@Speedy I think that's a good flavour of it from a grassroots Labour perspective. The immigration issue is hilarious. Copeland is literally depopulating. It's a huge pressure on local services as a proportion of funding is per capita and certain services need economy of scale. A huge issue in the local NHS ' cuts ' is the inability of WCH is to recruit. Reed himself had a bizzare public spat with the ONS because they published population projections not including the ( still unsigned ) Reactors deal.
In fairness to Reed his real target would have been the local health trust who'll have been living their lips at the population projections. The brutal truth is few communities in the UK would benefit more from a wave of immigration. The problem is they've not had an immigration and so not had the recent benefits. It's depopulating because young talent people leave to move to areas of high immigration.
Yet there they are muttering in a news paper article about Immigration. If you were a health professional reading that would you relocate to work at WCH ? No, you'd think it was Royston Vasey.
There was a fascinating piece in the local press a few weeks ago with a ' Hostage Video ' style photo of a dozen new polish paramedics for the area. Think about that for a moment. Somewhere in the UK in 2016 where polish Immigration is genuinely novel and news worthy enough to justify press coverage. But also the angle the trust's media handlers were pushing. " Things are so bad we pulled off the rare feat of actually attracting some immgrants. Look they are white, speak English and aren't muslamics. "
But apparently immigration is a " concern." It's black comedy.
I'm quite fascinated with your obsession with immigration, even for a LD it's quite unusual.
Immigration doesn't cause economic growth, economic growth causes internal and external immigration.
If there was economic growth in Copeland it would have attracted more people.
@Speedy And why is Copeland depopulating ? It's spacious, beautful, has low crime, has high ( if rapidly declining ) social capital, has huge capacity for house building without altering it's character and has some of the cheapest housing in the UK. It's patchwork of small towns and villages would be picture postcard stuff else where in the UK. So why the hell is it depopulating ?
It's almost as if the immigration " concerns " are a racist attempt for locals to blame their complex problems on foreigners.
@Speedy I think that's a good flavour of it from a grassroots Labour perspective. The immigration issue is hilarious. Copeland is literally depopulating. It's a huge pressure on local services as a proportion of funding is per capita and certain services need economy of scale. A huge issue in the local NHS ' cuts ' is the inability of WCH is to recruit. Reed himself had a bizzare public spat with the ONS because they published population projections not including the ( still unsigned ) Reactors deal.
In fairness to Reed his real target would have been the local health trust who'll have been living their lips at the population projections. The brutal truth is few communities in the UK would benefit more from a wave of immigration. The problem is they've not had an immigration and so not had the recent benefits. It's depopulating because young talent people leave to move to areas of high immigration.
Yet there they are muttering in a news paper article about Immigration. If you were a health professional reading that would you relocate to work at WCH ? No, you'd think it was Royston Vasey.
There was a fascinating piece in the local press a few weeks ago with a ' Hostage Video ' style photo of a dozen new polish paramedics for the area. Think about that for a moment. Somewhere in the UK in 2016 where polish Immigration is genuinely novel and news worthy enough to justify press coverage. But also the angle the trust's media handlers were pushing. " Things are so bad we pulled off the rare feat of actually attracting some immgrants. Look they are white, speak English and aren't muslamics. "
But apparently immigration is a " concern." It's black comedy.
"You cannot walk the streets because of the immigrants" is usually heard from places where there is little or no immigration.
@Speedy I think that's a good flavour of it from a grassroots Labour perspective. The immigration issue is hilarious. Copeland is literally depopulating. It's a huge pressure on local services as a proportion of funding is per capita and certain services need economy of scale. A huge issue in the local NHS ' cuts ' is the inability of WCH is to recruit. Reed himself had a bizzare public spat with the ONS because they published population projections not including the ( still unsigned ) Reactors deal.
In fairness to Reed his real target would have been the local health trust who'll have been living their lips at the population projections. The brutal truth is few communities in the UK would benefit more from a wave of immigration. The problem is they've not had an immigration and so not had the recent benefits. It's depopulating because young talent people leave to move to areas of high immigration.
Yet there they are muttering in a news paper article about Immigration. If you were a health professional reading that would you relocate to work at WCH ? No, you'd think it was Royston Vasey.
There was a fascinating piece in the local press a few weeks ago with a ' Hostage Video ' style photo of a dozen new polish paramedics for the area. Think about that for a moment. Somewhere in the UK in 2016 where polish Immigration is genuinely novel and news worthy enough to justify press coverage. But also the angle the trust's media handlers were pushing. " Things are so bad we pulled off the rare feat of actually attracting some immgrants. Look they are white, speak English and aren't muslamics. "
But apparently immigration is a " concern." It's black comedy.
"You cannot walk the streets because of the immigrants" is usually heard from places where there is little or no immigration.
A fresh set of legal challenges asserting that the UK will remain within the single market and the European Economic Area after Brexit have been lodged at the high court.
A group of four anonymous claimants have joined a judicial review of government plans to leave the EU, alleging that separate parliamentary approval is needed to quit the EEA.
It's going to be terribly disappointing for cut and pasters if the Guardian is effectively paywalled. They may have to indulge in independent thought. It really will be open kimono time with respect to brains.
You're welcome to open your kimono to reveal your brain...
@Speedy And why is Copeland depopulating ? It's spacious, beautful, has low crime, has high ( if rapidly declining ) social capital, has huge capacity for house building without altering it's character and has some of the cheapest housing in the UK. It's patchwork of small towns and villages would be picture postcard stuff else where in the UK. So why the hell is it depopulating ?
It's almost as if the immigration " concerns " are a racist attempt for locals to blame their complex problems on foreigners.
Is there any demand for workers there? Is there any business investment that would generate the jobs to keep the locals from leaving to other areas ?
It's Jobs Jobs Jobs.
