worth the bother.
They won't see him as right wing. On issues like unions and the NHS I'm not sure that normal punters care enough. We campaigned on the EU vote on protecting employee rights - so many people said they weren't interested, or that we were lying, or that immigration is the only issue.
The joy of UKIP is that they are all things to all people. I honestly don;t know what their position is on various topics and I don't think their target voters care. What they do know is that they no longer trust us and can't vote Tory and that doesn't leave them much choice. If Nuttall chooses his words carefully and pitches the UKIP message to non-southern non-posh voters, they will decimate Labour. We are seriously vulnerable to them across swathes of England.
I'd expect that the average potential UKIP voter will continue to believe that Nigel Farage is UKIP leader for a long time to come. In substance it's entirely possible that they would be right as well.
Only if he continues as head of the UKIP MEPs.
Why are there any UKIP MEPs any more? Anybody would think that they were only there for the pay and allowances.
Working class Labour voters are not suddenly going to vote for a party led by a hardline right-winger who is opposed to trade unions and wants to privatise the NHS just because he has a Scouse accent. There is undoubtedly a huge open goal for UKIP in the North and Midlands, but the party has to move left and it has to start working hard on a constituency by constituency level to make the breakthroughs. That's what the SNP did in Scotland. It was not enough for Labour to be useless, voters had to see that the alternative was worth the bother.
On topic, there is no dilemma. Parties exist to develop & fight for a body of values. If loyal voters dont agree with those values then you need to talk with them. Labours problems on this come from decades when they havent been trying to persuade "their" voters. In many Safe Seats Labour havent been talking to voters at all. Too often appeals to Class loyalty replace discussion of values.
Outside of the Islington bubble, the party is waking up to what actually matters to working class voters.
My timeline is rammed full of journalists sneering and cheap point scoring about UKIP and Nuttal.
I thought after Brexit, the penny would drop - it didn't. Then after Trump... and it didn't. And now Nuttal and they resort to silly playground name-calling.
I honestly don't think they'll ever get it until Labour get wiped out a la SNP in Scotland. And even then they still won't get it.
It's such an entrenched groupthink mindset that they reinforce to each other.
They need to talk to their journo colleagues on regional papers like The Northern Echo. Then they might start to get it.
I'd expect that the average potential UKIP voter will continue to believe that Nigel Farage is UKIP leader for a long time to come. In substance it's entirely possible that they would be right as well.
Only if he continues as head of the UKIP MEPs.
Why are there any UKIP MEPs any more? Anybody would think that they were only there for the pay and allowances.
They were always there for the pay and allowances amongst other things. Now, bar a bit of Farage gloating & internecine fisticuffs, it's the ONLY reason.
So if the Kippers take another slice of the Labour vote, the LibDems get a bit of an anti-Jezza bounce-back and the Tories take the votes from the people buying all of the nice new houses, Con gain.
(For illustration purposes only - I know the boundaries are changing)
An alternative view is that, in these febrile times, half the Labour vote goes UKIP. They take the seat.
Outside of the Islington bubble, the party is waking up to what actually matters to working class voters.
My timeline is rammed full of journalists sneering and cheap point scoring about UKIP and Nuttal.
I thought after Brexit, the penny would drop - it didn't. Then after Trump... and it didn't. And now Nuttal and they resort to silly playground name-calling.
I honestly don't think they'll ever get it until Labour get wiped out a la SNP in Scotland. And even then they still won't get it.
It's such an entrenched groupthink mindset that they reinforce to each other.
They need to talk to their journo colleagues on regional papers like The Northern Echo. Then they might start to get it.
Outside of the Islington bubble, the party is waking up to what actually matters to working class voters.
My timeline is rammed full of journalists sneering and cheap point scoring about UKIP and Nuttal.
I thought after Brexit, the penny would drop - it didn't. Then after Trump... and it didn't. And now Nuttal and they resort to silly playground name-calling.
I honestly don't think they'll ever get it until Labour get wiped out a la SNP in Scotland. And even then they still won't get it.
It's such an entrenched groupthink mindset that they reinforce to each other.
They need to talk to their journo colleagues on regional papers like The Northern Echo. Then they might start to get it.
What is to get is that the centre-left/left isn't addressing the issues that concern the typical working class traditionally Labour-voting family across the country. Blair thought that these voters 'has nowhere else to go'; he was wrong.
That is one of Labour's problems certainly. However, looking at the figures UKIP is fading as a threat.
Working class Labour voters are not suddenly going to vote for a party led by a hardline right-winger who is opposed to trade unions and wants to privatise the NHS just because he has a Scouse accent. There is undoubtedly a huge open goal for UKIP in the North and Midlands, but the party has to move left and it has to start working hard on a constituency by constituency level to make the breakthroughs. That's what the SNP did in Scotland. It was not enough for Labour to be useless, voters had to see that the alternative was worth the bother.
