On topic, as others have said, an excellent piece. At the moment Theresa May is lacking alternatives inside or outside her party. It seems that she is a slow thinker but she is evidently a thinker.
What are her weaknesses? She's slow to make her mind up and her government has been caught flatfooted more than once already when speed was required. She has given flashes of a charmless intolerance of different approaches to life - "citizens of nowhere" and baiting Emily Thornberry about not taking her husband's name were entirely avoidable. It's far from clear that her plans for Brexit will survive first contact with reality. And time is not a quantity that she has in abundance, particularly in relation to Brexit where she is about to start negotiations with a group that are out to do her few favours and where she has made no serious attempt to gain any goodwill at all.
But until Britain has a functioning opposition other than the SNP, she will govern unchallenged.
It is odd that someone who is a self-proclaimed feminist would bait another woman about not taking her hubsand's surname.
Surely the point was that 'Emily 'woman of the people' Thornberry is quite a lot grander than she likes people to think?
Thornberry wasn't criticised for keeping her maiden name:
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, is it in order for the Prime Minister to refer to a Member of this House not by her own name, but by the name of her husband? Secondly, for the record, I have never been a lady, and it will take a great deal more than being married to a knight of the realm to make me one.
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May) Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not in any way intend to be disorderly in this House, and if the hon. Lady is concerned about the reference that I made to her, then of course I will apologise for that. I have to say to her, though, that for the last 36 years I have been referred to by my husband’s name. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker Order. No sedentary shrieking from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is required.
I cannot say I agree with your interpretations - calling her lady nudge was clearly a mocking reference to her being a lady, she couldn't call her lady thornberry because there's even less justification for that, so what seems to have occurred is May was mocking Thornberry for being posh but sensitive about it, Thornberry objected on the grounds she does not go by that name, which is fair enough, although decided to bring up that it was her husband's name rather than merely point out she does not go by that name, and then May got prissy as she has no problem going by her husbands name so who cares.
The first criticism cannot reasonably I think be said to be criticism thornberry for not using her husbands name. Where would the wish to do that even come from, its implausible. But we know many MPs read Guido, and he loves to mock Thornberry by using her titled name, and noted she does not like it, and May decided to use that. The feminism of the matter does not seem relevant to May's jibe, it was analogous to namecalling Osborne as Gideon, calling someone something they don't like - in the Commons, where you don't go by name, there are few opportunities to wind people up like that.
Pettiness all around, but I would struggle to see how it could possibly be tied into May's feminist credentials one way or another.
Thornberry wasn't criticised for keeping her maiden name:
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, is it in order for the Prime Minister to refer to a Member of this House not by her own name, but by the name of her husband? Secondly, for the record, I have never been a lady, and it will take a great deal more than being married to a knight of the realm to make me one.
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May) Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not in any way intend to be disorderly in this House, and if the hon. Lady is concerned about the reference that I made to her, then of course I will apologise for that. I have to say to her, though, that for the last 36 years I have been referred to by my husband’s name. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker Order. No sedentary shrieking from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is required.
I cannot say I agree with your interpretations - calling her lady nudge was clearly a mocking reference to her being a lady, she couldn't call her lady thornberry because there's even less justification for that, so what seems to have occurred is May was mocking Thornberry for being posh but sensitive about it, Thornberry objected on the grounds she does not go by that name, which is fair enough, although decided to bring up that it was her husband's name rather than merely point out she does not go by that name, and then May got prissy as she has no problem going by her husbands name so who cares.
The first criticism cannot reasonably I think be said to be criticism thornberry for not using her husbands name. Where would the wish to do that even come from, its implausible. But we know many MPs read Guido, and he loves to mock Thornberry by using her titled name, and noted she does not like it. The feminism of the matter does not seem relevant to May's jibe, it was analogous to namecalling Osborne as Gideon.
Of course you are right. How anyone can fail to see this is beyond me
On topic, as others have said, an excellent piece. At the moment Theresa May is lacking alternatives inside or outside her party. It seems that she is a slow thinker but she is evidently a thinker.
What are her weaknesses? She's slow to make her mind up and her government has been caught flatfooted more than once already when speed was required. She has given flashes of a charmless intolerance of different approaches to life - "citizens of nowhere" and baiting Emily Thornberry about not taking her husband's name were entirely avoidable. It's far from clear that her plans for Brexit will survive first contact with reality. And time is not a quantity that she has in abundance, particularly in relation to Brexit where she is about to start negotiations with a group that are out to do her few favours and where she has made no serious attempt to gain any goodwill at all.
But until Britain has a functioning opposition other than the SNP, she will govern unchallenged.
It is odd that someone who is a self-proclaimed feminist would bait another woman about not taking her hubsand's surname.
Surely the point was that 'Emily 'woman of the people' Thornberry is quite a lot grander than she likes people to think?
