Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
I think Mrs May has been tactically very astute. She has plenty of room to co-operate more deeply (ESA, Erasmus, etc.) and contribute on a case by case basis. She's offered something that the EU clearly wants (tariff free goods and services).
She has plenty of room to offer more to the EU, but by making it clear she doesn't *need* more than [x], her bargaining power is increased.
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
Hammond should push to have interest rates raised. He can't directly control the BoE. But he does directly control NS&I. He shoukld force them to offer notably less shitty rates on their savings products.
Higher prices plus higher mortgage payments. Interesting.
You forgot higher rates for the savers - the majority who provide the funds for mortgages. Many people have benefited from low rates for many years now.
It would be interesting to see breakdown by economic bracket of the pensioners who voted Leave... I don't think they are all the retired businessman dividing their time between the golf club and the holiday home that Southam is trying to portray
I was a remain voter but democracy means it's time to move on and make the best of where we are. Of the current crop of parties and leaders May is really the only game in town.
Some interesting comments in Tristram's final speech in the Commons:
"the division of opinion between the official Labour party position and many of our heartland voters has served only to highlight some of the deep-seated challenges that centre-left parties are facing. From Greece to the Netherlands, Sweden and France, the combination of austerity, globalisation and EU policy has hammered social democratic politics."
...
"In Stoke-on-Trent, my voters wanted to leave the European Union for three reasons: sovereignty and a return of national powers to this Parliament; a reaction against globalisation and a political economy that they thought had shut down the mines and steel industry and eliminated 80 per cent of jobs in the potteries; and immigration. The concern about immigration was not racism. It was about the effects of large-scale migration on public services and wage levels in an already low-wage city."
You can find the whole thing on Labour List.
Does Stoke suffer/benefit (delete to taste) from immigration more than the English average, or is it one of these places that the perception of the level of immigration greatly outstrips the reality?
According to Wiki (based on the 2001 census admittedly) 96.3% of Stokers were born in the UK, and 94.8% identify as white. Seems pretty homogeneous to me.
2011 should be online?
Don't know if my hunger for statistical truth extends to guddling around on the ONS site.
The Stoke council site doesn't mention ethnic demographics but does say the population grew by 3.6% in the last census interval.
The ONS has Stoke Central down as about 88% UK born.
Anything for Stoke en masse? I gather from on here that Stoke Central is the less leavey, more liberal part of the city. They did elect Tristan after all..
Got it. As I suspected, it is an entirely meaningless term.
Not at all.
There has been a generally liberal leaning consensus in the politics and media of most western nations for years. The Blairs, Camerons, Obamas, Hollandes, Merkels and the Renzi's are basically centrist statist liberals. They have followed a path of globalisation, of pro-business, pro-immigration corporatism. They did this even when the voters said they didn't like it. They carried on doing it when a fair chunk of the voters were bloody furious about it, claiming deprecatingly that they had nowhere else to go.... until they did. They bought the current wave on populists across the world on themselves by ignoring the great unwashed because they didn't like their values, until they found they did need their votes.
Not sure what that has to do with very rich people being proles. I understand and agree that a lot of politicians ignored a lot of voters. That's why I always thought Leave would win.
Why don't the Tories and UKIP amalgamate? There isn't a fag paper between them since TM took over.
And think of the spin offs... UKIP to be led by a woman and The Tories to have a deputy from Bootle.
Strange that people said the same about the Tories and the LDs between 2010-2015 with Cameron/Clegg both being basically orange book LDs.
But you're hyperventilating is noted. There is masses of difference between the two, Tezzie is a rather unexciting solid middle of the road Tory. Just because you dont approve of her giving the voters the only option realistically on the table that matches a Leave vote, it doesnt make her a kipper.
Her time at the Home office makes her a kipper. An Italian friend of mine who bought a small cafe with a staff of five had a visit from her storm troopers two months after opening. Eight officers came in one night and in front of customers asked them all to show their passports. One who washed up for a couple of hours on Saturday nights was Algerian. He was taken away and my Italian chum was fined £15,000.
He's now out of business.
I assume the bit you are glossing over here is that possibly your friend was employing an illegal immigrant without the appropriate paperwork ?
I wasn't glossing over it. He was an academic who decided to try his hand at running a small cafe. He inherited the staff and did everything correctly incuding paying his staff well over the minimum wage. He had missed the washer upper because he was part time and only worked occasional Saturdays and they all thought he was French. But there is no appeal and no one to speak to. It was Kafkaesque
Roger: if they all thought he was French all that was needed was to ask to see his passport to confirm that he was indeed French and so entitled to work here. All employers have to do this. I employ people who are not from the UK (one from the EU and one from outside it) and have to do the same thing. It's not that hard. It is a shame your friend's business is no more but I find it odd that the removal of one part-time and occasional washer-upper should lead to its demise.
I think we corresponded before about this and there was an issue about the due diligence which your friend did and whether he had been misled by the people who sold him the business. I hope that got itself resolved. But it doesn't detract from the well-established principle that businesses should abide by the laws of the land.
Some interesting comments in Tristram's final speech in the Commons:
"the division of opinion between the official Labour party position and many of our heartland voters has served only to highlight some of the deep-seated challenges that centre-left parties are facing. From Greece to the Netherlands, Sweden and France, the combination of austerity, globalisation and EU policy has hammered social democratic politics."
...
"In Stoke-on-Trent, my voters wanted to leave the European Union for three reasons: sovereignty and a return of national powers to this Parliament; a reaction against globalisation and a political economy that they thought had shut down the mines and steel industry and eliminated 80 per cent of jobs in the potteries; and immigration. The concern about immigration was not racism. It was about the effects of large-scale migration on public services and wage levels in an already low-wage city."
You can find the whole thing on Labour List.
Does Stoke suffer/benefit (delete to taste) from immigration more than the English average, or is it one of these places that the perception of the level of immigration greatly outstrips the reality?
According to Wiki (based on the 2001 census admittedly) 96.3% of Stokers were born in the UK, and 94.8% identify as white. Seems pretty homogeneous to me.
2011 should be online?
Don't know if my hunger for statistical truth extends to guddling around on the ONS site.
The Stoke council site doesn't mention ethnic demographics but does say the population grew by 3.6% in the last census interval.
The ONS has Stoke Central down as about 88% UK born.
Anything for Stoke en masse? I gather from on here that Stoke Central is the less leavey, more liberal part of the city. They did elect Tristan after all..
Stoke-on-Trent Local Authority - Country of Birth, 2011:
All usual residents 249,008 United Kingdom 228,294 England 224,509 Northern Ireland 497 Scotland 1,694 Wales 1,567 United Kingdom not otherwise specified 27 Ireland 571 Other EU 4,815 Member countries in March 2001 1,735 Accession countries April 2001 to March 2011 3,080 Other countries 15,328
Edit: Next door Newcastle looks to have a greater proportion born in GB.
Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
I think Mrs May has been tactically very astute. She has plenty of room to co-operate more deeply (ESA, Erasmus, etc.) and contribute on a case by case basis. She's offered something that the EU clearly wants (tariff free goods and services).
She has plenty of room to offer more to the EU, but by making it clear she doesn't *need* more than [x], her bargaining power is increased.
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
Hammond should push to have interest rates raised. He can't directly control the BoE. But he does directly control NS&I. He shoukld force them to offer notably less shitty rates on their savings products.
Higher prices plus higher mortgage payments. Interesting.
You forgot higher rates for the savers - the majority who provide the funds for mortgages. Many people have benefited from low rates for many years now.
Of course - but Brexit is supposed to be about helping those who are just about getting by: the people who do not have savings and who are struggling to juggle jobs and finances. The people who will suffer most from higher prices, higher mortgage payments, lower public spending and less job security are the JAMs.
My first car was a mustard coloured allegro with brown vinyl roof. a design classic!!
almost a twin of my mustard coloured marina, definitely not a design classic!
Mine was a turquoise Datsun 120Y - it was so rust stained it looked like it'd been salvaged from the sea. Steering wheel the size of a bin lid and no brakes/emergency stop only mode. My mum paid £80 for a respray/go faster stripe - it was double its value.
My first car was a FIAT 850 Sport! 903cc engine and went like the proverbial sh1t off a shovel
Unfortunately a previous owner had decided that it would be a good idea to clean it with a brillo pad so it had a very attractive matt finish
Mine was a Datsun sunny rust bucket - on my first day at a new school in 1981 the caretaker came into the staffroom to ask if anyone knew about what looked like an abandoned car in the staff car park - it lasted me a good few years till i could trade up
My second was a Datsun Sunny - very swish - metallic brown with green tinted windows and tan interior. I could actually touch the steering wheel/seats after it'd sat in the sunshine. My 120Y was near molten inside.
Got it. As I suspected, it is an entirely meaningless term.
Not at all.
There has been a generally liberal leaning consensus in the politics and media of most western nations for years. The Blairs, Camerons, Obamas, Hollandes, Merkels and the Renzi's are basically centrist statist liberals. They have followed a path of globalisation, of pro-business, pro-immigration corporatism. They did this even when the voters said they didn't like it. They carried on doing it when a fair chunk of the voters were bloody furious about it, claiming deprecatingly that they had nowhere else to go.... until they did. They bought the current wave on populists across the world on themselves by ignoring the great unwashed because they didn't like their values, until they found they did need their votes.
Not sure what that has to do with very rich people being proles. I understand and agree that a lot of politicians ignored a lot of voters. That's why I always thought Leave would win.
But the data says that the poorest people voted Leave.. and you keep on categorising all pensioners as rich. that's just wrong.
"The rich and middle-classes were more pro-EU.
The AB group backed Remain by 57% to 43%, while the poorer C2DE category was almost two-thirds in favour of quitting, voting Out by 64% to 36%, according to Lord Ashcroft . "
Why don't the Tories and UKIP amalgamate? There isn't a fag paper between them since TM took over.
And think of the spin offs... UKIP to be led by a woman and The Tories to have a deputy from Bootle.
Strange that people said the same about the Tories and the LDs between 2010-2015 with Cameron/Clegg both being basically orange book LDs.
But you're hyperventilating is noted. There is masses of difference between the two, Tezzie is a rather unexciting solid middle of the road Tory. Just because you dont approve of her giving the voters the only option realistically on the table that matches a Leave vote, it doesnt make her a kipper.
Her time at the Home office makes her a kipper. An Italian friend of mine who bought a small cafe with a staff of five had a visit from her storm troopers two months after opening. Eight officers came in one night and in front of customers asked them all to show their passports. One who washed up for a couple of hours on Saturday nights was Algerian. He was taken away and my Italian chum was fined £15,000.
He's now out of business.
I assume the bit you are glossing over here is that possibly your friend was employing an illegal immigrant without the appropriate paperwork ?
I wasn't glossing over it. He was an academic who decided to try his hand at running a small cafe. He inherited the staff and did everything correctly incuding paying his staff well over the minimum wage. He had missed the washer upper because he was part time and only worked occasional Saturdays and they all thought he was French. But there is no appeal and no one to speak to. It was Kafkaesque
Roger: if they all thought he was French all that was needed was to ask to see his passport to confirm that he was indeed French and so entitled to work here. All employers have to do this. I employ people who are not from the UK (one from the EU and one from outside it) and have to do the same thing. It's not that hard. It is a shame your friend's business is no more but I find it odd that the removal of one part-time and occasional washer-upper should lead to its demise.
I think we corresponded before about this and there was an issue about the due diligence which your friend did and whether he had been misled by the people who sold him the business. I hope that got itself resolved. But it doesn't detract from the well-established principle that businesses should abide by the laws of the land.
It was the £15,000 fine that put him out of business, wasn't it?
Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
I think Mrs May has been tactically very astute. She has plenty of room to co-operate more deeply (ESA, Erasmus, etc.) and contribute on a case by case basis. She's offered something that the EU clearly wants (tariff free goods and services).