They said that about Nigel and he delivered a lot of votes for UKIP in the north.
People talk about the Trump playbook, but just imagine what Trump would do to someone like Nuttall. Mockery doesn't begin to describe it. Nuttall is a Harry Enfield character come to life. I find the idea he will lead UKIP to sweeping the Labour heartlands seems fanciful to me.
Very strong rumours that the UK will today announce it will ratify the Unified Patent Court agreement. If that is the case - and it is not yet confirmed - it would imply a softer rather than a harder Brexit. It would certainly mean the UK ceding sovereignty to non-UK courts and agreeing that the ECJ would be the ultimate court of appeal.
Outside of the Islington bubble, the party is waking up to what actually matters to working class voters.
My timeline is rammed full of journalists sneering and cheap point scoring about UKIP and Nuttal.
I thought after Brexit, the penny would drop - it didn't. Then after Trump... and it didn't. And now Nuttal and they resort to silly playground name-calling.
I honestly don't think they'll ever get it until Labour get wiped out a la SNP in Scotland. And even then they still won't get it.
It's such an entrenched groupthink mindset that they reinforce to each other.
They need to talk to their journo colleagues on regional papers like The Northern Echo. Then they might start to get it.
Very strong rumours that the UK will today announce it will ratify the Unified Patent Court agreement. If that is the case - and it is not yet confirmed - it would imply a softer rather than a harder Brexit. It would certainly mean the UK ceding sovereignty to non-UK courts and agreeing that the ECJ would be the ultimate court of appeal.
If this were happening after a Remain vote people would be saying it's proof that we were conned, there's no status quo and we're now being fast-tracked to deeper integration...
Working class Labour voters are not suddenly going to vote for a party led by a hardline right-winger who is opposed to trade unions and wants to privatise the NHS just because he has a Scouse accent. There is undoubtedly a huge open goal for UKIP in the North and Midlands, but the party has to move left and it has to start working hard on a constituency by constituency level to make the breakthroughs. That's what the SNP did in Scotland. It was not enough for Labour to be useless, voters had to see that the alternative was worth the bother.
They won't see him as right wing. On issues like unions and the NHS I'm not sure that normal punters care enough. We campaigned on the EU vote on protecting employee rights - so many people said they weren't interested, or that we were lying, or that immigration is the only issue.
The joy of UKIP is that they are all things to all people. I honestly don;t know what their position is on various topics and I don't think their target voters care. What they do know is that they no longer trust us and can't vote Tory and that doesn't leave them much choice. If Nuttall chooses his words carefully and pitches the UKIP message to non-southern non-posh voters, they will decimate Labour. We are seriously vulnerable to them across swathes of England.
I think that UKIP is more likely to deliver many Labour seats to the Tories.
So if the Kippers take another slice of the Labour vote, the LibDems get a bit of an anti-Jezza bounce-back and the Tories take the votes from the people buying all of the nice new houses, Con gain.
(For illustration purposes only - I know the boundaries are changing)
I wonder how easy it would be to federalise immigration/work permits to a regional level in the UK?
Theoretically London and Scotland could retain free movement of people, and NI numbers could be developed to allow workers to only find employment with companies in certain areas, while other areas could develop quota's.
Could this be the hallowed 'middle ground' between free market access and controls on EU immigration? Or a bureaucratic nightmare?
It's an interesting thought. IIUC the LibDems were advocating a regional immigration policy, and you could take it to another level with local referendums and thing. The bureaucracy would be a huge waste of time and money but then all immigration bureaucracy is a huge waste of time and money.
The political difficulty is that the voters think that immigration is something that can be controlled at the border, and will find the idea of controlling it somewhere else unintuitive. To make matters worse there would be more than zero people who worked where they weren't supposed to, and the press would find these people and make it look like it was happening all the time.
1. Has to be done through work permits. 2. Start to charge the employer £10k peir work permit. Problem of regional working can then be managed and the system would be revenue positive.
If you make this properly local, and the revenue stays local, it sets up quite an interesting dynamic where towns and cities compete with each other to attract immigrants. The extra twist is that you allow the locality to set the price of the permit, and they can compete on price as well.
But like I say I don't think you can do it without first somehow disabusing the voters of the view that nasty foreign things can be kept out at the border. There's quite a deeply-rooted cognitive illusion at work here, which is why management will happily spend a lot of money on firewall hardware even when they don't want to pay for useful security.
In all seriousness, I am Growing to despise that phrase. Even by political standards it means nothing. Of course Brexit means we must Brexit, that is (voting for)Brexit means (we will)Brexit, but everyone can see plain as day that what most of those who say it mean is (only my)Brexit means (proper)Brexit.