Not lack of immigration.
People move where jobs are more plentiful and better paid. Immigration doesn't create Jobs, Jobs creates immigration.
@Speedy I think that's a good flavour of it from a grassroots Labour perspective. The immigration issue is hilarious. Copeland is literally depopulating. It's a huge pressure on local services as a proportion of funding is per capita and certain services need economy of scale. A huge issue in the local NHS ' cuts ' is the inability of WCH is to recruit. Reed himself had a bizzare public spat with the ONS because they published population projections not including the ( still unsigned ) Reactors deal.
In fairness to Reed his real target would have been the local health trust who'll have been living their lips at the population projections. The brutal truth is few communities in the UK would benefit more from a wave of immigration. The problem is they've not had an immigration and so not had the recent benefits. It's depopulating because young talent people leave to move to areas of high immigration.
Yet there they are muttering in a news paper article about Immigration. If you were a health professional reading that would you relocate to work at WCH ? No, you'd think it was Royston Vasey.
There was a fascinating piece in the local press a few weeks ago with a ' Hostage Video ' style photo of a dozen new polish paramedics for the area. Think about that for a moment. Somewhere in the UK in 2016 where polish Immigration is genuinely novel and news worthy enough to justify press coverage. But also the angle the trust's media handlers were pushing. " Things are so bad we pulled off the rare feat of actually attracting some immgrants. Look they are white, speak English and aren't muslamics. "
But apparently immigration is a " concern." It's black comedy.
I'm quite fascinated with your obsession with immigration, even for a LD it's quite unusual.
Immigration doesn't cause economic growth, economic growth causes internal and external immigration.
If there was economic growth in Copeland it would have attracted more people.
Immigrants do cause economic growth. There is plenty of evidence about that.
Check out Japan vs Britain in the last 30 years.
Immigrants, in the beginning, has a larger propensity to spend because they have to start from almost nothing. They have to buy furniture, white goods etc. mostly straightaway or within a short period of time. In turn, the immigrants themselves cause new business to open to serve them, e.g., Polish bakeries.
@Speedy In fact Copeland is the Jurrassc Park of Brexit. It's a remarkable vision of what Brexit is supposed to be. Ethnically it's a throw back to before the Windrush. Almost no internal immgration , low population density putting no " strain " on local services. Sellafield provides a steady supply of high quality and quantity secure WWC jobs that can literally never be shipped overseas. The NDA says the current clean up work will take another *120* years. It's a living breathing microcosm of what the EU is sad to have destroyed and what Brexit will bring back. So is it paradise ?
No. On a selective but high number of metrics it's an obese, heavily smoking, suicidal, poor, badly educated, depopulating sh*thole with some of the worst public services in the UK which are about to get a lot worse. The fact that it manages this while simultaneously being one of the cheapest and most beautiful parts of the UK is a minor miracle.
Copeland is the Ghosts of Brexit Past, Present and Future all visiting in the same night. A Dream or a Nightmare.
@Speedy And why is Copeland depopulating ? It's spacious, beautful, has low crime, has high ( if rapidly declining ) social capital, has huge capacity for house building without altering it's character and has some of the cheapest housing in the UK. It's patchwork of small towns and villages would be picture postcard stuff else where in the UK. So why the hell is it depopulating ?
It's almost as if the immigration " concerns " are a racist attempt for locals to blame their complex problems on foreigners.
Immigrants are the best scapegoats. There is a "method in the madness" for Germany to take on 1m immigrants, whatever the short-term costs.
Just like the Turkish immigration in the 60's powered the German miracle. Immigrants are younger and pay taxes whereas because of people living longer the proportion of pensioners to working age population is increasing.
Who is going to pay taxes to pay for their old age ? The irony is that they are the most vehement anti-immigrants. Brexit was won by the oldies.
@Speedy I think that's a good flavour of it from a grassroots Labour perspective. The immigration issue is hilarious. Copeland is literally depopulating. It's a huge pressure on local services as a proportion of funding is per capita and certain services need economy of scale. A huge issue in the local NHS ' cuts ' is the inability of WCH is to recruit. Reed himself had a bizzare public spat with the ONS because they published population projections not including the ( still unsigned ) Reactors deal.
In fairness to Reed his real target would have been the local health trust who'll have been living their lips at the population projections. The brutal truth is few communities in the UK would benefit more from a wave of immigration. The problem is they've not had an immigration and so not had the recent benefits. It's depopulating because young talent people leave to move to areas of high immigration.
Yet there they are muttering in a news paper article about Immigration. If you were a health professional reading that would you relocate to work at WCH ? No, you'd think it was Royston Vasey.
There was a fascinating piece in the local press a few weeks ago with a ' Hostage Video ' style photo of a dozen new polish paramedics for the area. Think about that for a moment. Somewhere in the UK in 2016 where polish Immigration is genuinely novel and news worthy enough to justify press coverage. But also the angle the trust's media handlers were pushing. " Things are so bad we pulled off the rare feat of actually attracting some immgrants. Look they are white, speak English and aren't muslamics. "
But apparently immigration is a " concern." It's black comedy.
I'm quite fascinated with your obsession with immigration, even for a LD it's quite unusual.
Immigration doesn't cause economic growth, economic growth causes internal and external immigration.
If there was economic growth in Copeland it would have attracted more people.
Immigrants do cause economic growth. There is plenty of evidence about that.
Check out Japan vs Britain in the last 30 years.
Immigrants, in the beginning, has a larger propensity to spend because they have to start from almost nothing. They have to buy furniture, white goods etc. mostly straightaway or within a short period of time. In turn, the immigrants themselves cause new business to open to serve them, e.g., Polish bakeries.
The South of England didn't become rich because everyone from the North moved there. Northerners moved South because it was wealthier and had more jobs.
Everyone who knows about the 80's knows that, better jobs make people move not the opposite.