She has plenty of room to offer more to the EU, but by making it clear she doesn't *need* more than [x], her bargaining power is increased.
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
Hammond should push to have interest rates raised. He can't directly control the BoE. But he does directly control NS&I. He shoukld force them to offer notably less shitty rates on their savings products.
Higher prices plus higher mortgage payments. Interesting.
You forgot higher rates for the savers - the majority who provide the funds for mortgages. Many people have benefited from low rates for many years now.
NS&I appears to offer a route to borrow £100s of bn from rich pensioners for socially useful investment. If it would start to issue 30, 40 or 50 year 'bonds', either normal or index-linked, those could lock in low rates until after 2050.
The capital wouldn't be returned until then, but granny and grandad would get the interest regularly, which is what they really want, and can bequeath them to their grandchildren...
Worth a try, surely, provided it's made clear that the capital is locked up and this is more aimed at well-off couples?
Amazing how people talk about interest rates rising when we're not at our target inflation rate. The system is awash with cash looking for a return, and sovereign bonds are at historic lows.
Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
I think Mrs May has been tactically very astute. She has plenty of room to co-operate more deeply (ESA, Erasmus, etc.) and contribute on a case by case basis. She's offered something that the EU clearly wants (tariff free goods and services).
She has plenty of room to offer more to the EU, but by making it clear she doesn't *need* more than [x], her bargaining power is increased.
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
Hammond should push to have interest rates raised. He can't directly control the BoE. But he does directly control NS&I. He shoukld force them to offer notably less shitty rates on their savings products.
Higher prices plus higher mortgage payments. Interesting.
You forgot higher rates for the savers - the majority who provide the funds for mortgages. Many people have benefited from low rates for many years now.
It would be interesting to see breakdown by economic bracket of the pensioners who voted Leave... I don't think they are all the retired businessman dividing their time between the golf club and the holiday home that Southam is trying to portray
Pensioners have done very well out of the last few years.
Why don't the Tories and UKIP amalgamate? There isn't a fag paper between them since TM took over.
And think of the spin offs... UKIP to be led by a woman and The Tories to have a deputy from Bootle.
Strange that people said the same about the Tories and the LDs between 2010-2015 with Cameron/Clegg both being basically orange book LDs.
But you're hyperventilating is noted. There is masses of difference between the two, Tezzie is a rather unexciting solid middle of the road Tory. Just because you dont approve of her giving the voters the only option realistically on the table that matches a Leave vote, it doesnt make her a kipper.
Her time at the Home office makes her a kipper. An Italian friend of mine who bought a small cafe with a staff of five had a visit from her storm troopers two months after opening. Eight officers came in one night and in front of customers asked them all to show their passports. One who washed up for a couple of hours on Saturday nights was Algerian. He was taken away and my Italian chum was fined £15,000.
He's now out of business.
To be clear, your friend was breaking the law. But only a little bit, so that's acceptable.
Which is why I only hire white Caucasian males who are fluent in English -not racism but self-survival for both me, mine and the staff who work for me.
Theresa May and the Conservatives have made the choice to go for a hard Brexit and are standing by as their cheerleaders in the right wing press wave the Union Jack and portray our departure from the EU as a rematch of World War 2. The message that is being sent to the rest of the world is one that will only damage our reputation as a country that is welcoming and open for business. But that is what nationalism does, I guess.
I am interested to hear what you feel her options were given a Leave vote, (short of deciding to ignore it I suppose). Everyone here has been saying Hard BrExit was the only realistic option for months, and yet you want us to believe its that Tezzie "chose".
Morrning Southam.. have you ever had a good word for Mrs May since she became PM?.
She is the best choice the Tories could have made.
Nationalism is invariably an reaction to the existing political environment, possibly something the liberal political consensus might like to reflect up. If you ignore the proles for long enough sooner or later they are going to bite you at the ballot box.
Ha, ha - the proles again. The demographic which voted in greatest numbers for Brexit was pensioners, who have seen their incomes rise by 13% in real terms over the last decade, while those of working age - whose vote was far more split - have seen their incomes decline. The other demographic that was most in favour of Brexit was people who own their homes outright, which is not particularly proley.
The demographic which votes in greatest numbers for anything is pensioners isn't it?
And how does this fit with your view?
"The rich and middle-classes were more pro-EU.
The AB group backed Remain by 57% to 43%, while the poorer C2DE category was almost two-thirds in favour of quitting, voting Out by 64% to 36%, according to Lord Ashcroft."
I have absolutely no doubt that a lot of people at the bottom of the ladder voted to Leave. Quite a few voted to remain, of course - but a minority. However, if it had just been them Leave would not have come close to winning.
Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
I think Mrs May has been tactically very astute. She has plenty of room to co-operate more deeply (ESA, Erasmus, etc.) and contribute on a case by case basis. She's offered something that the EU clearly wants (tariff free goods and services).
She has plenty of room to offer more to the EU, but by making it clear she doesn't *need* more than [x], her bargaining power is increased.
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
Hammond should push to have interest rates raised. He can't directly control the BoE. But he does directly control NS&I. He shoukld force them to offer notably less shitty rates on their savings products.
Higher prices plus higher mortgage payments. Interesting.
You forgot higher rates for the savers - the majority who provide the funds for mortgages. Many people have benefited from low rates for many years now.
Of course - but Brexit is supposed to be about helping those who are just about getting by: the people who do not have savings and who are struggling to juggle jobs and finances. The people who will suffer most from higher prices, higher mortgage payments, lower public spending and less job security are the JAMs.
You appear to think voters cant work out whats in their own interest
Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
She has plenty of room to offer more to the EU, but by making it clear she doesn't *need* more than [x], her bargaining power is increased. become more and more unbalanced.
Hammond should push to have interest rates raised. He can't directly control
Higher prices plus higher mortgage payments. Interesting.
You forgot higher rates for the savers - the majority who provide the funds for mortgages. Many people have benefited from low rates for many years now.
It would be interesting to see breakdown by economic bracket of the pensioners who voted Leave... I don't think they are all the retired businessman dividing their time between the golf club and the holiday home that Southam is trying to portray
Pensioners have done very well out of the last few years.
I doubt they were voting with their pocket, and in any case many have savings which they are receiving next to no interest on, which is a pay cut that nullifies a lot of the increase they have been getting.
But my point remains. You keep on talking about pensioners as if they are all wealthy Tories swanning around not giving a toss for the poor little young ones. That is very far from the truth. I am sorry that you took the referendum defeat so hard, but constantly trying to spin it as a rich persons vote seems like an exercise in trying to make yourself look good more than anything else... the data disagrees with you
If you can find a split on how pensioners voted by wealth that would be interesting. If the trend is the same as the rest of the population, the poor ones would vote Leave and the Fatcats to Remain
Strange that people said the same about the Tories and the LDs between 2010-2015 with Cameron/Clegg both being basically orange book LDs.
But you're hyperventilating is noted. There is masses of difference between the two, Tezzie is a rather unexciting solid middle of the road Tory. Just because you dont approve of her giving the voters the only option realistically on the table that matches a Leave vote, it doesnt make her a kipper.
Her time at the Home office makes her a kipper. An Italian friend of mine who bought a small cafe with a staff of five had a visit from her storm troopers two months after opening. Eight officers came in one night and in front of customers asked them all to show their passports. One who washed up for a couple of hours on Saturday nights was Algerian. He was taken away and my Italian chum was fined £15,000.
He's now out of business.
I assume the bit you are glossing over here is that possibly your friend was employing an illegal immigrant without the appropriate paperwork ?
I wasn't glossing over it. He was an academic who decided to try his hand at running a small cafe. He inherited the staff and did everything correctly incuding paying his staff well over the minimum wage. He had missed the washer upper because he was part time and only worked occasional Saturdays and they all thought he was French. But there is no appeal and no one to speak to. It was Kafkaesque
Roger: if they all thought he was French all that was needed was to ask to see his passport to confirm that he was indeed French and so entitled to work here. All employers have to do this. I employ people who are not from the UK (one from the EU and one from outside it) and have to do the same thing. It's not that hard. It is a shame your friend's business is no more but I find it odd that the removal of one part-time and occasional washer-upper should lead to its demise.
I think we corresponded before about this and there was an issue about the due diligence which your friend did and whether he had been misled by the people who sold him the business. I hope that got itself resolved. But it doesn't detract from the well-established principle that businesses should abide by the laws of the land.
It was the £15,000 fine that put him out of business, wasn't it?
Yes - I saw that after I posted this. It does seem silly not to have a graduated level of fines related to turnover/profits etc.
Her time at the Home office makes her a kipper. An Italian friend of mine who bought a small cafe with a staff of five had a visit from her storm troopers two months after opening. Eight officers came in one night and in front of customers asked them all to show their passports. One who washed up for a couple of hours on Saturday nights was Algerian. He was taken away and my Italian chum was fined £15,000.
He's now out of business.
I assume the bit you are glossing over here is that possibly your friend was employing an illegal immigrant without the appropriate paperwork ?
I wasn't glossing over it. He was an academic who decided to try his hand at running a small cafe. He inherited the staff and did everything correctly incuding paying his staff well over the minimum wage. He had missed the washer upper because he was part time and only worked occasional Saturdays and they all thought he was French. But there is no appeal and no one to speak to. It was Kafkaesque
Roger: if they all thought he was French all that was needed was to ask to see his passport to confirm that he was indeed French and so entitled to work here. All employers have to do this. I employ people who are not from the UK (one from the EU and one from outside it) and have to do the same thing. It's not that hard. It is a shame your friend's business is no more but I find it odd that the removal of one part-time and occasional washer-upper should lead to its demise.
I think we corresponded before about this and there was an issue about the due diligence which your friend did and whether he had been misled by the people who sold him the business. I hope that got itself resolved. But it doesn't detract from the well-established principle that businesses should abide by the laws of the land.
It was the £15,000 fine that put him out of business, wasn't it?
Yes - I saw that after I posted this. It does seem silly not to have a graduated level of fines related to turnover/profits etc.
Much below £15,000 and you'd wilfully take the risk.
Got it. As I suspected, it is an entirely meaningless term.
Not at all.
There has been a generally liberal leaning consensus in the politics and media of most western nations for years. The Blairs, Camerons, Obamas, Hollandes, Merkels and the Renzi's are basically centrist statist liberals. They have followed a path of globalisation, of pro-business, pro-immigration corporatism. They did this even when the voters said they didn't like it. They carried on doing it when a fair chunk of the voters were bloody furious about it, claiming deprecatingly that they had nowhere else to go.... until they did. They bought the current wave on populists across the world on themselves by ignoring the great unwashed because they didn't like their values, until they found they did need their votes.
Not sure what that has to do with very rich people being proles. I understand and agree that a lot of politicians ignored a lot of voters. That's why I always thought Leave would win.
But the data says that the poorest people voted Leave.. and you keep on categorising all pensioners as rich. that's just wrong.
"The rich and middle-classes were more pro-EU.
The AB group backed Remain by 57% to 43%, while the poorer C2DE category was almost two-thirds in favour of quitting, voting Out by 64% to 36%, according to Lord Ashcroft . "
The C2DE category was also less likely to vote - look at the turnout rates in the most deprived constituencies. This was a referendum that was won because a lot of middle class and comfortably off people voted for Leave.
Theresa May and the Conservatives have made the choice to go for a hard Brexit and are standing by as their cheerleaders in the right wing press wave the Union Jack and portray our departure from the EU as a rematch of World War 2. The message that is being sent to the rest of the world is one that will only damage our reputation as a country that is welcoming and open for business. But that is what nationalism does, I guess.
Morrning Southam.. have you ever had a good word for Mrs May since she became PM?.
She is the best choice the Tories could have made.
Nationalism is invariably an reaction to the existing political environment, possibly something the liberal political consensus might like to reflect up. If you ignore the proles for long enough sooner or later they are going to bite you at the ballot box.
The demographic which votes in greatest numbers for anything is pensioners isn't it?