There will be people advocating softer Brexits who, in their hearts, are hoping Brexit will not happen at all, but it would be wrong to suggest that anyone holding that position does not intend to leave. I'd prefer a more honest Brexit must mean Full Brexit or Complete Brexit as a slogan, it actually means something, even if one can quibble over it still.
In all seriousness, I am Growing to despise that phrase. Even by political standards it means nothing. Of course Brexit means we must Brexit, that is (voting for)Brexit means (we will)Brexit, but everyone can see plain as day that what most of those who say it mean is (only my)Brexit means (proper)Brexit.
There will be people advocating softer Brexits who, in their hearts, are hoping Brexit will not happen at all, but it would be wrong to suggest that anyone holding that position does not intend to leave. I'd prefer a more honest Brexit must mean Full Brexit or Complete Brexit as a slogan, it actually means something, even if one can quibble over it still.
In all seriousness, I am Growing to despise that phrase. Even by political standards it means nothing. Of course Brexit means we must Brexit, that is (voting for)Brexit means (we will)Brexit, but everyone can see plain as day that what most of those who say it mean is (only my)Brexit means (proper)Brexit.
There will be people advocating softer Brexits who, in their hearts, are hoping Brexit will not happen at all, but it would be wrong to suggest that anyone holding that position does not intend to leave. I'd prefer a more honest Brexit must mean Full Brexit or Complete Brexit as a slogan, it actually means something, even if one can quibble over it still.
Very strong rumours that the UK will today announce it will ratify the Unified Patent Court agreement. If that is the case - and it is not yet confirmed - it would imply a softer rather than a harder Brexit. It would certainly mean the UK ceding sovereignty to non-UK courts and agreeing that the ECJ would be the ultimate court of appeal.
Out of interest how far do trade deals like the TPP and TTIP go down this road? If TPP had gone through and a US company thought the Japanese courts were failing to enforce their IP appropriately, would they have any kind of super-national recourse?
Working class Labour voters are not suddenly going to vote for a party led by a hardline right-winger who is opposed to trade unions and wants to privatise the NHS just because he has a Scouse accent. There is undoubtedly a huge open goal for UKIP in the North and Midlands, but the party has to move left and it has to start working hard on a constituency by constituency level to make the breakthroughs. That's what the SNP did in Scotland. It was not enough for Labour to be useless, voters had to see that the alternative was worth the bother.
They won't see him as right wing. On issues like unions and the NHS I'm not sure that normal punters care enough. We campaigned on the EU vote on protecting employee rights - so many people said they weren't interested, or that we were lying, or that immigration is the only issue.
The joy of UKIP is that they are all things to all people. I honestly don;t know what their position is on various topics and I don't think their target voters care. What they do know is that they no longer trust us and can't vote Tory and that doesn't leave them much choice. If Nuttall chooses his words carefully and pitches the UKIP message to non-southern non-posh voters, they will decimate Labour. We are seriously vulnerable to them across swathes of England.
I think that UKIP is more likely to deliver many Labour seats to the Tories.
And when I say vulnerable to UKIP thats what it means in a lot of seats. UKIP could win places like Hartlepool but in the rest it just means splitting the non-Tory vote and letting them into places not seen since 1987. From our perspective it doesn't matter whether the MP has a Blue or Purple rosette, its the same difference.
Labour have had a problem with immigration for at least 20 years - when the economy was booming there was a big pull factor and the public didn't seem too bothered. Once the skids come off suddenly its a big problem because "They Took Our Jobs".
We fix the immigration question by fixing the economy. People who have a job that pays the bills are less bothered about migration - and having done a fair bit of door knocking in 90% white areas a lot of the "migrants" they are worried about aren't living where they are.
But anyway it doesn't matter. UKIP have finally appointed the right leader, he will unahamedly play the race card and UKIP will clean up across the North and Midlands. Amongst all the chaos of 2016 - a world that seems too scary complex and depressing - they want softly spoken magic spells not longer term complex solutions.
I do not agree that Labour voters in the Midlands and North have been waiting for a hardline right-winger with a regional accent to play the race card before they abandon the Labour party.
On economic policy UKIP are not right wing.
Wanting to privatise the NHS is pretty right wing.