"With Labour tearing itself apart, and the Lib Dems pigeonholing themselves as a one-issue party for those who refuse to accept the referendum result, the country needs an opposition that is on the side of ordinary people."
@Speedy I think that's a good flavour of it from a grassroots Labour perspective. The immigration issue is hilarious. Copeland is literally depopulating. It's a huge pressure on local services as a proportion of funding is per capita and certain services need economy of scale. A huge issue in the local NHS ' cuts ' is the inability of WCH is to recruit. Reed himself had a bizzare public spat with the ONS because they published population projections not including the ( still unsigned ) Reactors deal.
In fairness to Reed......... It's depopulating because young talent people leave to move to areas of high immigration.
Yet there they are muttering in a news paper article about Immigration. If you were a health professional reading that would you relocate to work at WCH ? No, you'd think it was Royston Vasey.
There was a fascinating piece in the local press a few weeks ago with a ' Hostage Video ' style photo of a dozen new polish paramedics for the area. Think about that for a moment. Somewhere in the UK in 2016 where polish Immigration is genuinely novel and news worthy enough to justify press coverage. But also the angle the trust's media handlers were pushing. " Things are so bad we pulled off the rare feat of actually attracting some immgrants. Look they are white, speak English and aren't muslamics. "
But apparently immigration is a " concern." It's black comedy.
I'm quite fascinated with your obsession with immigration, even for a LD it's quite unusual.
Immigration doesn't cause economic growth, economic growth causes internal and external immigration.
If there was economic growth in Copeland it would have attracted more people.
Immigrants do cause economic growth. There is plenty of evidence about that.
Check out Japan vs Britain in the last 30 years.
Immigrants, in the beginning, has a larger propensity to spend because they have to start from almost nothing. They have to buy furniture, white goods etc. mostly straightaway or within a short period of time. In turn, the immigrants themselves cause new business to open to serve them, e.g., Polish bakeries.
The South of England didn't become rich because everyone from the North moved there. Northerners moved South because it was wealthier and had more jobs.
Everyone who knows about the 80's knows that, better jobs make people move not the opposite.
Both are correct. One feeds the other. Do you think the US, Australia would have become what they are today without immigration ?
Why is Japan stagnant ? It is the only developed country where wage rates for legal and illegal residents are almost the same. Because they cannot find the right people.
The EU is sui generis. It's not a state but has ' legal personality ' and can sign treaties in it's own right. It has it's own citizenship but it can only be held back citizenship of a member state. It has many of the features of a state ( parliament, dimplomatic service, law ) but startling lacks others ( any tax raising powers. Compare with a UK parish council ). It excercses binding legal powers very national governments in some circumstances but is entirely constructed by international treaties entered into by soveriegn states. It's Sui Generis.
Both are correct. One feeds the other. Do you think the US, Australia would have become what they are today without immigration ?
Why is Japan stagnant ? It is the only developed country where wage rates for legal and illegal residents are almost the same. Because they cannot find the right people.
And all three of those countries are free to decide who and how many people could come in.
@Speedy In fact Copeland is the Jurrassc Park of Brexit. It's a remarkable vision of what Brexit is supposed to be. Ethnically it's a throw back to before the Windrush. Almost no internal immgration , low population density putting no " strain " on local services. Sellafield provides a steady supply of high quality and quantity secure WWC jobs that can literally never be shipped overseas. The NDA says the current clean up work will take another *120* years. It's a living breathing microcosm of what the EU is sad to have destroyed and what Brexit will bring back. So is it paradise ?
No. On a selective but high number of metrics it's an obese, heavily smoking, suicidal, poor, badly educated, depopulating sh*thole with some of the worst public services in the UK which are about to get a lot worse. The fact that it manages this while simultaneously being one of the cheapest and most beautiful parts of the UK is a minor miracle.
Copeland is the Ghosts of Brexit Past, Present and Future all visiting in the same night. A Dream or a Nightmare.
@Speedy And why is Copeland depopulating ? It's spacious, beautful, has low crime, has high ( if rapidly declining ) social capital, has huge capacity for house building without altering it's character and has some of the cheapest housing in the UK. It's patchwork of small towns and villages would be picture postcard stuff else where in the UK. So why the hell is it depopulating ?
It's almost as if the immigration " concerns " are a racist attempt for locals to blame their complex problems on foreigners.
Immigrants are the best scapegoats. There is a "method in the madness" for Germany to take on 1m immigrants, whatever the short-term costs.
Just like the Turkish immigration in the 60's powered the German miracle. Immigrants are younger and pay taxes whereas because of people living longer the proportion of pensioners to working age population is increasing.
Who is going to pay taxes to pay for their old age ? The irony is that they are the most vehement anti-immigrants. Brexit was won by the oldies.
Italy didn't had any Turkish immigrants and did better than Germany in the 60's.
Italy, Greece and Japan had the best economic growth rates in the 1945-1973 period in the western world and had no external immigration during that period.
Britain had one of the lowest despite it's open borders at the time with the Commonwealth.
Sound economic policy has a far greater impact on the economy. Border controls and immigration controls are a social stabilizer and a Law and Order issue in my personal opinion, though too much immigration depresses wages and investment.
The EU is the most important bloc/nation in the world. The term nation state is irrelevant.
You've really never travelled have you? If you're in Asia, it's interesting but by some distance not the most important. China, on the other hand. If you're Canadian? If you're Mexican?
A fresh set of legal challenges asserting that the UK will remain within the single market and the European Economic Area after Brexit have been lodged at the high court.
A group of four anonymous claimants have joined a judicial review of government plans to leave the EU, alleging that separate parliamentary approval is needed to quit the EEA.
It's going to be terribly disappointing for cut and pasters if the Guardian is effectively paywalled. They may have to indulge in independent thought. It really will be open kimono time with respect to brains.