And how does this fit with your view?
"The rich and middle-classes were more pro-EU.
The AB group backed Remain by 57% to 43%, while the poorer C2DE category was almost two-thirds in favour of quitting, voting Out by 64% to 36%, according to Lord Ashcroft."
I have absolutely no doubt that a lot of people at the bottom of the ladder voted to Leave. Quite a few voted to remain, of course - but a minority. However, if it had just been them Leave would not have come close to winning.
... likewise many pensioners voted to Remain, and I would hazard a guess that they were the rich ones, following the trend of the other age groups, yet you like to imply that pensioners voting leave = rich people voting in their self interest
Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
I think Mrs May has been tactically very astute. She has plenty of room to co-operate more deeply (ESA, Erasmus, etc.) and contribute on a case by case basis. She's offered something that the EU clearly wants (tariff free goods and services).
She has plenty of room to offer more to the EU, but by making it clear she doesn't *need* more than [x], her bargaining power is increased.
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
Hammond should push to have interest rates raised. He can't directly control the BoE. But he does directly control NS&I. He shoukld force them to offer notably less shitty rates on their savings products.
Higher prices plus higher mortgage payments. Interesting.
You forgot higher rates for the savers - the majority who provide the funds for mortgages. Many people have benefited from low rates for many years now.
Of course - but Brexit is supposed to be about helping those who are just about getting by: the people who do not have savings and who are struggling to juggle jobs and finances. The people who will suffer most from higher prices, higher mortgage payments, lower public spending and less job security are the JAMs.
Yes and they include a mixture of renters, mortgage payers, elderly people living on limited savings and small pensions...... I'm not convinced that all the JAMs are paying mortgages or that mortgage payers are the only ones May referred to.
Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
She has plenty of room to offer more to the EU, but by making it clear she doesn't *need* more than [x], her bargaining power is increased. become more and more unbalanced.
Hammond should push to have interest rates raised. He can't directly control
Higher prices plus higher mortgage payments. Interesting.
You forgot higher rates for the savers - the majority who provide the funds for mortgages. Many people have benefited from low rates for many years now.
It would be interesting to see breakdown by economic bracket of the pensioners who voted Leave... I don't think they are all the retired businessman dividing their time between the golf club and the holiday home that Southam is trying to portray
Pensioners have done very well out of the last few years.
I doubt they were voting with their pocket, and in any case many have savings which they are receiving next to no interest on, which is a pay cut that nullifies a lot of the increase they have been getting.
But my point remains. You keep on talking about pensioners as if they are all wealthy Tories swanning around not giving a toss for the poor little young ones. That is very far from the truth. I am sorry that you took the referendum defeat so hard, but constantly trying to spin it as a rich persons vote seems like an exercise in trying to make yourself look good more than anything else... the data disagrees with you
If you can find a split on how pensioners voted by wealth that would be interesting. If the trend is the same as the rest of the population, the poor ones would vote Leave and the Fatcats to Remain
I suppose I'm one of the [relative] pension fat cats who voted remain but plenty in different circumstances must have voted leave.
< Singapore has statutory annual leave and more elderly people than the U.K.. Longer term social care may need to be paid for by an annuity or NI as people live longer but that is a different argument
Proportion of population over 65 - Singapore has 12% (from 2% in 1960), the UK has 18% (from 12% in 1960). Comparative economic growth figures will tell another story.
Got it. As I suspected, it is an entirely meaningless term.
Not at all.
There has been a generally liberal leaning consensus in the politics and media of most western nations for years. The Blairs, Camerons, Obamas, Hollandes, Merkels and the Renzi's are basically centrist statist liberals. They have followed a path of globalisation, of pro-business, pro-immigration corporatism. They did this even when the voters said they didn't like it. They carried on doing it when a fair chunk of the voters were bloody furious about it, claiming deprecatingly that they had nowhere else to go.... until they did. They bought the current wave on populists across the world on themselves by ignoring the great unwashed because they didn't like their values, until they found they did need their votes.
Not sure what that has to do with very rich people being proles. I understand and agree that a lot of politicians ignored a lot of voters. That's why I always thought Leave would win.
But the data says that the poorest people voted Leave.. and you keep on categorising all pensioners as rich. that's just wrong.
"The rich and middle-classes were more pro-EU.
The AB group backed Remain by 57% to 43%, while the poorer C2DE category was almost two-thirds in favour of quitting, voting Out by 64% to 36%, according to Lord Ashcroft . "
The C2DE category was also less likely to vote - look at the turnout rates in the most deprived constituencies. This was a referendum that was won because a lot of middle class and comfortably off people voted for Leave.
I am sorry but you are just spinning and I could spin it the other way. You like to think of yourself as in touch with the working class & find it hard to accept voting in the opposite way to the majority of that group, and so are trying to push the idea that Leave was a toffs vote. Sorry if that seems harsh but that how it is coming over to me. The fact is that most poor people who voted, voted leave, and the majority of rich people voted Remain, its there in the figures you link to. As people get worse off, the more likely they are to vote Leave
Social Class Remain/Leave AB 59 41 C1 52 48 C2 38 62 DE 36 64
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
So much borrowed money has been pumped into the economy that it will be years until its effect reduces.
Which means that people will continue to spend on imported tat and foreign holidays irrespective of whether their price rises.
Political economists of the future will have discussions on whose 'borrow and bribe' policies were the more disastrous - Brown's of 2001-2008 or Osborne's 2010-16.
A 'buy British' campaign post Brexit would help, although obviously people will still need to buy some imported goods British goods should be relatively cheaper
I wondered when someone would wheel out that old chestnut. It has never worked before and it won't work now.
Theresa May and the Conservatives have made the choice to go for a hard Brexit and are standing by as their cheerleaders in the right wing press wave the Union Jack and portray our departure from the EU as a rematch of World War 2. The message that is being sent to the rest of the world is one that will only damage our reputation as a country that is welcoming and open for business. But that is what nationalism does, I guess.
Morrning Southam.. have you ever had a good word for Mrs May since she became PM?.
She is the best choice the Tories could have made.
Nationalism ballot box.
The demographic which votes in greatest numbers for anything is pensioners isn't it?
And how does this fit with your view?
"The rich and middle-classes were more pro-EU.
The AB group backed Remain by 57% to 43%, while the poorer C2DE category was almost two-thirds in favour of quitting, voting Out by 64% to 36%, according to Lord Ashcroft."
I have absolutely no doubt that a lot of people at the bottom of the ladder voted to Leave. Quite a few voted to remain, of course - but a minority. However, if it had just been them Leave would not have come close to winning.
... likewise many pensioners voted to Remain, and I would hazard a guess that they were the rich ones, following the trend of the other age groups, yet you like to imply that pensioners voting leave = rich people voting in their self interest
Almost everyone votes in what they perceive to be their best interests. Not all pensioners are rich, of course; the vast majority aren't. But it is an undeniable fact, I'm afraid, that while the incomes of those who work have fallen over the last 10 years, the incomes of pensioners have risen. My argument is with the idea that we are leaving the EU because the poor and dispossessed rose up against the establishment when the reality is that we are leaving the EU because large numbers of people from all classes and all backgrounds did so. ABs and C1s form the majority of the UK population.
Devastating article by Hardman on Labour's potential complete collapse in heartlands such as Stoke Central.
"‘The only thing that is propping up the party is a social norm, and if that cracks, then it becomes a snowball"
"Corbyn, says the Labour pollster James Morris, is not the source of the party’s problem, but rather the final straw for voters who were already losing patience."
Yes you could dismiss this as just a hatchet job from Spectator, but a) Hardman isn't that kind of reporter and b) John Harris of Guardian would write pretty much the same article.
Betting wise, I'm glad I'm betting against Labour in both by-election seats. When will the Party and its witless metropolitan new supporters put down their lattes and wake up?
Devastating article by Hardman on Labour's potential complete collapse in heartlands such as Stoke Central.
"‘The only thing that is propping up the party is a social norm, and if that cracks, then it becomes a snowball"
"Corbyn, says the Labour pollster James Morris, is not the source of the party’s problem, but rather the final straw for voters who were already losing patience."
Yes you could dismiss this as just a hatchet job from Spectator, but a) Hardman isn't that kind of reporter and b) John Harris of Guardian would write pretty much the same article.
Betting wise, I'm glad I'm betting against Labour in both by-election seats. When will the Party and its witless metropolitan new supporters put down their lattes and wake up?
I think I'll put a few quid on Labour in Stoke actually. Although when are the dates compared to each other?
The EU seems to give people a very odd view of how immigration works in almost all the countries outside its boundaries. Almost all of which need you to have a job, as in a signed contract, not an offer because they will consider your application. In most of those countries there needs to be evidence that the jobs has been offered to residents for a period of time and not filled, or that the skill set is not available locally. In quite a lot of countries whole ranges of professions are "protected" and only available to locals.
Almost all countries outside the EU will give you a 30 day pass if you wave your EU/UK passport, but we are lucky in that regard, if you are a Filipino, only 40 countries will give you a visitors visa at entry without long and expensive applications frequently denied.
The sort of changes to immigration which many here seem to find so horrifying and a clear sign of rampant rightwingery are actually completely normal practise in most countries of the world, including many with quite left wing governments.
Well quite. Every other country in the world, including those that have large numbers of immigrants, have strict rules on who can come and how they can work. Losing one's job is usually grounds for deportation rather than welfare payments, to bring in your family requires a large salary and payments for health and education.
Theresa May and the Conservatives have made the choice to go for a hard Brexit and are standing by as their cheerleaders in the right wing press wave the Union Jack and portray our departure from the EU as a rematch of World War 2. The message that is being sent to the rest of the world is one that will only damage our reputation as a country that is welcoming and open for business. But that is what nationalism does, I guess.
Morrning Southam.. have you ever had a good word for Mrs May since she became PM?.
She is the best choice the Tories could have made.
Nationalism ballot box.
The demographic which votes in greatest numbers for anything is pensioners isn't it?
And how does this fit with your view?
"The rich and middle-classes were more pro-EU.
The AB group backed Remain by 57% to 43%, while the poorer C2DE category was almost two-thirds in favour of quitting, voting Out by 64% to 36%, according to Lord Ashcroft."
... likewise many pensioners voted to Remain, and I would hazard a guess that they were the rich ones, following the trend of the other age groups, yet you like to imply that pensioners voting leave = rich people voting in their self interest
Almost everyone votes in what they perceive to be their best interests. Not all pensioners are rich, of course; the vast majority aren't. But it is an undeniable fact, I'm afraid, that while the incomes of those who work have fallen over the last 10 years, the incomes of pensioners have risen. My argument is with the idea that we are leaving the EU because the poor and dispossessed rose up against the establishment when the reality is that we are leaving the EU because large numbers of people from all classes and all backgrounds did so. ABs and C1s form the majority of the UK population.
With respect, you are trying to say that we voted to leave because of rich people. It seems obvious that you want Brexit to be viewed as a rich, right wing vote. I doubt anyone could read your posts on the matter without coming to that conclusion
Devastating article by Hardman on Labour's potential complete collapse in heartlands such as Stoke Central.
"‘The only thing that is propping up the party is a social norm, and if that cracks, then it becomes a snowball"
"Corbyn, says the Labour pollster James Morris, is not the source of the party’s problem, but rather the final straw for voters who were already losing patience."
Yes you could dismiss this as just a hatchet job from Spectator, but a) Hardman isn't that kind of reporter and b) John Harris of Guardian would write pretty much the same article.
Betting wise, I'm glad I'm betting against Labour in both by-election seats. When will the Party and its witless metropolitan new supporters put down their lattes and wake up?
I think I'll put a few quid on Labour in Stoke actually. Although when are the dates compared to each other?
No dates yet iirc.
Labour may scrape these two this time, possibly by holding on local election day, but the collapse is coming unless something is done. James Baldwin wrote a book in the 60s called "The Fire Next Time". Seems an appropriate response, even if Labour scrape through.