Where in its 2015 Manifesto did UKIP say that it wanted to privatise the NHS? "UKIP will not continue to privatise the NHS by the back door, as both Labour and the Conservatives have done. We will end the use of PFI contracts within the NHS." http://www.ukip.org/manifesto2015
Shortly after Theresa May became Prime Minister, her team stressed to the overwhelmingly Remain-supporting civil service that Brexit must be at the centre of all decision-making, that there must be no equivocation: we are leaving the EU. Panjandrums were told they must include a commitment to Brexit in all of their “write rounds”, the regular Whitehall memos circulated to ministers, sub-committees, the PM and the Cabinet Secretary. Alas, Europhile mandarins have defied this order, repeatedly omitting the Brexit commitment. Forgetfulness or a vain act of dissent? Downing Street are taking no chances – whenever they receive one of these incomplete write rounds from civil service Remainers they add the words “We are leaving the European Union” and send it back, reminding the sore loser responsible of their duties.
He seems one of those types who are very useful because they will spot and publicise many a thing that needs public castigation that others will miss, but also has a tendency to treat any 'revelation' as major, and I don't think because he's seeking scoops, but just that his perspective has only two settings 'not worthy of comment' and 'of immense importance'.
I wonder how easy it would be to federalise immigration/work permits to a regional level in the UK?
Theoretically London and Scotland could retain free movement of people, and NI numbers could be developed to allow workers to only find employment with companies in certain areas, while other areas could develop quota's.
Could this be the hallowed 'middle ground' between free market access and controls on EU immigration? Or a bureaucratic nightmare?
It's an interesting thought. IIUC the LibDems were advocating a regional immigration policy, and you could take it to another level with local referendums and thing. The bureaucracy would be a huge waste of time and money but then all immigration bureaucracy is a huge waste of time and money.
The political difficulty is that the voters think that immigration is something that can be controlled at the border, and will find the idea of controlling it somewhere else unintuitive. To make matters worse there would be more than zero people who worked where they weren't supposed to, and the press would find these people and make it look like it was happening all the time.
1. Has to be done through work permits. 2. Start to charge the employer £10k peir work permit. Problem of regional working can then be managed and the system would be revenue positive.
If you make this properly local, and the revenue stays local, it sets up quite an interesting dynamic where towns and cities compete with each other to attract immigrants. The extra twist is that you allow the locality to set the price of the permit, and they can compete on price as well.
But like I say I don't think you can do it without first somehow disabusing the voters of the view that nasty foreign things can be kept out at the border. There's quite a deeply-rooted cognitive illusion at work here, which is why management will happily spend a lot of money on firewall hardware even when they don't want to pay for useful security.
I have worked in countries with work permit systems. In the Cayman Islands more than half the work force are foreign, but all are on work permits. Some permits for high paying jobs cost £20,000 pa. None provide free NHS or free education. Since the foreigners get no state benefits they do not consume state medical or state educational services that Caymanians enjoy.
Shortly after Theresa May became Prime Minister, her team stressed to the overwhelmingly Remain-supporting civil service that Brexit must be at the centre of all decision-making, that there must be no equivocation: we are leaving the EU. Panjandrums were told they must include a commitment to Brexit in all of their “write rounds”, the regular Whitehall memos circulated to ministers, sub-committees, the PM and the Cabinet Secretary. Alas, Europhile mandarins have defied this order, repeatedly omitting the Brexit commitment. Forgetfulness or a vain act of dissent? Downing Street are taking no chances – whenever they receive one of these incomplete write rounds from civil service Remainers they add the words “We are leaving the European Union” and send it back, reminding the sore loser responsible of their duties.
He seems one of those types who are very useful because they will spot and publicise many a thing that needs public castigation that others will miss, but also has a tendency to treat any 'revelation' as major, and I don't think because he's seeking scoops, but just that his perspective has only two settings 'not worthy of comment' and 'of immense importance'.
Since the Cabinet Office is responsible for agendas, minutes, committee correspondence and such, I guess it was missed of a memo at one point and a minister asked for it to be put on the agenda. I think there is no more to it than that.
James Forsyth ✔ @JGForsyth Corbyn’s reaction to Castro’s death, highlights the opportunity 4 Paul Nuttall’s Ukip: How many Labour heartland voters put Che posters up?
Man sings "Running Round Tottenham" song on a train. For the full lyrics, intended to offend Tottenham Hotspur supporters, click here. (Warning: they include the word "w*llies" and a reference to male genital mutilation.)
If this was a new phenomenon it might be newsworthy, but there have been allusions to the alleged basis of Spurs support for generations. Suspect that Jews who are supporters of other London treams join in.
I agree. And many non-Jewish Spurs supporters are happy to identify as "Y*ddos". The message of the story is false. A lot could be said, but probably not here.
I wonder how easy it would be to federalise immigration/work permits to a regional level in the UK?
Theoretically London and Scotland could retain free movement of people, and NI numbers could be developed to allow workers to only find employment with companies in certain areas, while other areas could develop quota's.
Could this be the hallowed 'middle ground' between free market access and controls on EU immigration? Or a bureaucratic nightmare?