You're welcome to open your kimono to reveal your brain...
The biggest EU nations also attend the G20 if it is not just a meeting of nation states you do not just invite one trading block you invite them all
There is no equivalence between the EU and trading blocks like NAFTA/ASEAN/Mercosur.
You'd think that after 40 years being part of it, culminating in a vote to leave to reclaim lost sovereignty, the British would understand that it is a political project, but apparently not.
Like it or not the EU is a uniquely ambitious and successful innovation in political organisation.
'There is no equivalence between the EU and trading blocks like NAFTA/ASEAN/Mercosur.'
Exactly. That's what is wrong with it and that's why we voted to leave. If only it were a mere trading block rather than the monstrosity it has become I'm sure 99% of us would want to stay in.
A fresh set of legal challenges asserting that the UK will remain within the single market and the European Economic Area after Brexit have been lodged at the high court.
A group of four anonymous claimants have joined a judicial review of government plans to leave the EU, alleging that separate parliamentary approval is needed to quit the EEA.
It's going to be terribly disappointing for cut and pasters if the Guardian is effectively paywalled. They may have to indulge in independent thought. It really will be open kimono time with respect to brains.
You're welcome to open your kimono to reveal your brain...
Go on, you know you can do it.
You show me yours...
In all seriousness you seem to have picked on the wrong target. There's been plenty of prescient original thought expressed in my posts over the last year.
@surbiton - only if you believe that the CO2 emissions resulting from burning wood at Drax and elsewhere don't really exist. It will take decades for the forests to reabsorb the CO2 (if they are actually replanted), and by then the climate will likely be fecked already.
@Speedy And why is Copeland depopulating ? It's spacious, beautful, has low crime, has high ( if rapidly declining ) social capital, has huge capacity for house building without altering it's character and has some of the cheapest housing in the UK. It's patchwork of small towns and villages would be picture postcard stuff else where in the UK. So why the hell is it depopulating ?
It's almost as if the immigration " concerns " are a racist attempt for locals to blame their complex problems on foreigners.
No extra spaces for quote marks, please: "concerns", not " concerns ", and "its" for possessive, it's for "it is". And I know it wasn't you, but "You cannot walk the streets because of the immigrants" is a sentence I cannot imagine being said anywhere except in a really, really badly written play.
A fresh set of legal challenges asserting that the UK will remain within the single market and the European Economic Area after Brexit have been lodged at the high court.
A group of four anonymous claimants have joined a judicial review of government plans to leave the EU, alleging that separate parliamentary approval is needed to quit the EEA.
It's going to be terribly disappointing for cut and pasters if the Guardian is effectively paywalled. They may have to indulge in independent thought. It really will be open kimono time with respect to brains.
You're welcome to open your kimono to reveal your brain...
Go on, you know you can do it.
You show me yours...
In all seriousness you seem to have picked on the wrong target. There's been plenty of prescient original thought expressed in my posts over the last year.
In terms of level of debate, you are probably at one end of the scale, whereas our dearly missed (but not forgotten) 619 is at the other.
I'm quite fascinated with your obsession with immigration, even for a LD it's quite unusual.
Immigration doesn't cause economic growth, economic growth causes internal and external immigration.
If there was economic growth in Copeland it would have attracted more people.
Immigrants do cause economic growth. There is plenty of evidence about that.
Check out Japan vs Britain in the last 30 years.
Immigrants, in the beginning, has a larger propensity to spend because they have to start from almost nothing. They have to buy furniture, white goods etc. mostly straightaway or within a short period of time. In turn, the immigrants themselves cause new business to open to serve them, e.g., Polish bakeries.
The South of England didn't become rich because everyone from the North moved there. Northerners moved South because it was wealthier and had more jobs.
Everyone who knows about the 80's knows that, better jobs make people move not the opposite.
Both are correct. One feeds the other. Do you think the US, Australia would have become what they are today without immigration ?
Why is Japan stagnant ? It is the only developed country where wage rates for legal and illegal residents are almost the same. Because they cannot find the right people.
Are the US and Australia really the happy examples you want to be offering? The original inhabitants might have a rather different view of immigration.
@Speedy Then there are Cumbria's *7* local authorities for a total population of just over 525K. Over 360 *principal* local authority councillors. That's before we get to the fact the county is almost entirely parishes below that and has a National Park Authority covering most of it with broad planning and economic development powers. It hasn't even got a Combined Authority let alone be taking part in a Metro Mayor.
It hasn't taken back control. It never let go of control in the first place. It's radically democratic and decentralised. Copeland residents with have one of the lowest elector to politican ratios in the UK. Indeed Copeland recently decided to add an elected Mayor into it's mix.
And where has all the localism and parochialism got Copeland ? Compared to even the wealthy Lake District boroughs of Eden and South Lakeland let alone Surrey. It's almost as if the quality of politican chosen and policy decisions taken is more important than pure localised soveriegnty.
Shame she doesn't also say that the report was issued by a company of which Will Straw of Uk stronger in Europe was previously a director and the organisation received funding from the EU.
The biggest EU nations also attend the G20 if it is not just a meeting of nation states you do not just invite one trading block you invite them all
There is no equivalence between the EU and trading blocks like NAFTA/ASEAN/Mercosur.
You'd think that after 40 years being part of it, culminating in a vote to leave to reclaim lost sovereignty, the British would understand that it is a political project, but apparently not.
Like it or not the EU is a uniquely ambitious and successful innovation in political organisation.
LOL. What a load of bollocks. And that applies to both the EU and your warped view of it.
@surbiton - only if you believe that the CO2 emissions resulting from burning wood at Drax and elsewhere don't really exist. It will take decades for the forests to reabsorb the CO2 (if they are actually replanted), and by then the climate will likely be fecked already.