The Spectator on the Government's carrot-and-stick approach to the EU:
"Perhaps the most useful thing that the May government has learned in the last six month is what other EU countries fear. Since the referendum, parliaments all over Europe have been setting up committees to cover the negotiations. On their visits to London, the assurance they have most frequently sought from British ministers and officials has been that this country won’t turn itself into Singapore West, slashing taxes and regulation to attract business. This is why both Philip Hammond and May herself have made clear that this is indeed how the UK will respond if there is no reasonable offer from the EU."
Well quite. Cameron played the doormat and got virtually nothing. Theresa May can hardly get less than nothing if the EU goes all stampy feet. Also, it's another nail in the coffin of the 'Theresa Maybe' canard. The Government wasn't just making up lost time for all the preparations that Cameron forbade, it was also talking to EU27 delegations and gathering information about their positions. Very sensible.
Witb our budget deficit worse than any EU country bar Spain, a game of beggar thy neighbour over corporate and higher rate taxation is likely to be won by the Germans.
Worth noting that Singapore is also a country open to immigrants.
If we are going to copy Singapore, can we start by banning chewing gum?
Don't they also have massive car import duties?
Yes, about 200%, so a WV Golf costs £50k. Tolls on the roads too, and for those not driving the beer is £12 a pint!
Devastating article by Hardman on Labour's potential complete collapse in heartlands such as Stoke Central.
"‘The only thing that is propping up the party is a social norm, and if that cracks, then it becomes a snowball"
"Corbyn, says the Labour pollster James Morris, is not the source of the party’s problem, but rather the final straw for voters who were already losing patience."
Yes you could dismiss this as just a hatchet job from Spectator, but a) Hardman isn't that kind of reporter and b) John Harris of Guardian would write pretty much the same article.
Betting wise, I'm glad I'm betting against Labour in both by-election seats. When will the Party and its witless metropolitan new supporters put down their lattes and wake up?
Some interesting comments in Tristram's final speech in the Commons:
"the division of opinion between the official Labour party position and many of our heartland voters has served only to highlight some of the deep-seated challenges that centre-left parties are facing. From Greece to the Netherlands, Sweden and France, the combination of austerity, globalisation and EU policy has hammered social democratic politics."
...
"In Stoke-on-Trent, my voters wanted to leave the European Union for three reasons: sovereignty and a return of national powers to this Parliament; a reaction against globalisation and a political economy that they thought had shut down the mines and steel industry and eliminated 80 per cent of jobs in the potteries; and immigration. The concern about immigration was not racism. It was about the effects of large-scale migration on public services and wage levels in an already low-wage city."
You can find the whole thing on Labour List.
Does Stoke suffer/benefit (delete to taste) from immigration more than the English average, or is it one of these places that the perception of the level of immigration greatly outstrips the reality?
According to Wiki (based on the 2001 census admittedly) 96.3% of Stokers were born in the UK, and 94.8% identify as white. Seems pretty homogeneous to me.
2011 should be online?
Don't know if my hunger for statistical truth extends to guddling around on the ONS site.
The Stoke council site doesn't mention ethnic demographics but does say the population grew by 3.6% in the last census interval.
The ONS has Stoke Central down as about 88% UK born.
Anything for Stoke en masse? I gather from on here that Stoke Central is the less leavey, more liberal part of the city. They did elect Tristan after all..
A little under 92%.
One you've taught yourself to use it the ONS neighbourhood stats website really is very good.
How well or badly do you think the government are doing at negotiating Britain's exit from the European Union? (vs Jan 9) Well: 33 (+12) Badly: 45 (-8)
Also strong support for May's plan: (net right): Continue Security Cooperation: +83 Guarantee EU/UK citizens rights: +69 Control over EU Immigration: +62 Open border with Eire: +61 NOT in Single Market: +36 LEAVE Customs Union: +36
Remainers agreed with all of the above except Single Market (-10).
Theresa May and the Conservatives have made the choice to go for a hard Brexit and are standing by as their cheerleaders in the right wing press wave the Union Jack and portray our departure from the EU as a rematch of World War 2. The message that is being sent to the rest of the world is one that will only damage our reputation as a country that is welcoming and open for business. But that is what nationalism does, I guess.
Morrning Southam.. have you ever had a good word for Mrs May since she became PM?.
She is the best choice the Tories could have made.
Nationalism ballot box.
The demographic which votes in greatest numbers for anything is pensioners isn't it?
And how does this fit with your view?
"The rich and middle-classes were more pro-EU.
The AB group backed Remain by 57% to 43%, while the poorer C2DE category was almost two-thirds in favour of quitting, voting Out by 64% to 36%, according to Lord Ashcroft."
... likewise many pensioners voted to Remain, and I would hazard a guess that they were the rich ones, following the trend of the other age groups, yet you like to imply that pensioners voting leave = rich people voting in their self interest
Almost population.
With respect, you are trying to say that we voted to leave because of rich people. It seems obvious that you want Brexit to be viewed as a rich, right wing vote. I doubt anyone could read your posts on the matter without coming to that conclusion
55+ by Class (Remain /Leave)
AB 48 52 C1 37 63 C2 32 68 DE 30 70
With respect, no I am not saying that. That is what you want me to be saying. Which, of course, is different. As I have said many, many times - we are leaving because a coalition of voters from very different backgrounds voted Leave. It was not an uprising of the proles, it was not a rich-man's revolution. It was a coalition of well-off homeowners, pensioners and C2DE's that achieved victory.
The EU seems to give people a very odd view of how immigration works in almost all the countries outside its boundaries. Almost all of which need you to have a job, as in a signed contract, not an offer because they will consider your application. In most of those countries there needs to be evidence that the jobs has been offered to residents for a period of time and not filled, or that the skill set is not available locally. In quite a lot of countries whole ranges of professions are "protected" and only available to locals.
Almost all countries outside the EU will give you a 30 day pass if you wave your EU/UK passport, but we are lucky in that regard, if you are a Filipino, only 40 countries will give you a visitors visa at entry without long and expensive applications frequently denied.
The sort of changes to immigration which many here seem to find so horrifying and a clear sign of rampant rightwingery are actually completely normal practise in most countries of the world, including many with quite left wing governments.
Well quite. Every other country in the world, including those that have large numbers of immigrants, have strict rules on who can come and how they can work. Losing one's job is usually grounds for deportation rather than welfare payments, to bring in your family requires a large salary and payments for health and education.
Some deplorably racist countries even go so far as to publish the:
Devastating article by Hardman on Labour's potential complete collapse in heartlands such as Stoke Central.
"‘The only thing that is propping up the party is a social norm, and if that cracks, then it becomes a snowball"
"Corbyn, says the Labour pollster James Morris, is not the source of the party’s problem, but rather the final straw for voters who were already losing patience."
Yes you could dismiss this as just a hatchet job from Spectator, but a) Hardman isn't that kind of reporter and b) John Harris of Guardian would write pretty much the same article.
Betting wise, I'm glad I'm betting against Labour in both by-election seats. When will the Party and its witless metropolitan new supporters put down their lattes and wake up?
I think I'll put a few quid on Labour in Stoke actually. Although when are the dates compared to each other?
No dates yet iirc.
Labour may scrape these two this time, possibly by holding on local election day, but the collapse is coming unless something is done. James Baldwin wrote a book in the 60s called "The Fire Next Time". Seems an appropriate response, even if Labour scrape through.
The main reason Labour scrape through is because UKIP is not the SNP. UKIP is largely useless at actually getting the votes out in a focused way in anything other than EU elections and their leadership appears to be a nest of vipers. If UKIP put in the sort of work that the SNP did over the years, they would be toast in a lot of those Northern seats.
Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
I think Mrs May has been tactically very astute. She has plenty of room to co-operate more deeply (ESA, Erasmus, etc.) and contribute on a case by case basis. She's offered something that the EU clearly wants (tariff free goods and services).
She has plenty of room to offer more to the EU, but by making it clear she doesn't *need* more than [x], her bargaining power is increased.
The become more and more unbalanced.
Hammond should push to have interest rates raised. He can't directly control the BoE. But he does directly control NS&I. He shoukld force them to offer notably less shitty rates on their savings products.
Higher prices plus higher mortgage payments. Interesting.
You forgot higher rates for the savers - the majority who provide the funds for mortgages. Many people have benefited from low rates for many years now.
Of course - but Brexit is supposed to be about helping those who are just about getting by: the people who do not have savings and who are struggling to juggle jobs and finances. The people who will suffer most from higher prices, higher mortgage payments, lower public spending and less job security are the JAMs.
You appear to think voters cant work out whats in their own interest
Of course they can - but often retrospectively, which is why the Tories, who now own Brexit, need to deliver on the promises that were made during the referendum and which have been made since.
Her time at the Home office makes her a kipper. An Italian friend of mine who bought a small cafe with a staff of five had a visit from her storm troopers two months after opening. Eight officers came in one night and in front of customers asked them all to show their passports. One who washed up for a couple of hours on Saturday nights was Algerian. He was taken away and my Italian chum was fined £15,000.
He's now out of business.
Roger is of course, as always, objecting to the fact that Theresa May is a Conservative. In all his thousands of posts here, you will never, ever find a single one where he objected to identical things happening under a Labour Home Secretary.
Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
I think Mrs May has been tactically very astute. She has plenty of room to co-operate more deeply (ESA, Erasmus, etc.) and contribute on a case by case basis. She's offered something that the EU clearly wants (tariff free goods and services).
She has plenty of room to offer more to the EU, but by making it clear she doesn't *need* more than [x], her bargaining power is increased.
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
Hammond should push to have interest rates raised. He can't directly control the BoE. But he does directly control NS&I. He shoukld force them to offer notably less shitty rates on their savings products.
Higher prices plus higher mortgage payments. Interesting.
You forgot higher rates for the savers - the majority who provide the funds for mortgages. Many people have benefited from low rates for many years now.
It would be interesting to see breakdown by economic bracket of the pensioners who voted Leave... I don't think they are all the retired businessman dividing their time between the golf club and the holiday home that Southam is trying to portray
Maybe not but almost all of them don't have to worry about jobs, don't have a mortgage and expect their triple-lock pensions and perks to continue ad infinitum. In other words they were the one demographic that could happily vote for Brexit without having to worry about any of the consequences other than waiting for the extra £350m a week for the NHS.
Wow - just seen the YouGov figures. Better headline VI than even I expected. Looks like Deacon's sketch was bang on - Labour don't have a hope while Brexit continues. Turns out there is only one party the country identifies with on Europe. Fervent remainers/rejoiners will be the political extremists from now on - but will they ever admit it???
Con gain Bootle?
I'm saving this post for a couple of years down the line!
With respect, you are trying to say that we voted to leave because of rich people. It seems obvious that you want Brexit to be viewed as a rich, right wing vote. I doubt anyone could read your posts on the matter without coming to that conclusion
55+ by Class (Remain /Leave)
AB 48 52 C1 37 63 C2 32 68 DE 30 70
With respect, no I am not saying that. That is what you want me to be saying. Which, of course, is different. As I have said many, many times - we are leaving because a coalition of voters from very different backgrounds voted Leave. It was not an uprising of the proles, it was not a rich-man's revolution. It was a coalition of well-off homeowners, pensioners and C2DE's that achieved victory.
I don't want or not want you to be saying anything! Why should I care?
I read your posts and almost all of them seem to be suggesting (putting it mildly) that Brexit was voted for by Rich pensioners, Tories and the well off in general. The data suggests the complete opposite, ie that the poorer you are the more likely you voted for Brexit, including pensioners, that's why I pulled you up
The fact is
If only the rich had voted, Remain would have won If only the poor had voted, Leave would have won
Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
I think Mrs May has been tactically very astute. She has plenty of room to co-operate more deeply (ESA, Erasmus, etc.) and contribute on a case by case basis. She's offered something that the EU clearly wants (tariff free goods and services).