It's an interesting thought. IIUC the LibDems were advocating a regional immigration policy, and you could take it to another level with local referendums and thing. The bureaucracy would be a huge waste of time and money but then all immigration bureaucracy is a huge waste of time and money.
The political difficulty is that the voters think that immigration is something that can be controlled at the border, and will find the idea of controlling it somewhere else unintuitive. To make matters worse there would be more than zero people who worked where they weren't supposed to, and the press would find these people and make it look like it was happening all the time.
1. Has to be done through work permits. 2. Start to charge the employer £10k peir work permit. Problem of regional working can then be managed and the system would be revenue positive.
If you make this properly local, and the revenue stays local, it sets up quite an interesting dynamic where towns and cities compete with each other to attract immigrants. The extra twist is that you allow the locality to set the price of the permit, and they can compete on price as well.
But like I say I don't think you can do it without first somehow disabusing the voters of the view that nasty foreign things can be kept out at the border. There's quite a deeply-rooted cognitive illusion at work here, which is why management will happily spend a lot of money on firewall hardware even when they don't want to pay for useful security.
I have worked in countries with work permit systems. In the Cayman Islands more than half the work force are foreign, but all are on work permits. Some permits for high paying jobs cost £20,000 pa. None provide free NHS or free education. Since the foreigners get no state benefits they do not consume state medical or state educational services that Caymanians enjoy.
I imagine the Cayman government have leeway to optimize for revenue, whereas the British government has to optimize for Daily Mail headlines.
The other political problem is how voters who live outside Britain are going to feel about those countries reciprocating.
James Forsyth ✔ @JGForsyth Corbyn’s reaction to Castro’s death, highlights the opportunity 4 Paul Nuttall’s Ukip: How many Labour heartland voters put Che posters up?
That's because they couldn't care less, not because they're disgusted by people who laud him.
I know we have a few law experts on here (boo, boo, hiss, hiss), so what's the latest challenge to Art 50 about?
Can we legally remain in the EEA if we exit the EU? Could we then control our own borders if we did that? If we remain in the EEA, do we have to pay?
I suspect the answers are No, No, and Yes?
The answers are: - Yes (You do not have to be a member of the EU to be in the EEA; see Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein for examples) - To a degree (We do not apply all the border controls we may apply as an EU member, let alone an EEA member - for example, we do not carry out exit checks. In addition, "Free Movement" is a wider term than many want to admit from either side. Further to that, Article 112 of the EEA agreement allows for a temporary suspension of Free Movement in any case, subject to agreement - Liechtenstein has exercised this "temporary" measure since 1998) - Yes, based on GDP. Using a comparison with Norway, our per-capita contribution should be about £96 million per week (compare with the £350 million per week from THE BUS)
So if the Kippers take another slice of the Labour vote, the LibDems get a bit of an anti-Jezza bounce-back and the Tories take the votes from the people buying all of the nice new houses, Con gain.
(For illustration purposes only - I know the boundaries are changing)
I doubt that the boundaries will change at all!
This was one of the GE results that most surprised me as a Sunderland expat. It is clearly trending to the Tories and if there was a GE tomorrow could easily fall to them. And it would not be their only gain in the NE.
In all seriousness, I am Growing to despise that phrase. Even by political standards it means nothing. Of course Brexit means we must Brexit, that is (voting for)Brexit means (we will)Brexit, but everyone can see plain as day that what most of those who say it mean is (only my)Brexit means (proper)Brexit.
There will be people advocating softer Brexits who, in their hearts, are hoping Brexit will not happen at all, but it would be wrong to suggest that anyone holding that position does not intend to leave. I'd prefer a more honest Brexit must mean Full Brexit or Complete Brexit as a slogan, it actually means something, even if one can quibble over it still.
oops - can we have that in triplicate again please?
I find it remarkable that post Brexit that there is still such a reluctance to recognise that the benefits of immigration are almost entirely gained by a metropolitan elite and the disbenefits are almost entirely borne by the victims of our inadequate education systems and the generally feckless.
Immigration undoubtedly helped boost GDP for the UK and it is no coincidence that during a period of very high immigration the UK broke away from its usual position at the back of the pack to the fastest growing economy in the EU and, briefly, in the G7.
GDP per capita was of course somewhat less impressive. The standard of living for those on less than the average wage has been pitiful and is projected to remain so. The proportion of the population dependent upon the living wage for an increase has increased markedly. I also think that the ready supply of cheap labour has been a disincentive to improving productivity, investing in training and buying more expensive kit although I accept that the arguments about that are more complex.
From Labour supporters' point of view freedom of movement has undermined trade unions, destroyed the negotiating power of the semi-skilled and, increasingly, the skilled, greatly assisted in the growth of the gig economy and the casualization of work, increased the pressure for those dependent upon public services making it more difficult to get help (whilst at the same time providing much of the labour that such help requires) and disrupted communities who have had to find a wholly disproportionate share of the housing and school places that such mass immigration requires.