I am not a big supporter of Biomass. However, if it replaces coal, then I will accept it, however reluctantly.
At least, some of these fast growing trees will replace far quickly [ thousands of times ] than the coal we are burning. Both emit CO2.
My fascination is for wind and solar . Not so much hydro. Specially in developing countries where it can change habitats for comparatively little investment .
WG The EU is a glorified trading block in all but name. Ask any Italian, Spaniard, Frenchman or German whether they put loyalty to the EU above that of their own nation and they will answer in the negative
The biggest EU nations also attend the G20 if it is not just a meeting of nation states you do not just invite one trading block you invite them all
There is no equivalence between the EU and trading blocks like NAFTA/ASEAN/Mercosur.
You'd think that after 40 years being part of it, culminating in a vote to leave to reclaim lost sovereignty, the British would understand that it is a political project, but apparently not.
Like it or not the EU is a uniquely ambitious and successful innovation in political organisation.
We do recognise it as a political project. That's why we voted to leave.
It's certainly ambitious. Successful? Not so much.
@Surbiton Copeland has huge Wind ( the ex industrial coast ex the National Park ) and Solar ( low yield arable land owned by farmers desperate to diversify ) potential. Yet the local press is awash with local Labour councillors competing to be the most NIMBYish on planning applications and Farmers routinely report death threats if they apply for Solar. Ditto with the " Britain's Energy Coast " branding which doubtless tests better in focus groups than Big Nuclear.
'There is no equivalence between the EU and trading blocks like NAFTA/ASEAN/Mercosur.'
Exactly. That's what is wrong with it and that's why we voted to leave. If only it were a mere trading block rather than the monstrosity it has become I'm sure 99% of us would want to stay in.
This is why the Lisbon treaty, that famous "tidying up exercise" effectively abolished the economic part (EC) in orporating within the wider EU was the straw that broke the camels back. The treaty was voted against by two countries who were ultimately ignored by the EU by simply changing the front page of the document and going ahead anyway.
The third country the UK being denied the promised referendum on which the government was voted in. Instead the PM of the day sneaked in through the back door and signed it.
Any wonder people when they finally had the chance voted out.
@Speedy And why is Copeland depopulating ? It's spacious, beautful, has low crime, has high ( if rapidly declining ) social capital, has huge capacity for house building without altering it's character and has some of the cheapest housing in the UK. It's patchwork of small towns and villages would be picture postcard stuff else where in the UK. So why the hell is it depopulating ?
It's almost as if the immigration " concerns " are a racist attempt for locals to blame their complex problems on foreigners.
Immigrants are the best scapegoats. There is a "method in the madness" for Germany to take on 1m immigrants, whatever the short-term costs.
Just like the Turkish immigration in the 60's powered the German miracle. Immigrants are younger and pay taxes whereas because of people living longer the proportion of pensioners to working age population is increasing.
Who is going to pay taxes to pay for their old age ? The irony is that they are the most vehement anti-immigrants. Brexit was won by the oldies.
Italy didn't had any Turkish immigrants and did better than Germany in the 60's.
Italy, Greece and Japan had the best economic growth rates in the 1945-1973 period in the western world and had no external immigration during that period.
Britain had one of the lowest despite it's open borders at the time with the Commonwealth.
Sound economic policy has a far greater impact on the economy. Border controls and immigration controls are a social stabilizer and a Law and Order issue in my personal opinion, though too much immigration depresses wages and investment.
The UK's record of GDP growth per head has been wretched since 2000, compared to the period 1960-2000. Levels of immigration have been far greater post 2000 than in the previous 40 years.
The only difference between coal and biomass is that when we burn coal we are burning trees that have been dead for 200 million years and when we burn biomass we are burning trees that have been dead for 200 hours.
The only difference between coal and biomass is that when we burn coal we are burning trees that have been dead for 200 million years and when we burn biomass we are burning trees that have been dead for 200 hours.
But trees can be replaced much quicker. It takes 200m years for coal.
@Surbiton Copeland has huge Wind ( the ex industrial coast ex the National Park ) and Solar ( low yield arable land owned by farmers desperate to diversify ) potential. Yet the local press is awash with local Labour councillors competing to be the most NIMBYish on planning applications and Farmers routinely report death threats if they apply for Solar. Ditto with the " Britain's Energy Coast " branding which doubtless tests better in focus groups than Big Nuclear.
I guess Nuclear dominates the politicians. In a sense, old Labour.
Re the local elections, overall vote shares since June 23rd would suggest the Conservatives won't face much trouble at the next election (subject to events, of course). The Opposition really should be 10%+ ahead, to have a real chance of winning.
Re: the local elections the Tories have nothing to fear whilst Corbyn is at the helm...even though they have a leader with the likeability of Gordon Brown, the strategy of Gordon Brown, the control freakery of Gordon Brown, the touchiness of Gordon Brown, that ambition to be PM without the first clue of knowing what to do with it as Gordon Brown, the out of touchness as Gordon Brown, the inability to mix socially as Gordon Brown, the weirdness of Gordon Brown, the resistance to face up to scrutiny as Gordon Brown, the inability to reach out as...now let me think, Gordon Brown.....
Re the local elections, overall vote shares since June 23rd would suggest the Conservatives won't face much trouble at the next election (subject to events, of course). The Opposition really should be 10%+ ahead, to have a real chance of winning.
I find it hard to believe the Conservatives would make the mistake of assuming that all those who feel they're the best of a bad lot at a GE are happy about it and are therefore prepared to vote for them locally.
Conversely, IMHO the LibDems would be making a mistake to assume that the recovery in their vote at local level will (yet) translate into votes at any GE in the near-ish future.
The Conservatives are in a very strong position on local councils for a government in its seventh year of office. The Lib Dems are in a very weak position. They're regaining the low-hanging fruit, but their overall share isn't that great.