May is being impolite at best there - the fact that she has for 36 years been referred to by her husband's name is because 36 years ago she chose to take her husband's name.
On the politics of this vote, I'm not at all convinced that Labour and the LibDems favouring the rights of foreigners over British citizens will be seen as fair by voters. Fairness is all about reciprocity - this is a political mistake (and a really odd issue to choose to oppose the government on), as well as being a negotiating blunder if allowed to stand.
Absolutely. I said last night that people's feelings on this matter seem to largely come down to sticking up for their friends and family. Some people know many more EU immigrants, some know many more ex-pats. But the former are vastly better represented in politics and the media.
Thanks to all for the kind comments below; I was half the world away when OGH published it.
And they care far more about the cultured Europeans they share their offices with that the tattooed Chaz and Dave living out in Benidorm.
Which is of course perfectly rational and reasonble, given they don't know Chaz and Dave.
It is perfectly reasonable for Parliamentarians and the media to care far more about the elites they know than other citizens they don't? Are you sure about that?
There are THREE MILLION non-British EU nationals in the UK most of whom are of working age. Hence it's obvious that more people live and work with them then the one million UK emigrants. It's sod all about the bloody "elites". These people work in our offices, are our children's schoolmates, are our neighbours.
It's the duty of politicians to prioritise the interests of their own nationals over the interests of foreign nationals.
@isam Did you have the same opinion about Tony Blair in 1997 when the country was 'united around its leader' ?
I voted for Blair (my first vote at a GE) hoping that underneath his slightly Tory veneer lay a radical socialist! I am still not sure which one he was, and am pretty sure I had no idea what I was on about either! No change there then I hear you say
IMO, Tony Blair is many things, but a socialist is not one of them. The last time he was probably close to being one was in the late 1970s. Apparently back then, he was a huge fan of Michael Foot. I think Blair in some respects has actually gotten more right wing over time. When you at his positions on fox-hunting, foreign policy (being a neo-conservative and all), pro private involvement in public services. His adoration of Thatcher. On the other hand, Blair isn't as much of socialist, as he is a liberal on certain issues like immigration and the EU.
A fair few important Blairites were communists, you don't get much more socialist than that!
That's true, but I think that Blair himself is an entirely different kettle of fish.
@isam Did you have the same opinion about Tony Blair in 1997 when the country was 'united around its leader' ?
The central premise that the country is united round its leader is the comfort blanket of rightwing fantasy. May's support is a mile wide and an inch deep, for the reasons you outline eloquently above.
But Corbyn's support is a mile deep and an inch wide !!
Yes. Ideally we can reduce that to being an inch deep and an inch wide.
On the topic of EU citizen rights, I reluctantly agree with the governments position. I want nothing more than to secure the rights of EU citizens here, but this has to be on the basis that the rights of our own citizens are guaranteed within the EU.
The whole debate somewhat misses the real issue though. And that is because the principle of free movement is so enshrined in our immigration system for EEA citizens, the paths to permanent residency and citizenship for EEA citizens are not obvious and fraught with risk, complexity and cost. As such, people who have sought to use the existing channels to confirm their status have found their applications rejected due to technicalities like not having private healthcare insurance, not being able to produce their travel records for x years, being out of the country for more than 90 days in a year, etc. The human cost of this is enormous with families feeling genuine fear that they will be forced apart.
The government could do a lot more to defuse this situation without going to the lengths of giving unilateral guarantees to all EU citizens. They could for instance create a streamlined 'permanent resident' route for EEA citizens who have settled here for say three years with minimal cost and information requirements (should be pretty easy to prove). The government sound like they don't really give a fuck. I suspect the truth is that they just don't have time.
I agree. This doesn't belong to an Article 50 motion. The here and now is the difficulty EU citizens are having getting formal PR status or citizenship that they already qualify for or nearly qualify for. As that's a UK national competency and not an EU one, the government could sort it out now if it wanted to
On topic, as others have said, an excellent piece. At the moment Theresa May is lacking alternatives inside or outside her party. It seems that she is a slow thinker but she is evidently a thinker.
What are her weaknesses? She's slow to make her mind up and her government has been caught flatfooted more than once already when speed was required. She has given flashes of a charmless intolerance of different approaches to life - "citizens of nowhere" and baiting Emily Thornberry about not taking her husband's name were entirely avoidable. It's far from clear that her plans for Brexit will survive first contact with reality. And time is not a quantity that she has in abundance, particularly in relation to Brexit where she is about to start negotiations with a group that are out to do her few favours and where she has made no serious attempt to gain any goodwill at all.
But until Britain has a functioning opposition other than the SNP, she will govern unchallenged.
This is the view that right now I have the most sympathy with.