It is hard to think of a class of voters who have been more royally betrayed by those whom they elected than the poor and existing immigrant families in this country. It may not feel that way in Islington but out of touch really doesn't do it justice.
Working class Labour voters are not suddenly going to vote for a party led by a hardline right-winger who is opposed to trade unions and wants to privatise the NHS just because he has a Scouse accent. There is undoubtedly a huge open goal for UKIP in the North and Midlands, but the party has to move left and it has to start working hard on a constituency by constituency level to make the breakthroughs. That's what the SNP did in Scotland. It was not enough for Labour to be useless, voters had to see that the alternative was worth the bother.
They won't see him as right wing. On issues like unions and the NHS I'm not sure that normal punters care enough. We campaigned on the EU vote on protecting employee rights - so many people said they weren't interested, or that we were lying, or that immigration is the only issue.
The joy of UKIP is that they are all things to all people. I honestly don;t know what their position is on various topics and I don't think their target voters care. What they do know is that they no longer trust us and can't vote Tory and that doesn't leave them much choice. If Nuttall chooses his words carefully and pitches the UKIP message to non-southern non-posh voters, they will decimate Labour. We are seriously vulnerable to them across swathes of England.
I think that UKIP is more likely to deliver many Labour seats to the Tories.
I find it remarkable that post Brexit that there is still such a reluctance to recognise that the benefits of immigration are almost entirely gained by a metropolitan elite and the disbenefits are almost entirely borne by the victims of our inadequate education systems and the generally feckless.
Immigration undoubtedly helped boost GDP for the UK and it is no coincidence that during a period of very high immigration the UK broke away from its usual position at the back of the pack to the fastest growing economy in the EU and, briefly, in the G7.
GDP per capita was of course somewhat less impressive. The standard of living for those on less than the average wage has been pitiful and is projected to remain so. The proportion of the population dependent upon the living wage for an increase has increased markedly. I also think that the ready supply of cheap labour has been a disincentive to improving productivity, investing in training and buying more expensive kit although I accept that the arguments about that are more complex.
From Labour supporters' point of view freedom of movement has undermined trade unions, destroyed the negotiating power of the semi-skilled and, increasingly, the skilled, greatly assisted in the growth of the gig economy and the casualization of work, increased the pressure for those dependent upon public services making it more difficult to get help (whilst at the same time providing much of the labour that such help requires) and disrupted communities who have had to find a wholly disproportionate share of the housing and school places that such mass immigration requires.
It is hard to think of a class of voters who have been more royally betrayed by those whom they elected than the poor and existing immigrant families in this country. It may not feel that way in Islington but out of touch really doesn't do it justice.
James Forsyth ✔ @JGForsyth Corbyn’s reaction to Castro’s death, highlights the opportunity 4 Paul Nuttall’s Ukip: How many Labour heartland voters put Che posters up?
That's because they couldn't care less, not because they're disgusted by people who laud him.
Yes, there's an important distinction there. People sometimes imagine (with pleasure or horror) WWC voters to be Sun-like characters who detest liberalism and immigrants with equal passion. Clearly those who do fit the stereotype have been voting BNP, UKIP or nothing for some time. But most simply feel that they've been neglected. They're OK with politicians being nice about Castro or opposing racism, so long as it's not the main things they talk about.
I know we have a few law experts on here (boo, boo, hiss, hiss), so what's the latest challenge to Art 50 about?
Can we legally remain in the EEA if we exit the EU? Could we then control our own borders if we did that? If we remain in the EEA, do we have to pay?
I suspect the answers are No, No, and Yes?
The answers are: - Yes (You do not have to be a member of the EU to be in the EEA; see Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein for examples) - To a degree (We do not apply all the border controls we may apply as an EU member, let alone an EEA member - for example, we do not carry out exit checks. In addition, "Free Movement" is a wider term than many want to admit from either side. Further to that, Article 112 of the EEA agreement allows for a temporary suspension of Free Movement in any case, subject to agreement - Liechtenstein has exercised this "temporary" measure since 1998) - Yes, based on GDP. Using a comparison with Norway, our per-capita contribution should be about £96 million per week (compare with the £350 million per week from THE BUS)
Does the Norway number include their contribution to CERN? I ask because we'd probably want to remain a member of things like that (and possibly the ESA) in the event of Brexit, so all headline numbers should be taken with a slight pinch of salt.
There are other questions. The EIB: do we remain a shareholder post Brexit? If not, are we bought out? And if so, at what price? If we remain a shareholder, do we include the dividend as an offset against costs?