I see GBP is falling back against other currencies again...that is after the Italian banking system is on the verge of collapse. Brexit...even faced against the Euro crisis,. a Trump presidency threatening to plunge the world into a trade crisis...investors stay away...Good job
@sean fear....the low hanging fruit metaphor is stomach churningly crass....I would be embarrassed for my five year old nephew if he resorted to using it...
Along with the yearly moaning about the honours list, z-celeb fitness dvd's, it is the time of year where we get stories about the NHS being at breaking point...
The rat problem isn't an NHS specific one, it is a wider problem related to the water companies reduced targeting of vermin. The pest control guy who recently came out to assist me told me he has never been so busy due to this.
Along with the yearly moaning about the honours list, z-celeb fitness dvd's, it is the time of year where we get stories about the NHS being at breaking point...
The rat problem isn't an NHS specific one, it is a wider problem related to the water companies reduced targeting of vermin. The pest control guy who recently came out to assist me told me he has never been so busy due to this.
Along with the yearly moaning about the honours list, z-celeb fitness dvd's, it is the time of year where we get stories about the NHS being at breaking point...
The rat problem isn't an NHS specific one, it is a wider problem related to the water companies reduced targeting of vermin. The pest control guy who recently came out to assist me told me he has never been so busy due to this.
What specifically have they stopped doing?
He told me a variety of cost cutting / scrimping, one specific example he gave (and I don't know if this is the technically correct procedure) was that as he put it they used to "deep bomb" the sewers to control the population and they haven't been doing this to the same extent the past few years.
Chez Urquhart recently had the little f##kers coming up from the sewers and running the house and had to call a professional in to deal with them.
"The Conservatives are in a very strong position on local councils for a government in its seventh year of office."
You seem to have forgotten that the first five years of this period we had a Lib Dem. Conservative Coalition Government. The Tory propaganda machine managed to dump all the disastrous policies on the Lib Dems, and then took credit unto itself for all the sensible Lib Dem bits.
People are only just starting to realise. Mrs May is making it abundantly to clear to everybody what the Conservatives are really about. And people don`t like it.
The only difference between coal and biomass is that when we burn coal we are burning trees that have been dead for 200 million years and when we burn biomass we are burning trees that have been dead for 200 hours.
But trees can be replaced much quicker. It takes 200m years for coal.
In no way meaning to undermine your reply which is true for most of the coal we mine in the UK. But brown coal can form in as little as several decades and much of the lignite burnt in the world (it still provides a quarter of all German electricity production) is anything from several thousand to several million years old.
On topic, the story for the LDs is a recovery in some areas of previous strength but not all and some small signs of headway in previously quiet areas.
Twas ever thus - so much depends on having a good group of activists in the right place at the right time.
The 2017 County elections do offer the party a chance to continue the recovery.
As for the Conservatives, yes, they currently enjoy large levels of support - my only thoughts on this are twofold - how much of this is default support predicated on the lack of a viable alternative and how much is support based on anyone and everyone being able to project their own version of the ideal Brexit on to Theresa May ?
IF or rather when Labour moves back toward the centre and chooses a leader who will look like a credible Prime Minister in waiting much as Blair and before him Wilson and once we see the colour of May's cards in terms of the hand she will be playing in the A50 negotiations, we may then see whether the Conservative support is a mile wide and an inch deep.
Stodge That leader will not emerge for Labour until after the 2020 election at the earliest if then meanwhile May will win that election and should get the best part of a decade in power
Jonathan Jesus Christ would not have won a fifth term for the Tories, Major is the only party leader in over a century to win a fourth consecutive term for his party
Jonathan Jesus Christ would not have won a fifth term for the Tories, Major is the only party leader in over a century to win a fourth consecutive term for his party
A pyrrhic victory that almost rivals Dave's 2015 triumph.
@Speedy In fact Copeland is the Jurrassc Park of Brexit. It's a remarkable vision of what Brexit is supposed to be. Ethnically it's a throw back to before the Windrush. Almost no internal immgration , low population density putting no " strain " on local services. Sellafield provides a steady supply of high quality and quantity secure WWC jobs that can literally never be shipped overseas. The NDA says the current clean up work will take another *120* years. It's a living breathing microcosm of what the EU is sad to have destroyed and what Brexit will bring back. So is it paradise ?
No. On a selective but high number of metrics it's an obese, heavily smoking, suicidal, poor, badly educated, depopulating sh*thole with some of the worst public services in the UK which are about to get a lot worse. The fact that it manages this while simultaneously being one of the cheapest and most beautiful parts of the UK is a minor miracle.
Copeland is the Ghosts of Brexit Past, Present and Future all visiting in the same night. A Dream or a Nightmare.
What a case you make for the improving living standards that voting Labour since the start of recorded time has brought the people of Copeland.....
Rereading the text of Cameron's EU deal, as you do, I note that the following clause makes no reference to the referendum. If Article 50 is indeed revocable, than this deal would surely become our fallback position. The wording itself invites the interpretation that a decision to remain can be made after a period of uncertainty about the matter.
This Decision shall take effect on the same date as the Government of the United Kingdom informs the Secretary-General of the Council that the United Kingdom has decided to remain a member of the European Union.
Rereading the text of Cameron's EU deal, as you do, I note that the following clause makes no reference to the referendum. If Article 50 is indeed revocable, than this deal would surely become our fallback position. The wording itself invites the interpretation that a decision to remain can be made after a period of uncertainty about the matter.
This Decision shall take effect on the same date as the Government of the United Kingdom informs the Secretary-General of the Council that the United Kingdom has decided to remain a member of the European Union.
"No government is ever very popular (well, Labour was in 1997/99) but this one seems more popular than most."
That is the rose-tinted Tory interpretation, Mr Fear. I don`t think this hard-Tory government is the least bit popular.