It is odd that someone who is a self-proclaimed feminist would bait another woman about not taking her hubsand's surname. It is entirely the right of Emily Thronberry to keep her maiden name. It should not be an obligation that one should have to give up their maiden name when getting married. I certainly intend to keep my maiden name if I get married.
I think the whole Trump state visit thing was a miscalculation too.
May will keep riding high for this single reason: she is the only half decent political leader on offer right now. Corbyn, Farron, and Nuttall are all terrible. Until this changes, May and government will determine political narratives, and there will be nothing her detractors can do about it.
I've always thought that sharing a family name is a key feature of a marriage - it has traditionally been the man's name, but I'm not bothered who's name (or even a new name) is used.
If you chose to keep your name and your spouse doesn't change name either, and you decide to have children, what name will they take?
My children took my surname. It has never been an issue.
Long, unwieldy name aside, some foreign naming traditions including both would help avoid this issue of course.
They do that here in the Philippines, it takes a bit of getting used to.
Miss Maria Abaya Cruz marries Mr Juan Gubat Calayan Maria's married name is now Mrs Maria Cruz Calayan all offspring carry over both the mother's married names They have a son Rik Cruz Calayan and a daughter Jena Cruz Calayan When the daughter married Mr Jhon Dayo Batad she becomes Mrs Jena Calayan Batad. and so on.
On the politics of this vote, I'm not at all convinced that Labour and the LibDems favouring the rights of foreigners over British citizens will be seen as fair by voters. Fairness is all about reciprocity - this is a political mistake (and a really odd issue to choose to oppose the government on), as well as being a negotiating blunder if allowed to stand.
Absolutely. I said last night that people's feelings on this matter seem to largely come down to sticking up for their friends and family. Some people know many more EU immigrants, some know many more ex-pats. But the former are vastly better represented in politics and the media.
Thanks to all for the kind comments below; I was half the world away when OGH published it.
And they care far more about the cultured Europeans they share their offices with that the tattooed Chaz and Dave living out in Benidorm.
Which is of course perfectly rational and reasonble, given they don't know Chaz and Dave.
It is perfectly reasonable for Parliamentarians and the media to care far more about the elites they know than other citizens they don't? Are you sure about that?
There are THREE MILLION non-British EU nationals in the UK most of whom are of working age. Hence it's obvious that more people live and work with them then the one million UK emigrants. It's sod all about the bloody "elites". These people work in our offices, are our children's schoolmates, are our neighbours.
It's the duty of politicians to prioritise the interests of their own nationals over the interests of foreign nationals.
It's in the interests of UK nationals living in the UK that the 3 million EU citizens living here continue to be economically active in the UK. What's in the interests of said EU citizens is beside the point.
@kle4 I can't agree. If she really wanted to mock Thronberry for being posh there are other ways of doing so. May calling Thronberry Lady Nugee reminds me of the Daily Mail calling Miriam Gonzalez Durantez 'Miriam Clegg.' I found Emily Thronberry's initial comments odd, but didn't interpret them as dig at May taking on her husband's name. If it was, then Thronberry is also in the wrong.
On the politics of this vote, I'm not at all convinced that Labour and the LibDems favouring the rights of foreigners over British citizens will be seen as fair by voters. Fairness is all about reciprocity - this is a political mistake (and a really odd issue to choose to oppose the government on), as well as being a negotiating blunder if allowed to stand.
Absolutely. I said last night that people's feelings on this matter seem to largely come down to sticking up for their friends and family. Some people know many more EU immigrants, some know many more ex-pats. But the former are vastly better represented in politics and the media.
Thanks to all for the kind comments below; I was half the world away when OGH published it.
And they care far more about the cultured Europeans they share their offices with that the tattooed Chaz and Dave living out in Benidorm.
Which is of course perfectly rational and reasonble, given they don't know Chaz and Dave.
It is perfectly reasonable for Parliamentarians and the media to care far more about the elites they know than other citizens they don't? Are you sure about that?
There are THREE MILLION non-British EU nationals in the UK most of whom are of working age. Hence it's obvious that more people live and work with them then the one million UK emigrants. It's sod all about the bloody "elites". These people work in our offices, are our children's schoolmates, are our neighbours.
It's the duty of politicians to prioritise the interests of their own nationals over the interests of foreign nationals.
It's in the interests of UK nationals living in the UK that the 3 million EU citizens living here continue to be economically active in the UK. What's in the interests of said EU citizens is beside the point.
It's in the interests of both that a deal is struck on the basis of reciprocity.
@kle4 I can't agree. If she really wanted to mock Thronberry for being posh there are other ways of doing so. May calling Thronberry Lady Nugee reminds me of the Daily Mail calling Miriam Gonzalez Durantez 'Miriam Clegg.' I found Emily Thronberry's initial comments odd, but didn't interpret them as dig at May taking on her husband's name. If it was, then Thronberry is also in the wrong.