She has plenty of room to offer more to the EU, but by making it clear she doesn't *need* more than [x], her bargaining power is increased.
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
I think you are once again being excessively pessimistic Robert. As you well know the J curve effect on currency devaluation is a well recognised phenomenon and it is much too early to say what effect the devaluation will have on the balance of payments. Real wages are growing more rapidly than forecast and employment remains very high. Inflation is incredibly low, in fact it is not that long since we were worrying about possible deflation.
The increase in consumer debt is a concern as is the persistent nature of the government deficit. There is very little incentive to save when you have negative interest rates for so long. It makes more sense to buy assets. Not everything is great by any means but we are not heading for disaster either. At least not yet.
There may be a corporation tax cut but beyond that the UK will not become Singapore, May is no libertarian and even Singapore has some public services
I realise you are a Conservative supporter and obliged to defend your Party leader but this is nonsense.
May herself said "under her leadership" workers' rights would be protected but that doesn't mean her successor might not seek a different path. One way to sound pro-business to the wider world might be to sound anti-worker. Will you support a future leader if he or she seeks to remove or reduce workers' rights in the name of competitiveness in the global business environment ?
What employment and holiday rights do workers have in Singapore by the way ?
On your second point, indeed they do and the transport system is excellent. However, what is the demographic picture - I suspect a much smaller proportion of the population are economically inactive and a much smaller proportion are elderly than in the UK ?
The demographics have done for our public services, not waste or even cuts. Conservative shire councils are not struggling because they are wasteful or inefficient but because they simply can't cope with the relentless demands on adult social care provision.
Singapore has statutory annual leave and more elderly people than the U.K.. Longer term social care may need to be paid for by an annuity or NI as people live longer but that is a different argument
With respect, you are trying to say that we voted to leave because of rich people. It seems obvious that you want Brexit to be viewed as a rich, right wing vote. I doubt anyone could read your posts on the matter without coming to that conclusion
55+ by Class (Remain /Leave)
AB 48 52 C1 37 63 C2 32 68 DE 30 70
With respect, no I am not saying that. That is what you want me to be saying. Which, of course, is different. As I have said many, many times - we are leaving because a coalition of voters from very different backgrounds voted Leave. It was not an uprising of the proles, it was not a rich-man's revolution. It was a coalition of well-off homeowners, pensioners and C2DE's that achieved victory.
I don't want or not want you to be saying anything! Why should I care?
I read your posts and almost all of them seem to be suggesting (putting it mildly) that Brexit was voted for by Rich pensioners, Tories and the well off in general. The data suggests the complete opposite, ie that the poorer you are the more likely you voted for Brexit, including pensioners, that's why I pulled you up
I do not disagree with that. I am not sure how you get the idea that the following suggests "that Brexit was voted for by Rich pensioners, Tories and the well off in general": "We are leaving because a coalition of voters from very different backgrounds voted Leave. It was not an uprising of the proles, it was not a rich-man's revolution. It was a coalition of well-off homeowners, pensioners and C2DE's that achieved victory"
With respect, you are trying to say that we voted to leave because of rich people. It seems obvious that you want Brexit to be viewed as a rich, right wing vote. I doubt anyone could read your posts on the matter without coming to that conclusion
55+ by Class (Remain /Leave)
AB 48 52 C1 37 63 C2 32 68 DE 30 70
With respect, no I am not saying that. That is what you want me to be saying. Which, of course, is different. As I have said many, many times - we are leaving because a coalition of voters from very different backgrounds voted Leave. It was not an uprising of the proles, it was not a rich-man's revolution. It was a coalition of well-off homeowners, pensioners and C2DE's that achieved victory.
I don't want or not want you to be saying anything! Why should I care?
I read your posts and almost all of them seem to be suggesting (putting it mildly) that Brexit was voted for by Rich pensioners, Tories and the well off in general. The data suggests the complete opposite, ie that the poorer you are the more likely you voted for Brexit, including pensioners, that's why I pulled you up
Its not that all pensioners are rich, its that all pensioners have seen large rises in their incomes over the past few years in absolute terms and relative to those working. Since these pensioners make up a majority of those voting Leave, to claim that the leave vote was driven by those doing badly by the financial settlement over the past 10 years is incorrect.
Its probably the case that the majority of Leave voters are more insulated from the financial costs of their vote than Remain voters.
Devastating article by Hardman on Labour's potential complete collapse in heartlands such as Stoke Central.
"‘The only thing that is propping up the party is a social norm, and if that cracks, then it becomes a snowball"
"Corbyn, says the Labour pollster James Morris, is not the source of the party’s problem, but rather the final straw for voters who were already losing patience."
Yes you could dismiss this as just a hatchet job from Spectator, but a) Hardman isn't that kind of reporter and b) John Harris of Guardian would write pretty much the same article.
Betting wise, I'm glad I'm betting against Labour in both by-election seats. When will the Party and its witless metropolitan new supporters put down their lattes and wake up?
I think I'll put a few quid on Labour in Stoke actually. Although when are the dates compared to each other?
No dates yet iirc.
Labour may scrape these two this time, possibly by holding on local election day, but the collapse is coming unless something is done. James Baldwin wrote a book in the 60s called "The Fire Next Time". Seems an appropriate response, even if Labour scrape through.
The main reason Labour scrape through is because UKIP is not the SNP. UKIP is largely useless at actually getting the votes out in a focused way in anything other than EU elections and their leadership appears to be a nest of vipers. If UKIP put in the sort of work that the SNP did over the years, they would be toast in a lot of those Northern seats.
Could not agree more. If UKIP pivoted left on some economic issues and did the groundwork the SNP has done it would take Labour apart in the Midlands and North.
With respect, you are trying to say that we voted to leave because of rich people. It seems obvious that you want Brexit to be viewed as a rich, right wing vote. I doubt anyone could read your posts on the matter without coming to that conclusion
55+ by Class (Remain /Leave)
AB 48 52 C1 37 63 C2 32 68 DE 30 70
With respect, no I am not saying that. That is what you want me to be saying. Which, of course, is different. As I have said many, many times - we are leaving because a coalition of voters from very different backgrounds voted Leave. It was not an uprising of the proles, it was not a rich-man's revolution. It was a coalition of well-off homeowners, pensioners and C2DE's that achieved victory.
I don't want or not want you to be saying anything! Why should I care?
I read your posts and almost all of them seem to be suggesting (putting it mildly) that Brexit was voted for by Rich pensioners, Tories and the well off in general. The data suggests the complete opposite, ie that the poorer you are the more likely you voted for Brexit, including pensioners, that's why I pulled you up
I do not disagree with that. I am not sure how you get the idea that the following suggests "that Brexit was voted for by Rich pensioners, Tories and the well off in general": "We are leaving because a coalition of voters from very different backgrounds voted Leave. It was not an uprising of the proles, it was not a rich-man's revolution. It was a coalition of well-off homeowners, pensioners and C2DE's that achieved victory"
I don't get the idea from that. That is what you say after I have shown that it if we only counted the Poor, Leave wins, if we only counted the rich, Remain wins. So of course you have softened your words.
I read your posts, and the message they convey is of you trying to frame Brexit as a Rich, right wing Tory vote that will harm the lives of the poor lemmings at the bottom.. maybe that isn't what you think, but that's how it comes across. The data show the opposite
Devastating article by Hardman on Labour's potential complete collapse in heartlands such as Stoke Central.
"‘The only thing that is propping up the party is a social norm, and if that cracks, then it becomes a snowball"
"Corbyn, says the Labour pollster James Morris, is not the source of the party’s problem, but rather the final straw for voters who were already losing patience."
Yes you could dismiss this as just a hatchet job from Spectator, but a) Hardman isn't that kind of reporter and b) John Harris of Guardian would write pretty much the same article.
Betting wise, I'm glad I'm betting against Labour in both by-election seats. When will the Party and its witless metropolitan new supporters put down their lattes and wake up?
I think I'll put a few quid on Labour in Stoke actually. Although when are the dates compared to each other?
No dates yet iirc.
Labour may scrape these two this time, possibly by holding on local election day, but the collapse is coming unless something is done. James Baldwin wrote a book in the 60s called "The Fire Next Time". Seems an appropriate response, even if Labour scrape through.
The main reason Labour scrape through is because UKIP is not the SNP. UKIP is largely useless at actually getting the votes out in a focused way in anything other than EU elections and their leadership appears to be a nest of vipers. If UKIP put in the sort of work that the SNP did over the years, they would be toast in a lot of those Northern seats.
Could not agree more. If UKIP pivoted left on some economic issues and did the groundwork the SNP has done it would take Labour apart in the Midlands and North.
I've laid UKIP in both by-elections, May has stolen their clothes and the Tories are doing extraordinarily well for a governing party.
Labour has a strong history on its side in both seats too (And is ahead to start)
I think the 2-1 and 10-1 respectively in both seats are too short.
Devastating article by Hardman on Labour's potential complete collapse in heartlands such as Stoke Central.
"‘The only thing that is propping up the party is a social norm, and if that cracks, then it becomes a snowball"
"Corbyn, says the Labour pollster James Morris, is not the source of the party’s problem, but rather the final straw for voters who were already losing patience."
Yes you could dismiss this as just a hatchet job from Spectator, but a) Hardman isn't that kind of reporter and b) John Harris of Guardian would write pretty much the same article.
Betting wise, I'm glad I'm betting against Labour in both by-election seats. When will the Party and its witless metropolitan new supporters put down their lattes and wake up?
I think I'll put a few quid on Labour in Stoke actually. Although when are the dates compared to each other?
No dates yet iirc.
Labour may scrape these two this time, possibly by holding on local election day, but the collapse is coming unless something is done. James Baldwin wrote a book in the 60s called "The Fire Next Time". Seems an appropriate response, even if Labour scrape through.
The main reason Labour scrape through is because UKIP is not the SNP. UKIP is largely useless at actually getting the votes out in a focused way in anything other than EU elections and their leadership appears to be a nest of vipers. If UKIP put in the sort of work that the SNP did over the years, they would be toast in a lot of those Northern seats.
Could not agree more. If UKIP pivoted left on some economic issues and did the groundwork the SNP has done it would take Labour apart in the Midlands and North.
I've laid UKIP in both by-elections, May has stolen their clothes and the Tories are doing extraordinarily well for a governing party.
Labour has a strong history on its side in both seats too (And is ahead to start)
I think the 2-1 and 10-1 respectively in both seats are too short.
Do you think laying UKIP in Stoke at 3 is better than backing Labour at 1.87??
There may be a corporation tax cut but beyond that the UK will not become Singapore, May is no libertarian and even Singapore has some public services
I realise you are a Conservative supporter and obliged to defend your Party leader but this is nonsense.
May herself said "under her leadership" workers' rights would be protected but that doesn't mean her successor might not seek a different path. One way to sound pro-business to the wider world might be to sound anti-worker. Will you support a future leader if he or she seeks to remove or reduce workers' rights in the name of competitiveness in the global business environment ?
What employment and holiday rights do workers have in Singapore by the way ?
On your second point, indeed they do and the transport system is excellent. However, what is the demographic picture - I suspect a much smaller proportion of the population are economically inactive and a much smaller proportion are elderly than in the UK ?
The demographics have done for our public services, not waste or even cuts. Conservative shire councils are not struggling because they are wasteful or inefficient but because they simply can't cope with the relentless demands on adult social care provision.
Singapore has statutory annual leave and more elderly people than the U.K.. Longer term social care may need to be paid for by an annuity or NI as people live longer but that is a different argument
After May departs we may even be heading for a Labour PM but it is for them to convince the electorate
"Singapore has ... more elderly people than the U.K." You live and learn ;-)
Yes, and they are Singaporeans. Older immigrants aren't looked after by Singapore or given citizenship, they're deported back to their home countries.