No doubt you will cite the opinion polls at me. But I think that nowadays the question "How would you vote in a general election if it were held tomorrow?" is interpreted as "Would you prefer a Labour Government or a Tory one?" And that in turn is interpreted as "Would you rather have Corbyn or May as prime minister?" Personally, I would find this a very difficult question to answer. I would prefer neither.
But I suspect that most people would opt for May (as the lesser evil), and this is translated into a preference for the Conservatives.
But as the list in the leader clearly demonstrates, the Conservative vote is enormously soft - and vulnerable to a challenge from the Liberal Democrats.
Rereading the text of Cameron's EU deal, as you do, I note that the following clause makes no reference to the referendum. If Article 50 is indeed revocable, than this deal would surely become our fallback position. The wording itself invites the interpretation that a decision to remain can be made after a period of uncertainty about the matter.
This Decision shall take effect on the same date as the Government of the United Kingdom informs the Secretary-General of the Council that the United Kingdom has decided to remain a member of the European Union.
Rereading the text of Cameron's EU deal, as you do, I note that the following clause makes no reference to the referendum. If Article 50 is indeed revocable, than this deal would surely become our fallback position. The wording itself invites the interpretation that a decision to remain can be made after a period of uncertainty about the matter.
This Decision shall take effect on the same date as the Government of the United Kingdom informs the Secretary-General of the Council that the United Kingdom has decided to remain a member of the European Union.
Rereading the text of Cameron's EU deal, as you do, I note that the following clause makes no reference to the referendum. If Article 50 is indeed revocable, than this deal would surely become our fallback position. The wording itself invites the interpretation that a decision to remain can be made after a period of uncertainty about the matter.
This Decision shall take effect on the same date as the Government of the United Kingdom informs the Secretary-General of the Council that the United Kingdom has decided to remain a member of the European Union.
Rereading the text of Cameron's EU deal, as you do, I note that the following clause makes no reference to the referendum. If Article 50 is indeed revocable, than this deal would surely become our fallback position. The wording itself invites the interpretation that a decision to remain can be made after a period of uncertainty about the matter.
This Decision shall take effect on the same date as the Government of the United Kingdom informs the Secretary-General of the Council that the United Kingdom has decided to remain a member of the European Union.
Slight problem. The voters informed the Government of the United Kingdom that the United Kingdom has decided to fuck off out of the EU.
So that's the end of that then.
And if the A50 negotiations are going nowhere and this deal starts to look like a better option? The people have a right to change their minds.
If the A50 negotiations go nowhere, that is down to the EU. The people will see the nature of the beast, and decide we did the right thing to vote to Leave it.
Do you yourself a favour in 2017. Drop the absurd notion that we aren't leaving the EU.
May's desperate attempts to ingratiate herself with Donald Trump are pitiful.
As are Obamas attempts to screw up the next administration based on an allegation as yet unproven just because his party and the pitiful Clinton * lost. All Obama has to say now is the hack took 45 minutes.
Party before country heh? Now where did we hear that approach from a jelly spined party leader hopeful?
* not sure Trump is better but that's who they chose so we're stuck with it.
Comments
Immigration doesn't cause economic growth, economic growth causes internal and external immigration.
If there was economic growth in Copeland it would have attracted more people.
It's almost as if the immigration " concerns " are a racist attempt for locals to blame their complex problems on foreigners.
Therefore the Copeland By-election probably will not follow the opinion polls, just like all the other by-elections.
Is there any business investment that would generate the jobs to keep the locals from leaving to other areas ?
It's Jobs Jobs Jobs.
Not lack of immigration.
People move where jobs are more plentiful and better paid.
Immigration doesn't create Jobs, Jobs creates immigration.
Check out Japan vs Britain in the last 30 years.
Immigrants, in the beginning, has a larger propensity to spend because they have to start from almost nothing. They have to buy furniture, white goods etc. mostly straightaway or within a short period of time. In turn, the immigrants themselves cause new business to open to serve them, e.g., Polish bakeries.
No. On a selective but high number of metrics it's an obese, heavily smoking, suicidal, poor, badly educated, depopulating sh*thole with some of the worst public services in the UK which are about to get a lot worse. The fact that it manages this while simultaneously being one of the cheapest and most beautiful parts of the UK is a minor miracle.
Copeland is the Ghosts of Brexit Past, Present and Future all visiting in the same night. A Dream or a Nightmare.
The EU isn't quite a country, but is a different category of entity than things like NAFTA and ASEAN (and quite right too).
Just like the Turkish immigration in the 60's powered the German miracle.
Immigrants are younger and pay taxes whereas because of people living longer the proportion of pensioners to working age population is increasing.
Who is going to pay taxes to pay for their old age ? The irony is that they are the most vehement anti-immigrants. Brexit was won by the oldies.
Northerners moved South because it was wealthier and had more jobs.
Everyone who knows about the 80's knows that, better jobs make people move not the opposite.
Why is Japan stagnant ? It is the only developed country where wage rates for legal and illegal residents are almost the same. Because they cannot find the right people.
Whether we want to be part of it or not isn't relevant.
Italy, Greece and Japan had the best economic growth rates in the 1945-1973 period in the western world and had no external immigration during that period.
Britain had one of the lowest despite it's open borders at the time with the Commonwealth.
Sound economic policy has a far greater impact on the economy.
Border controls and immigration controls are a social stabilizer and a Law and Order issue in my personal opinion, though too much immigration depresses wages and investment.
You'd think that after 40 years being part of it, culminating in a vote to leave to reclaim lost sovereignty, the British would understand that it is a political project, but apparently not.
Like it or not the EU is a uniquely ambitious and successful innovation in political organisation.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/29/christmas-day-2016-renewable-energy-uk-green-electricity
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/dec/26/this-is-possible-we-did-it-the-week-portugal-ran-on-renewables
Exactly. That's what is wrong with it and that's why we voted to leave. If only it were a mere trading block rather than the monstrosity it has become I'm sure 99% of us would want to stay in.