Do you honestly think May would call Harriet Harman "Mrs Dromey"? It was plainly a dig at her being a Lady, rather than her not taking her husbands name
This was the guy who travelled from Bradford all the way up to Scotland to murder a shopkeeper because he thought he wasn't the right sort of muslim.
Murderer Tanveer Ahmed inspires Pakistani hardliners from Scottish jail
From the article -
On Monday evening, about 400 gathered outside his family's home in the city of Mirpur, in Pakistan-administered Kashmir for a rally in his honour. The crowd chanted slogans praising Ahmed as "brave" and "courageous".
It's a risk, I agree. There is also, however, the possibility, that a unilateral gesture of this type would be received as an olive branch and responded to in kind, buying the UK government some badly needed goodwill at a time when there's precious little of the stuff going around.
Since Britain is almost certainly going to concede on the point eventually (as, for that matter are the EU27), there's a lot to be said for seeing what we can get for it by trying the unexpected gambit of being nice.
In diplomacy, as in life generally, you get no benefit for being a sucker, as we saw with Tony Blair's generous gesture of giving up part of our rebate for nothing in return.
Quite apart from anything else, even with the best will in the world, the EU27 will find it hard to agree on anything. It would be mad to take away their incentive to agree as quickly as possible on rights for Brits in the EU.
It all seems so one sided at the moment. Those criticising the UK Government's position as they seek a joint agreement that also protects the rights of Brits in the EU should be turning their anger on the EU for dragging their feet over this issue. Its quite obvious that the UK Government would like to see the rights of all those concerned protected and the issue resolved asap so it doesn't get dragged into the mire of the wider Brexit negotiations.
@kle4 I can't agree. If she really wanted to mock Thronberry for being posh there are other ways of doing so. May calling Thronberry Lady Nugee reminds me of the Daily Mail calling Miriam Gonzalez Durantez 'Miriam Clegg.' I found Emily Thronberry's initial comments odd, but didn't interpret them as dig at May taking on her husband's name. If it was, then Thronberry is also in the wrong.
We shall have to agree to disagree - it is well known in politics Thornberry has that title and doesn't like it, so as a guess its an easy way to get a rise out of her, and it apparently works, adding other interpretations seems like a projection, requiring an additional assumption, unfounded as far as I can see, that May for no reason decided to make fun of women who keep their names. Which is more plausible: that May knows Thornberry dislikes the name and goaded her by using it, or that May decided, out of all the things to criticise about Thornberry, that she would choose that moment to have a dig at women who keep their maiden names?
This was the guy who travelled from Bradford all the way up to Scotland to murder a shopkeeper because he thought he wasn't the right sort of muslim.
Murderer Tanveer Ahmed inspires Pakistani hardliners from Scottish jail
From the article -
On Monday evening, about 400 gathered outside his family's home in the city of Mirpur, in Pakistan-administered Kashmir for a rally in his honour. The crowd chanted slogans praising Ahmed as "brave" and "courageous".
On the politics of this vote, I'm not at all convinced that Labour and the LibDems favouring the rights of foreigners over British citizens will be seen as fair by voters. Fairness is all about reciprocity - this is a political mistake (and a really odd issue to choose to oppose the government on), as well as being a negotiating blunder if allowed to stand.
Absolutely. I said last night that people's feelings on this matter seem to largely come down to sticking up for their friends and family. Some people know many more EU immigrants, some know many more ex-pats. But the former are vastly better represented in politics and the media.
Thanks to all for the kind comments below; I was half the world away when OGH published it.
And they care far more about the cultured Europeans they share their offices with that the tattooed Chaz and Dave living out in Benidorm.
Which is of course perfectly rational and reasonble, given they don't know Chaz and Dave.
It is perfectly reasonable for Parliamentarians and the media to care far more about the elites they know than other citizens they don't? Are you sure about that?
There are THREE MILLION non-British EU nationals in the UK most of whom are of working age. Hence it's obvious that more people live and work with them then the one million UK emigrants. It's sod all about the bloody "elites". These people work in our offices, are our children's schoolmates, are our neighbours.
It's the duty of politicians to prioritise the interests of their own nationals over the interests of foreign nationals.
That is your opinion. It is not a fact. In any case, I would argue on social, economic and moral grounds keeping the 3m is in the interests of UK nationals.
It's a risk, I agree. There is also, however, the possibility, that a unilateral gesture of this type would be received as an olive branch and responded to in kind, buying the UK government some badly needed goodwill at a time when there's precious little of the stuff going around.
Since Britain is almost certainly going to concede on the point eventually (as, for that matter are the EU27), there's a lot to be said for seeing what we can get for it by trying the unexpected gambit of being nice.
In diplomacy, as in life generally, you get no benefit for being a sucker, as we saw with Tony Blair's generous gesture of giving up part of our rebate for nothing in return.