I've known expat long-term permanent residents of Singapore who had to return home because of failing health. Singapore is a great place to live and work
Devastating article by Hardman on Labour's potential complete collapse in heartlands such as Stoke Central.
"‘The only thing that is propping up the party is a social norm, and if that cracks, then it becomes a snowball"
"Corbyn, says the Labour pollster James Morris, is not the source of the party’s problem, but rather the final straw for voters who were already losing patience."
Yes you could dismiss this as just a hatchet job from Spectator, but a) Hardman isn't that kind of reporter and b) John Harris of Guardian would write pretty much the same article.
Betting wise, I'm glad I'm betting against Labour in both by-election seats. When will the Party and its witless metropolitan new supporters put down their lattes and wake up?
Not that anyone has indicated that they've been listening, but I've said this for weeks. SNP style wipeout is more likely to happen to Labour in the Midlands than the NE or NW.
With respect, you are trying to say that we voted to leave because of rich people. It seems obvious that you want Brexit to be viewed as a rich, right wing vote. I doubt anyone could read your posts on the matter without coming to that conclusion
55+ by Class (Remain /Leave)
AB 48 52 C1 37 63 C2 32 68 DE 30 70
With respect,victory.
I don't want or not want you to be saying anything! Why should I care?
I read your posts and almost all of them seem to be suggesting (putting it mildly) that Brexit was voted for by Rich pensioners, Tories and the well off in general. The data suggests the complete opposite, ie that the poorer you are the more likely you voted for Brexit, including pensioners, that's why I pulled you up
I do victory"
I don't get the idea from that. That is what you say after I have shown that it if we only counted the Poor, Leave wins, if we only counted the rich, Remain wins. So of course you have softened your words.
I read your posts, and the message they convey is of you trying to frame Brexit as a Rich, right wing Tory vote that will harm the lives of the poor lemmings at the bottom.. maybe that isn't what you think, but that's how it comes across. The data show the opposite
The data shows us nothing about the impact voting Leave will have. And it is you who mentions lemmings, not me. At no stage have I suggested that the Brexit vote was solely down to rich, right-wing Tories (though it is undoubtedly the case that a large majority of right wing Tories and right-wing UKIP supporters, of whatever background, did vote to Leave). However, if you wish to believe otherwise, so be it.
With respect, you are trying to say that we voted to leave because of rich people. It seems obvious that you want Brexit to be viewed as a rich, right wing vote. I doubt anyone could read your posts on the matter without coming to that conclusion
55+ by Class (Remain /Leave)
AB 48 52 C1 37 63 C2 32 68 DE 30 70
With respect,victory.
I don't want or not want you to be saying anything! Why should I care?
I read your posts and almost all of them seem to be suggesting (putting it mildly) that Brexit was voted for by Rich pensioners, Tories and the well off in general. The data suggests the complete opposite, ie that the poorer you are the more likely you voted for Brexit, including pensioners, that's why I pulled you up
I do victory"
I don't get the idea from that. That is what you say after I have shown that it if we only counted the Poor, Leave wins, if we only counted the rich, Remain wins. So of course you have softened your words.
I read your posts, and the message they convey is of you trying to frame Brexit as a Rich, right wing Tory vote that will harm the lives of the poor lemmings at the bottom.. maybe that isn't what you think, but that's how it comes across. The data show the opposite
The data shows us nothing about the impact voting Leave will have. And it is you who mentions lemmings, not me. At no stage have I suggested that the Brexit vote was solely down to rich, right-wing Tories (though it is undoubtedly the case that a large majority of right wing Tories and right-wing UKIP supporters, of whatever background, did vote to Leave). However, if you wish to believe otherwise, so be it.
I would say re read your posts on the topic over the last week or so and see what impression they imply.
I am trying not to let this descend in to smart arse one upmanship, please don't get like that.
Devastating article by Hardman on Labour's potential complete collapse in heartlands such as Stoke Central.
"‘The only thing that is propping up the party is a social norm, and if that cracks, then it becomes a snowball"
"Corbyn, says the Labour pollster James Morris, is not the source of the party’s problem, but rather the final straw for voters who were already losing patience."
Yes you could dismiss this as just a hatchet job from Spectator, but a) Hardman isn't that kind of reporter and b) John Harris of Guardian would write pretty much the same article.
Betting wise, I'm glad I'm betting against Labour in both by-election seats. When will the Party and its witless metropolitan new supporters put down their lattes and wake up?
Not that anyone has indicated that they've been listening, but I've said this for weeks. SNP style wipeout is more likely to happen to Labour in the Midlands than the NE or NW.
Again, I reckon this is spot on: especially if Labour goes into the election with a pro-IRA leader. Memories of the Birmingham pub bombings run long and deep in the West Midlands.
Mrs May is the only party leader with a positive rating — 45 per cent are satisfied with her performance. Jeremy Corbyn’s ratings are a dire 26 per cent satisfied and 61 per cent dissatisfied.
Its not that all pensioners are rich, its that all pensioners have seen large rises in their incomes over the past few years in absolute terms and relative to those working. Since these pensioners make up a majority of those voting Leave, to claim that the leave vote was driven by those doing badly by the financial settlement over the past 10 years is incorrect.
I am not sure that uprating the state pension from disgraceful to just piss poor should be seen moving pensioners without a company pension or other investments into the "doing well" category.
The basic state pension even after all that generosity is 119.30, or 6203 per year, not exactly coining it in I think you will agree. It fact its almost exactly the same amount as someone on the minimum wage makes working the standard part-time 16 hours week.
Devastating article by Hardman on Labour's potential complete collapse in heartlands such as Stoke Central.
"‘The only thing that is propping up the party is a social norm, and if that cracks, then it becomes a snowball"
"Corbyn, says the Labour pollster James Morris, is not the source of the party’s problem, but rather the final straw for voters who were already losing patience."
Yes you could dismiss this as just a hatchet job from Spectator, but a) Hardman isn't that kind of reporter and b) John Harris of Guardian would write pretty much the same article.
Betting wise, I'm glad I'm betting against Labour in both by-election seats. When will the Party and its witless metropolitan new supporters put down their lattes and wake up?
I think I'll put a few quid on Labour in Stoke actually. Although when are the dates compared to each other?
No dates yet iirc.
Labour may scrape these two this time, possibly by holding on local election day, but the collapse is coming unless something is done. James Baldwin wrote a book in the 60s called "The Fire Next Time". Seems an appropriate response, even if Labour scrape through.
Could holding on local election day have the opposite effect? I'll give the Labour Councillor my vote, but not the parliamentary candidate? Could Labour suffer from split ticket voting?
Its not that all pensioners are rich, its that all pensioners have seen large rises in their incomes over the past few years in absolute terms and relative to those working. Since these pensioners make up a majority of those voting Leave, to claim that the leave vote was driven by those doing badly by the financial settlement over the past 10 years is incorrect.
I am not sure that uprating the state pension from disgraceful to just piss poor should be seen moving pensioners without a company pension or other investments into the "doing well" category.
The basic state pension even after all that generosity is 119.30, or 6203 per year, not exactly coining it in I think you will agree. It fact its almost exactly the same amount as someone on the minimum wage makes working the standard part-time 16 hours week.
Even Southams link about pensions has a quote that says the uprate is a correction to the previous bad deal
Devastating article by Hardman on Labour's potential complete collapse in heartlands such as Stoke Central.
"‘The only thing that is propping up the party is a social norm, and if that cracks, then it becomes a snowball"
"Corbyn, says the Labour pollster James Morris, is not the source of the party’s problem, but rather the final straw for voters who were already losing patience."
Yes you could dismiss this as just a hatchet job from Spectator, but a) Hardman isn't that kind of reporter and b) John Harris of Guardian would write pretty much the same article.
Betting wise, I'm glad I'm betting against Labour in both by-election seats. When will the Party and its witless metropolitan new supporters put down their lattes and wake up?
I think I'll put a few quid on Labour in Stoke actually. Although when are the dates compared to each other?
No dates yet iirc.
Labour may scrape these two this time, possibly by holding on local election day, but the collapse is coming unless something is done. James Baldwin wrote a book in the 60s called "The Fire Next Time". Seems an appropriate response, even if Labour scrape through.
The main reason Labour scrape through is because UKIP is not the SNP. UKIP is largely useless at actually getting the votes out in a focused way in anything other than EU elections and their leadership appears to be a nest of vipers. If UKIP put in the sort of work that the SNP did over the years, they would be toast in a lot of those Northern seats.
Could not agree more. If UKIP pivoted left on some economic issues and did the groundwork the SNP has done it would take Labour apart in the Midlands and North.
I've laid UKIP in both by-elections, May has stolen their clothes and the Tories are doing extraordinarily well for a governing party.
Labour has a strong history on its side in both seats too (And is ahead to start)
I think the 2-1 and 10-1 respectively in both seats are too short.
Do you think laying UKIP in Stoke at 3 is better than backing Labour at 1.87??
In other words, voters often vote against their own financial interest.
I know the feeling, but that's democracy in all its glory.
I'd prefer to say that often voters choose viscerally. You can make a financial prediction, but experts often get those wrong. And even if financial experts were trusted (they're not), there's the old saying ... "A man convinced against his will, retains his own opinion still."
That's why politics is often on appearance. You can talk all the sense in the world, but if you look a wrong 'un, you're doomed.
When you look a wrong 'un, and talk nonsense, you're doubly doomed.
There may be a corporation tax cut but beyond that the UK will not become Singapore, May is no libertarian and even Singapore has some public services
I realise you are a Conservative supporter and obliged to defend your Party leader but this is nonsense.
May herself said "under her leadership" workers' rights would be protected but that doesn't mean her successor might not seek a different path. One way to sound pro-business to the wider world might be to sound anti-worker. Will you support a future leader if he or she seeks to remove or reduce workers' rights in the name of competitiveness in the global business environment ?
What employment and holiday rights do workers have in Singapore by the way ?
On your second point, indeed they do and the transport system is excellent. However, what is the demographic picture - I suspect a much smaller proportion of the population are economically inactive and a much smaller proportion are elderly than in the UK ?
The demographics have done for our public services, not waste or even cuts. Conservative shire councils are not struggling because they are wasteful or inefficient but because they simply can't cope with the relentless demands on adult social care provision.
Singapore has statutory annual leave and more elderly people than the U.K.. Longer term social care may need to be paid for by an annuity or NI as people live longer but that is a different argument
After May departs we may even be heading for a Labour PM but it is for them to convince the electorate
"Singapore has ... more elderly people than the U.K." You live and learn ;-)
Yes, and they are Singaporeans. Older immigrants aren't looked after by Singapore or given citizenship, they're deported back to their home countries.
I've known expat long-term permanent residents of Singapore who had to return home because of failing health. Singapore is a great place to live and work
Absolutely, and Dubai is even more so. You're here to work, but they don't owe you anything if you're unemployed or retired - these things they reserve for their citizens, of whom you'll never be one.
Devastating article by Hardman on Labour's potential complete collapse in heartlands such as Stoke Central.
"‘The only thing that is propping up the party is a social norm, and if that cracks, then it becomes a snowball"
"Corbyn, says the Labour pollster James Morris, is not the source of the party’s problem, but rather the final straw for voters who were already losing patience."
Yes you could dismiss this as just a hatchet job from Spectator, but a) Hardman isn't that kind of reporter and b) John Harris of Guardian would write pretty much the same article.
Betting wise, I'm glad I'm betting against Labour in both by-election seats. When will the Party and its witless metropolitan new supporters put down their lattes and wake up?
I think I'll put a few quid on Labour in Stoke actually. Although when are the dates compared to each other?
No dates yet iirc.
Labour may scrape these two this time, possibly by holding on local election day, but the collapse is coming unless something is done. James Baldwin wrote a book in the 60s called "The Fire Next Time". Seems an appropriate response, even if Labour scrape through.