In all seriousness you seem to have picked on the wrong target. There's been plenty of prescient original thought expressed in my posts over the last year.
No extra spaces for quote marks, please: "concerns", not " concerns ", and "its" for possessive, it's for "it is". And I know it wasn't you, but "You cannot walk the streets because of the immigrants" is a sentence I cannot imagine being said anywhere except in a really, really badly written play.
Not that I am saying that renewables aren't making a growing share of electricity generation, just that these types of stories are really misleading.
(Edited to add, good evening, everyone.)
It hasn't taken back control. It never let go of control in the first place. It's radically democratic and decentralised. Copeland residents with have one of the lowest elector to politican ratios in the UK. Indeed Copeland recently decided to add an elected Mayor into it's mix.
And where has all the localism and parochialism got Copeland ? Compared to even the wealthy Lake District boroughs of Eden and South Lakeland let alone Surrey. It's almost as if the quality of politican chosen and policy decisions taken is more important than pure localised soveriegnty.
"It takes etc"
Uncharacteristically pompous.
Baroness Susan Kramer, Lib Dem Treasury spokesperson, said the report's Brexit warning was a "devastating indictment of the Conservative Government"
http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-is-the-firing-gun-on-a-decade-of-disruption-report-finds-10710800
Shame she doesn't also say that the report was issued by a company of which Will Straw of Uk stronger in Europe was previously a director and the organisation received funding from the EU.
Hat tip guido.
http://order-order.com/2015/12/14/more-eu-sockpuppetry-from-ippr/
At least, some of these fast growing trees will replace far quickly [ thousands of times ] than the coal we are burning. Both emit CO2.
My fascination is for wind and solar . Not so much hydro. Specially in developing countries where it can change habitats for comparatively little investment .
It's certainly ambitious. Successful? Not so much.
The third country the UK being denied the promised referendum on which the government was voted in. Instead the PM of the day sneaked in through the back door and signed it.
Any wonder people when they finally had the chance voted out.
Season's greetings btw.
In 1983 the Tories polled 43.5% and Labour 28.3%.
Conversely, IMHO the LibDems would be making a mistake to assume that the recovery in their vote at local level will (yet) translate into votes at any GE in the near-ish future.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/29/fresh-brexit-challenge-high-court-leaving-single-market-eea
The Conservatives are in a very strong position on local councils for a government in its seventh year of office. The Lib Dems are in a very weak position. They're regaining the low-hanging fruit, but their overall share isn't that great.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/814591709602529280
The rat problem isn't an NHS specific one, it is a wider problem related to the water companies reduced targeting of vermin. The pest control guy who recently came out to assist me told me he has never been so busy due to this.
Chez Urquhart recently had the little f##kers coming up from the sewers and running the house and had to call a professional in to deal with them.
"The Conservatives are in a very strong position on local councils for a government in its seventh year of office."
You seem to have forgotten that the first five years of this period we had a Lib Dem. Conservative Coalition Government. The Tory propaganda machine managed to dump all the disastrous policies on the Lib Dems, and then took credit unto itself for all the sensible Lib Dem bits.
People are only just starting to realise. Mrs May is making it abundantly to clear to everybody what the Conservatives are really about. And people don`t like it.
£1m annual bill.
Remainer mathematics.
On topic, the story for the LDs is a recovery in some areas of previous strength but not all and some small signs of headway in previously quiet areas.
Twas ever thus - so much depends on having a good group of activists in the right place at the right time.
The 2017 County elections do offer the party a chance to continue the recovery.
As for the Conservatives, yes, they currently enjoy large levels of support - my only thoughts on this are twofold - how much of this is default support predicated on the lack of a viable alternative and how much is support based on anyone and everyone being able to project their own version of the ideal Brexit on to Theresa May ?
IF or rather when Labour moves back toward the centre and chooses a leader who will look like a credible Prime Minister in waiting much as Blair and before him Wilson and once we see the colour of May's cards in terms of the hand she will be playing in the A50 negotiations, we may then see whether the Conservative support is a mile wide and an inch deep.
No government is ever very popular (well, Labour was in 1997/99) but this one seems more popular than most.
This Decision shall take effect on the same date as the Government of the United Kingdom informs the Secretary-General of the Council that the United Kingdom has decided to remain a member of the European Union.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-factbox-idUKKCN0VS2SH
"No government is ever very popular (well, Labour was in 1997/99) but this one seems more popular than most."
That is the rose-tinted Tory interpretation, Mr Fear. I don`t think this hard-Tory government is the least bit popular.
No doubt you will cite the opinion polls at me. But I think that nowadays the question "How would you vote in a general election if it were held tomorrow?" is interpreted as "Would you prefer a Labour Government or a Tory one?" And that in turn is interpreted as "Would you rather have Corbyn or May as prime minister?" Personally, I would find this a very difficult question to answer. I would prefer neither.
But I suspect that most people would opt for May (as the lesser evil), and this is translated into a preference for the Conservatives.
But as the list in the leader clearly demonstrates, the Conservative vote is enormously soft - and vulnerable to a challenge from the Liberal Democrats.
So that's the end of that then.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-reform-uk-brexit-vote-live-remain-jean-claude-juncker-european-union-a7095601.html
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-juncker-idUKKCN0Z81G4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36599300
https://mobile.twitter.com/suttonnick/status/814589727240228868
Do you yourself a favour in 2017. Drop the absurd notion that we aren't leaving the EU.
Party before country heh? Now where did we hear that approach from a jelly spined party leader hopeful?
* not sure Trump is better but that's who they chose so we're stuck with it.
What is pitiful is the way the outgoing Obama administration are acting.