Quite apart from anything else, even with the best will in the world, the EU27 will find it hard to agree on anything. It would be mad to take away their incentive to agree as quickly as possible on rights for Brits in the EU.
It all seems so one sided at the moment. Those criticising the UK Government's position as they seek a joint agreement that also protects the rights of Brits in the EU should be turning their anger on the EU for dragging their feet over this issue. Its quite obvious that the UK Government would like to see the rights of all those concerned protected and the issue resolved asap so it doesn't get dragged into the mire of the wider Brexit negotiations.
The UK is the one that has decided to change the existing relationship by leaving. I don't see why the EU should be expected to prioritise a problem that has been created for them by the UK.
On the politics of this vote, I'm not at all convinced that Labour and the LibDems favouring the rights of foreigners over British citizens will be seen as fair by voters. Fairness is all about reciprocity - this is a political mistake (and a really odd issue to choose to oppose the government on), as well as being a negotiating blunder if allowed to stand.
Absolutely. I said last night that people's feelings on this matter seem to largely come down to sticking up for their friends and family. Some people know many more EU immigrants, some know many more ex-pats. But the former are vastly better represented in politics and the media.
Thanks to all for the kind comments below; I was half the world away when OGH published it.
And they care far more about the cultured Europeans they share their offices with that the tattooed Chaz and Dave living out in Benidorm.
Which is of course perfectly rational and reasonble, given they don't know Chaz and Dave.
It is perfectly reasonable for Parliamentarians and the media to care far more about the elites they know than other citizens they don't? Are you sure about that?
There are THREE MILLION non-British EU nationals in the UK most of whom are of working age. Hence it's obvious that more people live and work with them then the one million UK emigrants. It's sod all about the bloody "elites". These people work in our offices, are our children's schoolmates, are our neighbours.
It's the duty of politicians to prioritise the interests of their own nationals over the interests of foreign nationals.
That is your opinion. It is not a fact. In any case, I would argue on social, economic and moral grounds keeping the 3m is in the interests of UK nationals.
@kle4 I can't agree. If she really wanted to mock Thronberry for being posh there are other ways of doing so. May calling Thronberry Lady Nugee reminds me of the Daily Mail calling Miriam Gonzalez Durantez 'Miriam Clegg.' I found Emily Thronberry's initial comments odd, but didn't interpret them as dig at May taking on her husband's name. If it was, then Thronberry is also in the wrong.
Which is more plausible: that May knows Thornberry dislikes the name and goaded her by using it, or that May decided, out of all the things to criticise about Thornberry, that she would choose that moment to have a dig at women who keep their maiden names?
It's a risk, I agree. There is also, however, the possibility, that a unilateral gesture of this type would be received as an olive branch and responded to in kind, buying the UK government some badly needed goodwill at a time when there's precious little of the stuff going around.
Since Britain is almost certainly going to concede on the point eventually (as, for that matter are the EU27), there's a lot to be said for seeing what we can get for it by trying the unexpected gambit of being nice.
In diplomacy, as in life generally, you get no benefit for being a sucker, as we saw with Tony Blair's generous gesture of giving up part of our rebate for nothing in return.
Quite apart from anything else, even with the best will in the world, the EU27 will find it hard to agree on anything. It would be mad to take away their incentive to agree as quickly as possible on rights for Brits in the EU.
It all seems so one sided at the moment. Those criticising the UK Government's position as they seek a joint agreement that also protects the rights of Brits in the EU should be turning their anger on the EU for dragging their feet over this issue. Its quite obvious that the UK Government would like to see the rights of all those concerned protected and the issue resolved asap so it doesn't get dragged into the mire of the wider Brexit negotiations.
The UK is the one that has decided to change the existing relationship by leaving. I don't see why the EU should be expected to prioritise a problem that has been created for them by the UK.
Because the EU has a duty of care to their own citizens?
@kle4 I can't agree. If she really wanted to mock Thronberry for being posh there are other ways of doing so. May calling Thronberry Lady Nugee reminds me of the Daily Mail calling Miriam Gonzalez Durantez 'Miriam Clegg.' I found Emily Thronberry's initial comments odd, but didn't interpret them as dig at May taking on her husband's name. If it was, then Thronberry is also in the wrong.
Which is more plausible: that May knows Thornberry dislikes the name and goaded her by using it, or that May decided, out of all the things to criticise about Thornberry, that she would choose that moment to have a dig at women who keep their maiden names?
It's a risk, I agree. There is also, however, the possibility, that a unilateral gesture of this type would be received as an olive branch and responded to in kind, buying the UK government some badly needed goodwill at a time when there's precious little of the stuff going around.
Since Britain is almost certainly going to concede on the point eventually (as, for that matter are the EU27), there's a lot to be said for seeing what we can get for it by trying the unexpected gambit of being nice.