The main reason Labour scrape through is because UKIP is not the SNP. UKIP is largely useless at actually getting the votes out in a focused way in anything other than EU elections and their leadership appears to be a nest of vipers. If UKIP put in the sort of work that the SNP did over the years, they would be toast in a lot of those Northern seats.
Could not agree more. If UKIP pivoted left on some economic issues and did the groundwork the SNP has done it would take Labour apart in the Midlands and North.
I've laid UKIP in both by-elections, May has stolen their clothes and the Tories are doing extraordinarily well for a governing party.
Labour has a strong history on its side in both seats too (And is ahead to start)
I think the 2-1 and 10-1 respectively in both seats are too short.
Do you think laying UKIP in Stoke at 3 is better than backing Labour at 1.87??
Its not that all pensioners are rich, its that all pensioners have seen large rises in their incomes over the past few years in absolute terms and relative to those working. Since these pensioners make up a majority of those voting Leave, to claim that the leave vote was driven by those doing badly by the financial settlement over the past 10 years is incorrect.
I am not sure that uprating the state pension from disgraceful to just piss poor should be seen moving pensioners without a company pension or other investments into the "doing well" category.
Right, their circumstances were getting better. They were hardly the left behind who rose up because they were being ignored by the Establishment in this new world.
Even Southams link about pensions has a quote that says the uprate is a correction to the previous bad deal
It's also based on a deliberately mendacious report by the IFS, as the article sheepishly admits at the end:
Pensions in numbers
£394: Average weekly pensioner income in 2013-2014
£385: Average weekly worker’s income in 2013-2014 after housing costs and dependants had been taken into account
Of course, if you eliminate whole classes of expenditure you can make the figures show anything you like. If you wanted the figures to be dishonest in the other direction you could quote pensioner's income after adjusting for care costs.
I've taken £25 @ 1.85 on Labour in Stoke. I don't think UKIP are nearly as well set up for this challenge as their odds suggest. I think 1.5 (1/2) is fair, if it were the only by-election. 1.66 if one considers that Copeland might be first, be a disaster for Corbyn and they give up.
Do you think laying UKIP in Stoke at 3 is better than backing Labour at 1.87?? ~ Con 43 (+3) Lab 31 (+2) Lib Dems 11 (-3) Ukip 6 (-3)
Given that polling, maybe ~ I think winning the referendum was Peak UKIP
Tricky to get a fag paper between May and UKIP now. May is on the telly alot more, and people don't really know Nutall from the man on the bus. The Tories are in power but they're also seen to be leading the insurgency against the EU.
All of which is great for UKIP voters but not so good for UKIP proper, at least from a betting perspective.
Devastating article by Hardman on Labour's potential complete collapse in heartlands such as Stoke Central.
"‘The only thing that is propping up the party is a social norm, and if that cracks, then it becomes a snowball"
"Corbyn, says the Labour pollster James Morris, is not the source of the party’s problem, but rather the final straw for voters who were already losing patience."
Yes you could dismiss this as just a hatchet job from Spectator, but a) Hardman isn't that kind of reporter and b) John Harris of Guardian would write pretty much the same article.
Betting wise, I'm glad I'm betting against Labour in both by-election seats. When will the Party and its witless metropolitan new supporters put down their lattes and wake up?
Not that anyone has indicated that they've been listening, but I've said this for weeks. SNP style wipeout is more likely to happen to Labour in the Midlands than the NE or NW.
Again, I reckon this is spot on: especially if Labour goes into the election with a pro-IRA leader. Memories of the Birmingham pub bombings run long and deep in the West Midlands.
I was the subject of a complaint to the head of my Sixth Form the morning after, when a parent overheard a discussion in the common room and said they heard 'a teacher with an Irish accent was defending the IRA' - huge hoo ha until they found out it was 'a student with a Scottish accent arguing against capital punishment!'
Wow - just seen the YouGov figures. Better headline VI than even I expected. Looks like Deacon's sketch was bang on - Labour don't have a hope while Brexit continues. Turns out there is only one party the country identifies with on Europe. Fervent remainers/rejoiners will be the political extremists from now on - but will they ever admit it???
Con gain Bootle?
I'm saving this post for a couple of years down the line!
Do you think laying UKIP in Stoke at 3 is better than backing Labour at 1.87?? ~ Con 43 (+3) Lab 31 (+2) Lib Dems 11 (-3) Ukip 6 (-3)
Given that polling, maybe ~ I think winning the referendum was Peak UKIP
Tricky to get a fag paper between May and UKIP now. May is on the telly alot more, and people don't really know Nutall from the man on the bus. The Tories are in power but they're also seen to be leading the insurgency against the EU.
All of which is great for UKIP voters but not so good for UKIP proper, at least from a betting perspective.
Yes and really what matter is the voters not the life of a political party. In seats like this they should probably make a deal for one of them to soft pedal. My only UKIP positive here is that I reckon diehard Labour find it hard to tick "Conservative". Could be wrong, but Labour 1.87 looks very nice
Devastating article by Hardman on Labour's potential complete collapse in heartlands such as Stoke Central.
"‘The only thing that is propping up the party is a social norm, and if that cracks, then it becomes a snowball"
"Corbyn, says the Labour pollster James Morris, is not the source of the party’s problem, but rather the final straw for voters who were already losing patience."
Yes you could dismiss this as just a hatchet job from Spectator, but a) Hardman isn't that kind of reporter and b) John Harris of Guardian would write pretty much the same article.
Betting wise, I'm glad I'm betting against Labour in both by-election seats. When will the Party and its witless metropolitan new supporters put down their lattes and wake up?
I think I'll put a few quid on Labour in Stoke actually. Although when are the dates compared to each other?
No dates yet iirc.
Labour may scrape these two this time, possibly by holding on local election day, but the collapse is coming unless something is done. James Baldwin wrote a book in the 60s called "The Fire Next Time". Seems an appropriate response, even if Labour scrape through.
The main reason Labour scrape through is because UKIP is not the SNP. UKIP is largely useless at actually getting the votes out in a focused way in anything other than EU elections and their leadership appears to be a nest of vipers. If UKIP put in the sort of work that the SNP did over the years, they would be toast in a lot of those Northern seats.
Could not agree more. If UKIP pivoted left on some economic issues and did the groundwork the SNP has done it would take Labour apart in the Midlands and North.
I've laid UKIP in both by-elections, May has stolen their clothes and the Tories are doing extraordinarily well for a governing party.
Labour has a strong history on its side in both seats too (And is ahead to start)
I think the 2-1 and 10-1 respectively in both seats are too short.
Do you think laying UKIP in Stoke at 3 is better than backing Labour at 1.87??
Even Southams link about pensions has a quote that says the uprate is a correction to the previous bad deal
It's also based on a deliberately mendacious report by the IFS, as the article sheepishly admits at the end:
Pensions in numbers
£394: Average weekly pensioner income in 2013-2014
£385: Average weekly worker’s income in 2013-2014 after housing costs and dependants had been taken into account
Of course, if you eliminate whole classes of expenditure you can make the figures show anything you like. If you wanted the figures to be dishonest in the other direction you could quote pensioner's income after adjusting for care costs.
Wow - just seen the YouGov figures. Better headline VI than even I expected. Looks like Deacon's sketch was bang on - Labour don't have a hope while Brexit continues. Turns out there is only one party the country identifies with on Europe. Fervent remainers/rejoiners will be the political extremists from now on - but will they ever admit it???
Con gain Bootle?
I'm saving this post for a couple of years down the line!
I think the Bootle thing was a joke.
'Con gain Bootle' is a long-standing PB joke, the butt of which is either making fun of excessive Con optimism or exaggerating a particularly poor Lab preformance.
Wow - just seen the YouGov figures. Better headline VI than even I expected. Looks like Deacon's sketch was bang on - Labour don't have a hope while Brexit continues. Turns out there is only one party the country identifies with on Europe. Fervent remainers/rejoiners will be the political extremists from now on - but will they ever admit it???
Con gain Bootle?
I'm saving this post for a couple of years down the line!
I think the Bootle thing was a joke.
'Con gain Bootle' is a long-standing PB joke, the butt of which is either making fun of excessive Con optimism or exaggerating a particularly poor Lab preformance.
It's not just PB, my father has always used it as the archetypal Labour seat, the last one they'd hold. It isn't actually the safest on a UNS basis.
Its not that all pensioners are rich, its that all pensioners have seen large rises in their incomes over the past few years in absolute terms and relative to those working. Since these pensioners make up a majority of those voting Leave, to claim that the leave vote was driven by those doing badly by the financial settlement over the past 10 years is incorrect.
I am not sure that uprating the state pension from disgraceful to just piss poor should be seen moving pensioners without a company pension or other investments into the "doing well" category.
Right, their circumstances were getting better. They were hardly the left behind who rose up because they were being ignored by the Establishment in this new world.
Yes, now they can afford to turn the fire on for a two hours a day rather than one, I am sure they feel much better off
UKIP down to 6? Wow. Can't recall that for a very long time.
I think those who fantasise about them replacing Labour in the north really need to have a rethink.
And this is before the process of UKIP splintering under the weight of its own contradictions, as will surely happen now that the binding force of the referendum has gone, has really got under way.
Its not that all pensioners are rich, its that all pensioners have seen large rises in their incomes over the past few years in absolute terms and relative to those working. Since these pensioners make up a majority of those voting Leave, to claim that the leave vote was driven by those doing badly by the financial settlement over the past 10 years is incorrect.
I am not sure that uprating the state pension from disgraceful to just piss poor should be seen moving pensioners without a company pension or other investments into the "doing well" category.
Right, their circumstances were getting better. They were hardly the left behind who rose up because they were being ignored by the Establishment in this new world.
Precisely. The one group that politicians of all parties have been very focused on over the last 20 years is pensioners. Back in the 80s and 90s, they were far worse off as a group than the national average; now as a group they are outperforming the national average. Going back to the very start of this argument, that was exactly the point I was trying to make. They have not been forgotten or left behind, but they voted to Leave in big numbers and in all categories.
Its not that all pensioners are rich, its that all pensioners have seen large rises in their incomes over the past few years in absolute terms and relative to those working. Since these pensioners make up a majority of those voting Leave, to claim that the leave vote was driven by those doing badly by the financial settlement over the past 10 years is incorrect.
I am not sure that uprating the state pension from disgraceful to just piss poor should be seen moving pensioners without a company pension or other investments into the "doing well" category.
The basic state pension even after all that generosity is 119.30, or 6203 per year, not exactly coining it in I think you will agree. It fact its almost exactly the same amount as someone on the minimum wage makes working the standard part-time 16 hours week.
Except that pensioners don't pay any NI and will be eligible for housing benefit plus exempt from the benefit cap. So they are in a far better position than those in work for 16 hours a week on min wage.
We see people on here all the time saying benefits shouldn't be more generous than working so I don't see why that logic shouldn't also apply to the state pension. Everyone gets 65 years' advance notice that they will one day be old.
Wow - just seen the YouGov figures. Better headline VI than even I expected. Looks like Deacon's sketch was bang on - Labour don't have a hope while Brexit continues. Turns out there is only one party the country identifies with on Europe. Fervent remainers/rejoiners will be the political extremists from now on - but will they ever admit it???
Con gain Bootle?
I'm saving this post for a couple of years down the line!
I think the Bootle thing was a joke.
'Con gain Bootle' is a long-standing PB joke, the butt of which is either making fun of excessive Con optimism or exaggerating a particularly poor Lab preformance.
I know - I was being ironic because I suspect OllyThas a limited sense of humour which is understandable given current Labour polling.
UKIP down to 6? Wow. Can't recall that for a very long time.
I think those who fantasise about them replacing Labour in the north really need to have a rethink.
And this is before the process of UKIP splintering under the weight of its own contradictions, as will surely happen now that the binding force of the referendum has gone, has really got under way.