The EEA Treaty is a treaty between the states of the EU on one side and the EFTSA states (ex-Switzerland) on the other. It is not possible for EU treaties to override the EEA one, because the EEA Treaty defines the relationship between the EU and the EFTA states. EFTA countries are not signatories of EU treaties and cannot be bound by them.
Working class Labour voters are not suddenly going to vote for a party led by a hardline right-winger who is opposed to trade unions and wants to privatise the NHS just because he has a Scouse accent. There is undoubtedly a huge open goal for UKIP in the North and Midlands, but the party has to move left and it has to start working hard on a constituency by constituency level to make the breakthroughs. That's what the SNP did in Scotland. It was not enough for Labour to be useless, voters had to see that the alternative was worth the bother.
They won't see him as right wing. On issues like unions and the NHS I'm not sure that normal punters care enough. We campaigned on the EU vote on protecting employee rights - so many people said they weren't interested, or that we were lying, or that immigration is the only issue.
The joy of UKIP is that they are all things to all people. I honestly don;t know what their position is on various topics and I don't think their target voters care. What they do know is that they no longer trust us and can't vote Tory and that doesn't leave them much choice. If Nuttall chooses his words carefully and pitches the UKIP message to non-southern non-posh voters, they will decimate Labour. We are seriously vulnerable to them across swathes of England.
Maybe a UKIP/Tory coalition is what we need. Hand them that poisoned chalice. Incidentally, it's worth noting that Nuttall led UKIP might not be great for the Tories either across the Midlands.
Comments
https://youtu.be/Kx-3I6Uzm-c
https://twitter.com/MalmstromEU/status/802489197659619328?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
I thought after Brexit, the penny would drop - it didn't. Then after Trump... and it didn't. And now Nuttal and they resort to silly playground name-calling.
I honestly don't think they'll ever get it until Labour get wiped out a la SNP in Scotland. And even then they still won't get it.
It's such an entrenched groupthink mindset that they reinforce to each other.
It really is not that hard.
https://twitter.com/KirstyStricklan/status/803211737935859712
Haters gonna hate.
What's to 'get'?
http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm
The political difficulty is that the voters think that immigration is something that can be controlled at the border, and will find the idea of controlling it somewhere else unintuitive. To make matters worse there would be more than zero people who worked where they weren't supposed to, and the press would find these people and make it look like it was happening all the time.
We fix the immigration question by fixing the economy. People who have a job that pays the bills are less bothered about migration - and having done a fair bit of door knocking in 90% white areas a lot of the "migrants" they are worried about aren't living where they are.
But anyway it doesn't matter. UKIP have finally appointed the right leader, he will unahamedly play the race card and UKIP will clean up across the North and Midlands. Amongst all the chaos of 2016 - a world that seems too scary complex and depressing - they want softly spoken magic spells not longer term complex solutions.
And chances are that is exactly what he will do...
https://twitter.com/paulnuttallukip/status/803209450081439744
I suspect the latter is more likely than the former at the moment.
2. Start to charge the employer £10k per work permit.
Problem of regional working can then be managed and the system would be revenue positive.
Conservative: 12799 (32.5%)
Labour: 16307 (41.4%)
Lib Dem: 1723 (4.4%)
Green: 1545 (3.9%)
UKIP: 7015 (17.8%)
MAJORITY: 3508 (8.9%)
So if the Kippers take another slice of the Labour vote, the LibDems get a bit of an anti-Jezza bounce-back and the Tories take the votes from the people buying all of the nice new houses, Con gain.
(For illustration purposes only - I know the boundaries are changing)
It is an immensely patronising, middle class view that the white working class is composed of people who obsess about immigration above all else. It's important, to be sure; but there are many other issues they care about. If UKIP clean up it will be cause the party moves left and Labour remains mired in its comfort zone; not because all of a sudden there is a hard-line, right-wing race-baiter with a Scouse accent for people to vote for.
Was in Bolton, complaining about plans for a new mosque.
Apparently they are the English Knights Templar.
Bunch of twats if you ask me. They worship a bloody foreigner from Muslimistan as England's patron saint.
The joy of UKIP is that they are all things to all people. I honestly don;t know what their position is on various topics and I don't think their target voters care. What they do know is that they no longer trust us and can't vote Tory and that doesn't leave them much choice. If Nuttall chooses his words carefully and pitches the UKIP message to non-southern non-posh voters, they will decimate Labour. We are seriously vulnerable to them across swathes of England.
Now, bar a bit of Farage gloating & internecine fisticuffs, it's the ONLY reason.
The Tories have swept up some UKIP votes without losing votes to the LDs.