In diplomacy, as in life generally, you get no benefit for being a sucker, as we saw with Tony Blair's generous gesture of giving up part of our rebate for nothing in return.
Quite apart from anything else, even with the best will in the world, the EU27 will find it hard to agree on anything. It would be mad to take away their incentive to agree as quickly as possible on rights for Brits in the EU.
It all seems so one sided at the moment. Those criticising the UK Government's position as they seek a joint agreement that also protects the rights of Brits in the EU should be turning their anger on the EU for dragging their feet over this issue. Its quite obvious that the UK Government would like to see the rights of all those concerned protected and the issue resolved asap so it doesn't get dragged into the mire of the wider Brexit negotiations.
The UK is the one that has decided to change the existing relationship by leaving. I don't see why the EU should be expected to prioritise a problem that has been created for them by the UK.
Quite. Which is the central paradox in all this Brexit rigmarole.
@kle4 I can't agree. If she really wanted to mock Thronberry for being posh there are other ways of doing so. May calling Thronberry Lady Nugee reminds me of the Daily Mail calling Miriam Gonzalez Durantez 'Miriam Clegg.' I found Emily Thronberry's initial comments odd, but didn't interpret them as dig at May taking on her husband's name. If it was, then Thronberry is also in the wrong.
Which is more plausible: that May knows Thornberry dislikes the name and goaded her by using it, or that May decided, out of all the things to criticise about Thornberry, that she would choose that moment to have a dig at women who keep their maiden names?
You might be forgiven for thinking she was accusing Thornberry of sloth...
You'll have noted that the Speaker criticised Chris Bryant for 'shrieking from a sedentary position' in the Lady Nugee point of order......the term is clearly in regular use...
This was the guy who travelled from Bradford all the way up to Scotland to murder a shopkeeper because he thought he wasn't the right sort of muslim.
Murderer Tanveer Ahmed inspires Pakistani hardliners from Scottish jail
From the article -
On Monday evening, about 400 gathered outside his family's home in the city of Mirpur, in Pakistan-administered Kashmir for a rally in his honour. The crowd chanted slogans praising Ahmed as "brave" and "courageous".
It's a risk, I agree. There is also, however, the possibility, that a unilateral gesture of this type would be received as an olive branch and responded to in kind, buying the UK government some badly needed goodwill at a time when there's precious little of the stuff going around.
Since Britain is almost certainly going to concede on the point eventually (as, for that matter are the EU27), there's a lot to be said for seeing what we can get for it by trying the unexpected gambit of being nice.
In diplomacy, as in life generally, you get no benefit for being a sucker, as we saw with Tony Blair's generous gesture of giving up part of our rebate for nothing in return.
Quite apart from anything else, even with the best will in the world, the EU27 will find it hard to agree on anything. It would be mad to take away their incentive to agree as quickly as possible on rights for Brits in the EU.
It all seems so one sided at the moment. Those criticising the UK Government's position as they seek a joint agreement that also protects the rights of Brits in the EU should be turning their anger on the EU for dragging their feet over this issue. Its quite obvious that the UK Government would like to see the rights of all those concerned protected and the issue resolved asap so it doesn't get dragged into the mire of the wider Brexit negotiations.
The UK is the one that has decided to change the existing relationship by leaving. I don't see why the EU should be expected to prioritise a problem that has been created for them by the UK.
Possibly they should have worded Article 50 differently then.
It's a risk, I agree. There is also, however, the possibility, that a unilateral gesture of this type would be received as an olive branch and responded to in kind, buying the UK government some badly needed goodwill at a time when there's precious little of the stuff going around.
Since Britain is almost certainly going to concede on the point eventually (as, for that matter are the EU27), there's a lot to be said for seeing what we can get for it by trying the unexpected gambit of being nice.
In diplomacy, as in life generally, you get no benefit for being a sucker, as we saw with Tony Blair's generous gesture of giving up part of our rebate for nothing in return.
Quite apart from anything else, even with the best will in the world, the EU27 will find it hard to agree on anything. It would be mad to take away their incentive to agree as quickly as possible on rights for Brits in the EU.
It all seems so one sided at the moment. Those criticising the UK Government's position as they seek a joint agreement that also protects the rights of Brits in the EU should be turning their anger on the EU for dragging their feet over this issue. Its quite obvious that the UK Government would like to see the rights of all those concerned protected and the issue resolved asap so it doesn't get dragged into the mire of the wider Brexit negotiations.
The UK is the one that has decided to change the existing relationship by leaving. I don't see why the EU should be expected to prioritise a problem that has been created for them by the UK.
Because the EU has a duty of care to their own citizens?