I speculated some months ago when they were having problems that there might not even be a UKIP standing on a national basis in 2020 and they were polling a lot more than this. 4m votes up for grabs and May looks greedy for them. Most of them are not the right sort for Labour of course.
Its not that all pensioners are rich, its that all pensioners have seen large rises in their incomes over the past few years in absolute terms and relative to those working. Since these pensioners make up a majority of those voting Leave, to claim that the leave vote was driven by those doing badly by the financial settlement over the past 10 years is incorrect.
I am not sure that uprating the state pension from disgraceful to just piss poor should be seen moving pensioners without a company pension or other investments into the "doing well" category.
Right, their circumstances were getting better. They were hardly the left behind who rose up because they were being ignored by the Establishment in this new world.
I have said this before on this site but I'll say it again because I think it is important to understanding the grey vote.
I am a pensioner and so are, naturally, most of my social circle. What motivates us and, thus our votes, is not our own personal circumstances but concerns for our children and grandchildren.
Not that anyone has indicated that they've been listening, but I've said this for weeks. SNP style wipeout is more likely to happen to Labour in the Midlands than the NE or NW.
The Midlands are a very mixed bag. I don't see any signs whatever of a Labour wipeout in the East Midlands (though I do see the Tories doing well), while I don't have any personal impression of the West Midlands. Comparing trends, in, say, Birmingham and Nottingham (let alone, say, Lincolnshire) is unwise.
But I do think UKIP is a busted flush, especially in the "hammer of the Labour vote" guise that it's currently adopting, and if Nuttall cares to take on Stoke, we will find that very clearly demonstrated.
Its not that all pensioners are rich, its that all pensioners have seen large rises in their incomes over the past few years in absolute terms and relative to those working. Since these pensioners make up a majority of those voting Leave, to claim that the leave vote was driven by those doing badly by the financial settlement over the past 10 years is incorrect.
I am not sure that uprating the state pension from disgraceful to just piss poor should be seen moving pensioners without a company pension or other investments into the "doing well" category.
Right, their circumstances were getting better. They were hardly the left behind who rose up because they were being ignored by the Establishment in this new world.
Yes, now they can afford to turn the fire on for a two hours a day rather than one, I am sure they feel much better off
Thanks to the winter fuel allowance they can do more than that. It is a very good thing that the elderly no longer have to worry about heating their homes (even if some still do). It should be the same for all ages, of course.
Its not that all pensioners are rich, its that all pensioners have seen large rises in their incomes over the past few years in absolute terms and relative to those working. Since these pensioners make up a majority of those voting Leave, to claim that the leave vote was driven by those doing badly by the financial settlement over the past 10 years is incorrect.
I am not sure that uprating the state pension from disgraceful to just piss poor should be seen moving pensioners without a company pension or other investments into the "doing well" category.
The basic state pension even after all that generosity is 119.30, or 6203 per year, not exactly coining it in I think you will agree. It fact its almost exactly the same amount as someone on the minimum wage makes working the standard part-time 16 hours week.
Except that pensioners don't pay any NI and will be eligible for housing benefit plus exempt from the benefit cap. So they are in a far better position than those in work for 16 hours a week on min wage.
We see people on here all the time saying benefits shouldn't be more generous than working so I don't see why that logic shouldn't also apply to the state pension. Everyone gets 65 years' advance notice that they will one day be old.
Pensioners benefits will not keep up the triple lock for those graduating from university with ~ £50k of debt who'll mostly be paying effectively 9 pence extra income tax till they're 55 - who're heading into either an aging population or ever decreasing housing per person (Choose your poison)
Comments
I think we corresponded before about this and there was an issue about the due diligence which your friend did and whether he had been misled by the people who sold him the business. I hope that got itself resolved. But it doesn't detract from the well-established principle that businesses should abide by the laws of the land.
All usual residents 249,008
United Kingdom 228,294
England 224,509
Northern Ireland 497
Scotland 1,694
Wales 1,567
United Kingdom not otherwise specified 27
Ireland 571
Other EU 4,815
Member countries in March 2001 1,735
Accession countries April 2001 to March 2011 3,080
Other countries 15,328
Edit: Next door Newcastle looks to have a greater proportion born in GB.
"The rich and middle-classes were more pro-EU.
The AB group backed Remain by 57% to 43%, while the poorer C2DE category was almost two-thirds in favour of quitting, voting Out by 64% to 36%, according to Lord Ashcroft . "
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/who-voted-brexit-how-eu-8277077
The capital wouldn't be returned until then, but granny and grandad would get the interest regularly, which is what they really want, and can bequeath them to their grandchildren...
Worth a try, surely, provided it's made clear that the capital is locked up and this is more aimed at well-off couples?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pensioners-earning-more-than-the-average-worker-new-analysis-says-a6701851.html
But my point remains. You keep on talking about pensioners as if they are all wealthy Tories swanning around not giving a toss for the poor little young ones. That is very far from the truth. I am sorry that you took the referendum defeat so hard, but constantly trying to spin it as a rich persons vote seems like an exercise in trying to make yourself look good more than anything else... the data disagrees with you
If you can find a split on how pensioners voted by wealth that would be interesting. If the trend is the same as the rest of the population, the poor ones would vote Leave and the Fatcats to Remain
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3774/The-2016-EU-referendum-who-was-in-and-who-was-out.aspx?view=wide
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.65UP.TO.ZS
Proportion of population over 65 - Singapore has 12% (from 2% in 1960), the UK has 18% (from 12% in 1960). Comparative economic growth figures will tell another story.
Social Class Remain/Leave
AB
59 41
C1
52 48
C2
38 62
DE
36 64
"‘The only thing that is propping up the party is a social norm, and if that cracks, then it becomes a snowball"
"Corbyn, says the Labour pollster James Morris, is not the source of the party’s problem, but rather the final straw for voters who were already losing patience."
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/in-labours-old-heartlands-mps-are-staring-into-the-abyss/
Yes you could dismiss this as just a hatchet job from Spectator, but a) Hardman isn't that kind of reporter and b) John Harris of Guardian would write pretty much the same article.
Betting wise, I'm glad I'm betting against Labour in both by-election seats. When will the Party and its witless metropolitan new supporters put down their lattes and wake up?
55+ by Class (Remain /Leave)
AB
48 52
C1
37 63
C2
32 68
DE
30 70
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3774/The-2016-EU-referendum-who-was-in-and-who-was-out.aspx?view=wide
55+ by Class (Remain /Leave)
AB
48 52
C1
37 63
C2
32 68
DE
30 70
Labour may scrape these two this time, possibly by holding on local election day, but the collapse is coming unless something is done. James Baldwin wrote a book in the 60s called "The Fire Next Time". Seems an appropriate response, even if Labour scrape through.
One you've taught yourself to use it the ONS neighbourhood stats website really is very good.
http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/
How well or badly do you think the government are doing at negotiating Britain's exit from the European Union? (vs Jan 9)
Well: 33 (+12)
Badly: 45 (-8)
Also strong support for May's plan: (net right):
Continue Security Cooperation: +83
Guarantee EU/UK citizens rights: +69
Control over EU Immigration: +62
Open border with Eire: +61
NOT in Single Market: +36
LEAVE Customs Union: +36
Remainers agreed with all of the above except Single Market (-10).
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/xalfiwu0ed/TimesResults_170118_VI_Trackers_MaySpeech_W.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38675558?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_politics&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central
The polling is pretty strong here:
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/822032747984289792/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
- nationality
- employer
- job title
- location
of immigrant workers.....
like the USA......
I find it rather sweet, really.
I'm saving this post for a couple of years down the line!
I read your posts and almost all of them seem to be suggesting (putting it mildly) that Brexit was voted for by Rich pensioners, Tories and the well off in general. The data suggests the complete opposite, ie that the poorer you are the more likely you voted for Brexit, including pensioners, that's why I pulled you up
The fact is
If only the rich had voted, Remain would have won
If only the poor had voted, Leave would have won
The increase in consumer debt is a concern as is the persistent nature of the government deficit. There is very little incentive to save when you have negative interest rates for so long. It makes more sense to buy assets. Not everything is great by any means but we are not heading for disaster either. At least not yet.
"We are leaving because a coalition of voters from very different backgrounds voted Leave. It was not an uprising of the proles, it was not a rich-man's revolution. It was a coalition of well-off homeowners, pensioners and C2DE's that achieved victory"
Its probably the case that the majority of Leave voters are more insulated from the financial costs of their vote than Remain voters.
I read your posts, and the message they convey is of you trying to frame Brexit as a Rich, right wing Tory vote that will harm the lives of the poor lemmings at the bottom.. maybe that isn't what you think, but that's how it comes across. The data show the opposite
Labour has a strong history on its side in both seats too (And is ahead to start)
I think the 2-1 and 10-1 respectively in both seats are too short.
@GoodwinMJ: % May Brexit deal "good for Britain"
All voters 55%
Ukip 84%
Leavers 81%
w.class 60%
London 52%
Remainers 32%
Wd respect EURef? 62% say yes
Even 56% Remainers think May's Brexit deal would respect the result of the EU referendum. Shows how much a chamber Twitter is.
Con 43 (+3)
Lab 31 (+2)
Lib Dems 11 (-3)
Ukip 6 (-3)
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-poll-londoners-are-biggest-champions-of-single-market-as-immigration-issue-splits-country-a3444441.html
The Scottish Government has been accused of manipulating the figures in its budget to exaggerate the impact of Westminster cuts by senior economists.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-accused-of-skewing-budget-figures-to-exaggerate-cuts-1-4342594
I am trying not to let this descend in to smart arse one upmanship, please don't get like that.
Mrs May is the only party leader with a positive rating — 45 per cent are satisfied with her performance. Jeremy Corbyn’s ratings are a dire 26 per cent satisfied and 61 per cent dissatisfied.
YouGov Poll shows % public preference as follows
Hard Brexit 39
Soft Brexit 25
Remain 23
Not sure 13
See
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/01/16/public-split-what-kind-brexit-they-think-governmen/
The basic state pension even after all that generosity is 119.30, or 6203 per year, not exactly coining it in I think you will agree. It fact its almost exactly the same amount as someone on the minimum wage makes working the standard part-time 16 hours week.
This guy Jadhav any good? :-)
Lab 31 (+2)
Lib Dems 11 (-3)
Ukip 6 (-3)
Given that polling, maybe
"Of course they can - but often retrospectively."
In other words, voters often vote against their own financial interest.
I know the feeling, but that's democracy in all its glory.
I'd prefer to say that often voters choose viscerally. You can make a financial prediction, but experts often get those wrong. And even if financial experts were trusted (they're not), there's the old saying ... "A man convinced against his will, retains his own opinion still."
That's why politics is often on appearance. You can talk all the sense in the world, but if you look a wrong 'un, you're doomed.
When you look a wrong 'un, and talk nonsense, you're doubly doomed.
Sorry, Jezza.
I thought it was the politicians who did that
/grammarnazi
Pensions in numbers
£394: Average weekly pensioner income in 2013-2014
£385: Average weekly worker’s income in 2013-2014 after housing costs and dependants had been taken into account
Of course, if you eliminate whole classes of expenditure you can make the figures show anything you like. If you wanted the figures to be dishonest in the other direction you could quote pensioner's income after adjusting for care costs.
All of which is great for UKIP voters but not so good for UKIP proper, at least from a betting perspective.
But yes, memories are still vivid.
I think those who fantasise about them replacing Labour in the north really need to have a rethink.
We see people on here all the time saying benefits shouldn't be more generous than working so I don't see why that logic shouldn't also apply to the state pension. Everyone gets 65 years' advance notice that they will one day be old.
I am a pensioner and so are, naturally, most of my social circle. What motivates us and, thus our votes, is not our own personal circumstances but concerns for our children and grandchildren.
But I do think UKIP is a busted flush, especially in the "hammer of the Labour vote" guise that it's currently adopting, and if Nuttall cares to take on Stoke, we will find that very clearly demonstrated.
I do not envy the current young.