But like I say I don't think you can do it without first somehow disabusing the voters of the view that nasty foreign things can be kept out at the border. There's quite a deeply-rooted cognitive illusion at work here, which is why management will happily spend a lot of money on firewall hardware even when they don't want to pay for useful security.
In all seriousness, I am Growing to despise that phrase. Even by political standards it means nothing. Of course Brexit means we must Brexit, that is (voting for)Brexit means (we will)Brexit, but everyone can see plain as day that what most of those who say it mean is (only my)Brexit means (proper)Brexit.
There will be people advocating softer Brexits who, in their hearts, are hoping Brexit will not happen at all, but it would be wrong to suggest that anyone holding that position does not intend to leave. I'd prefer a more honest Brexit must mean Full Brexit or Complete Brexit as a slogan, it actually means something, even if one can quibble over it still.
In all seriousness, I am Growing to despise that phrase. Even by political standards it means nothing. Of course Brexit means we must Brexit, that is (voting for)Brexit means (we will)Brexit, but everyone can see plain as day that what most of those who say it mean is (only my)Brexit means (proper)Brexit.
There will be people advocating softer Brexits who, in their hearts, are hoping Brexit will not happen at all, but it would be wrong to suggest that anyone holding that position does not intend to leave. I'd prefer a more honest Brexit must mean Full Brexit or Complete Brexit as a slogan, it actually means something, even if one can quibble over it still.
In all seriousness, I am Growing to despise that phrase. Even by political standards it means nothing. Of course Brexit means we must Brexit, that is (voting for)Brexit means (we will)Brexit, but everyone can see plain as day that what most of those who say it mean is (only my)Brexit means (proper)Brexit.
There will be people advocating softer Brexits who, in their hearts, are hoping Brexit will not happen at all, but it would be wrong to suggest that anyone holding that position does not intend to leave. I'd prefer a more honest Brexit must mean Full Brexit or Complete Brexit as a slogan, it actually means something, even if one can quibble over it still.
"UKIP will not continue to privatise the NHS by the back door, as both Labour and the Conservatives have done. We will end the use of PFI contracts within the NHS."
http://www.ukip.org/manifesto2015
Evan McMullin Verified account
@Evan_McMullin
Evan McMullin Retweeted Donald J. Trump
It should not go unrecognized that @realDonaldTrump's effort to inflate his election performance without cause is typical of autocrats.
James Forsyth ✔ @JGForsyth
Corbyn’s reaction to Castro’s death, highlights the opportunity 4 Paul Nuttall’s Ukip: How many Labour heartland voters put Che posters up?
The other political problem is how voters who live outside Britain are going to feel about those countries reciprocating.
- Yes (You do not have to be a member of the EU to be in the EEA; see Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein for examples)
- To a degree (We do not apply all the border controls we may apply as an EU member, let alone an EEA member - for example, we do not carry out exit checks. In addition, "Free Movement" is a wider term than many want to admit from either side. Further to that, Article 112 of the EEA agreement allows for a temporary suspension of Free Movement in any case, subject to agreement - Liechtenstein has exercised this "temporary" measure since 1998)
- Yes, based on GDP. Using a comparison with Norway, our per-capita contribution should be about £96 million per week (compare with the £350 million per week from THE BUS)
Immigration undoubtedly helped boost GDP for the UK and it is no coincidence that during a period of very high immigration the UK broke away from its usual position at the back of the pack to the fastest growing economy in the EU and, briefly, in the G7.
GDP per capita was of course somewhat less impressive. The standard of living for those on less than the average wage has been pitiful and is projected to remain so. The proportion of the population dependent upon the living wage for an increase has increased markedly. I also think that the ready supply of cheap labour has been a disincentive to improving productivity, investing in training and buying more expensive kit although I accept that the arguments about that are more complex.
From Labour supporters' point of view freedom of movement has undermined trade unions, destroyed the negotiating power of the semi-skilled and, increasingly, the skilled, greatly assisted in the growth of the gig economy and the casualization of work, increased the pressure for those dependent upon public services making it more difficult to get help (whilst at the same time providing much of the labour that such help requires) and disrupted communities who have had to find a wholly disproportionate share of the housing and school places that such mass immigration requires.
It is hard to think of a class of voters who have been more royally betrayed by those whom they elected than the poor and existing immigrant families in this country. It may not feel that way in Islington but out of touch really doesn't do it justice.
There are other questions. The EIB: do we remain a shareholder post Brexit? If not, are we bought out? And if so, at what price? If we remain a shareholder, do we include the dividend as an offset against costs?
The EEA Treaty is a treaty between the states of the EU on one side and the EFTSA states (ex-Switzerland) on the other. It is not possible for EU treaties to override the EEA one, because the EEA Treaty defines the relationship between the EU and the EFTA states. EFTA countries are not signatories of EU treaties and cannot be bound by them.