@kle4 I can't agree. If she really wanted to mock Thronberry for being posh there are other ways of doing so. May calling Thronberry Lady Nugee reminds me of the Daily Mail calling Miriam Gonzalez Durantez 'Miriam Clegg.' I found Emily Thronberry's initial comments odd, but didn't interpret them as dig at May taking on her husband's name. If it was, then Thronberry is also in the wrong.
Which is more plausible: that May knows Thornberry dislikes the name and goaded her by using it, or that May decided, out of all the things to criticise about Thornberry, that she would choose that moment to have a dig at women who keep their maiden names?
You might be forgiven for thinking she was accusing Thornberry of sloth...
You'll have noted that the Speaker criticised Chris Bryant for 'shrieking from a sedentary position' in the Lady Nugee point of order......the term is clearly in regular use...
Which is why it provides convenient cover for a crueller jibe. What was the purpose of inserting 'usual' into her comment?
@kle4 I can't agree. If she really wanted to mock Thronberry for being posh there are other ways of doing so. May calling Thronberry Lady Nugee reminds me of the Daily Mail calling Miriam Gonzalez Durantez 'Miriam Clegg.' I found Emily Thronberry's initial comments odd, but didn't interpret them as dig at May taking on her husband's name. If it was, then Thronberry is also in the wrong.
Which is more plausible: that May knows Thornberry dislikes the name and goaded her by using it, or that May decided, out of all the things to criticise about Thornberry, that she would choose that moment to have a dig at women who keep their maiden names?
There it is again - the 3m dressed up as uniformly virtuous contributors. Shame it's nonsense.
Did I imply that all economic activity is virtuous?
You stated that the 3m are economically active and therefore implied it is a uniformly good thing and somehow right for us..
The truth is that a sizeable portion can only survive here through very generous taxpayer funded support.
There is little value in importing a family whose earnings are so low that they pay no tax, yet need support for living expenses, housing, education ,health and so on. You really don't have to go far to find these people in London.
There are also consequences for people who are trying to set down a permanent base and build families when we allow so many transient workers in who accept relatively low pay and modest housing conditions .
@kle4 I can't agree. If she really wanted to mock Thronberry for being posh there are other ways of doing so. May calling Thronberry Lady Nugee reminds me of the Daily Mail calling Miriam Gonzalez Durantez 'Miriam Clegg.' I found Emily Thronberry's initial comments odd, but didn't interpret them as dig at May taking on her husband's name. If it was, then Thronberry is also in the wrong.
Which is more plausible: that May knows Thornberry dislikes the name and goaded her by using it, or that May decided, out of all the things to criticise about Thornberry, that she would choose that moment to have a dig at women who keep their maiden names?
You might be forgiven for thinking she was accusing Thornberry of sloth...
You'll have noted that the Speaker criticised Chris Bryant for 'shrieking from a sedentary position' in the Lady Nugee point of order......the term is clearly in regular use...
Which is why it provides convenient cover for a crueller jibe. What was the purpose of inserting 'usual' into her comment?
Because Thornberry is a serial heckler.....if you have a point to make, get to your feet and catch the Speaker's eye....
It's a risk, I agree. There is also, however, the possibility, that a unilateral gesture of this type would be received as an olive branch and responded to in kind, buying the UK government some badly needed goodwill at a time when there's precious little of the stuff going around.
Since Britain is almost certainly going to concede on the point eventually (as, for that matter are the EU27), there's a lot to be said for seeing what we can get for it by trying the unexpected gambit of being nice.
In diplomacy, as in life generally, you get no benefit for being a sucker, as we saw with Tony Blair's generous gesture of giving up part of our rebate for nothing in return.
Quite apart from anything else, even with the best will in the world, the EU27 will find it hard to agree on anything. It would be mad to take away their incentive to agree as quickly as possible on rights for Brits in the EU.
It all seems so one sided at the moment. Those criticising the UK Government's position as they seek a joint agreement that also protects the rights of Brits in the EU should be turning their anger on the EU for dragging their feet over this issue. Its quite obvious that the UK Government would like to see the rights of all those concerned protected and the issue resolved asap so it doesn't get dragged into the mire of the wider Brexit negotiations.
The UK is the one that has decided to change the existing relationship by leaving. I don't see why the EU should be expected to prioritise a problem that has been created for them by the UK.
The Treaty of Lisbon does permit member States to leave.
It's a risk, I agree. There is also, however, the possibility, that a unilateral gesture of this type would be received as an olive branch and responded to in kind, buying the UK government some badly needed goodwill at a time when there's precious little of the stuff going around.
Since Britain is almost certainly going to concede on the point eventually (as, for that matter are the EU27), there's a lot to be said for seeing what we can get for it by trying the unexpected gambit of being nice.
In diplomacy, as in life generally, you get no benefit for being a sucker, as we saw with Tony Blair's generous gesture of giving up part of our rebate for nothing in return.
Quite apart from anything else, even with the best will in the world, the EU27 will find it hard to agree on anything. It would be mad to take away their incentive to agree as quickly as possible on rights for Brits in the EU.
It all seems so one sided at the moment. Those criticising the UK Government's position as they seek a joint agreement that also protects the rights of Brits in the EU should be turning their anger on the EU for dragging their feet over this issue. Its quite obvious that the UK Government would like to see the rights of all those concerned protected and the issue resolved asap so it doesn't get dragged into the mire of the wider Brexit negotiations.
The UK is the one that has decided to change the existing relationship by leaving. I don't see why the EU should be expected to prioritise a problem that has been created for them by the UK.
Because the EU has a duty of care to their own citizens?
That's a scary radical idea.
The only proposals to maintain British EU citizens' rights I've seen have come from Brussels. Whitehall clearly isn't interested in the topic.
It's a risk, I agree. There is also, however, the possibility, that a unilateral gesture of this type would be received as an olive branch and responded to in kind, buying the UK government some badly needed goodwill at a time when there's precious little of the stuff going around.
Since Britain is almost certainly going to concede on the point eventually (as, for that matter are the EU27), there's a lot to be said for seeing what we can get for it by trying the unexpected gambit of being nice.
In diplomacy, as in life generally, you get no benefit for being a sucker, as we saw with Tony Blair's generous gesture of giving up part of our rebate for nothing in return.
Quite apart from anything else, even with the best will in the world, the EU27 will find it hard to agree on anything. It would be mad to take away their incentive to agree as quickly as possible on rights for Brits in the EU.
It all seems so one sided at the moment. Those criticising the UK Government's position as they seek a joint agreement that also protects the rights of Brits in the EU should be turning their anger on the EU for dragging their feet over this issue. Its quite obvious that the UK Government would like to see the rights of all those concerned protected and the issue resolved asap so it doesn't get dragged into the mire of the wider Brexit negotiations.
The UK is the one that has decided to change the existing relationship by leaving. I don't see why the EU should be expected to prioritise a problem that has been created for them by the UK.
Because the EU has a duty of care to their own citizens?
That's a scary radical idea.
Clearly not universally shared, least of all by some of their Lordships....
Old Enoch gets namechecked here. Polling fans will recoil in horror at the use of the word 'divisive' to describe him though. The polls at the time showed an overwhelming level of support for him and his speeches from the English people
@kle4 I can't agree. If she really wanted to mock Thronberry for being posh there are other ways of doing so. May calling Thronberry Lady Nugee reminds me of the Daily Mail calling Miriam Gonzalez Durantez 'Miriam Clegg.' I found Emily Thronberry's initial comments odd, but didn't interpret them as dig at May taking on her husband's name. If it was, then Thronberry is also in the wrong.
Which is more plausible: that May knows Thornberry dislikes the name and goaded her by using it, or that May decided, out of all the things to criticise about Thornberry, that she would choose that moment to have a dig at women who keep their maiden names?
You might be forgiven for thinking she was accusing Thornberry of sloth...
You'll have noted that the Speaker criticised Chris Bryant for 'shrieking from a sedentary position' in the Lady Nugee point of order......the term is clearly in regular use...
Which is why it provides convenient cover for a crueller jibe. What was the purpose of inserting 'usual' into her comment?
May undermined any case she may have had by making the defensive and downright prissy point that "for 36 years I have been known by my husband's name". Indeed, because she chose to be known as such. Thornberry does not. So irrelevant.
It's a risk, I agree. There is also, however, the possibility, that a unilateral gesture of this type would be received as an olive branch and responded to in kind, buying the UK government some badly needed goodwill at a time when there's precious little of the stuff going around.
Since Britain is almost certainly going to concede on the point eventually (as, for that matter are the EU27), there's a lot to be said for seeing what we can get for it by trying the unexpected gambit of being nice.
In diplomacy, as in life generally, you get no benefit for being a sucker, as we saw with Tony Blair's generous gesture of giving up part of our rebate for nothing in return.
Quite apart from anything else, even with the best will in the world, the EU27 will find it hard to agree on anything. It would be mad to take away their incentive to agree as quickly as possible on rights for Brits in the EU.
It all seems so one sided at the moment. Those criticising the UK Government's position as they seek a joint agreement that also protects the rights of Brits in the EU should be turning their anger on the EU for dragging their feet over this issue. Its quite obvious that the UK Government would like to see the rights of all those concerned protected and the issue resolved asap so it doesn't get dragged into the mire of the wider Brexit negotiations.
The UK is the one that has decided to change the existing relationship by leaving. I don't see why the EU should be expected to prioritise a problem that has been created for them by the UK.
The Treaty of Lisbon does permit member States to leave.
But the UK has chosen not to be part of the EEA/Single Market when they leave. If they had chosen to remain members of these then the residents' rights issue would not exist. It's a problem entirely caused by the UK government's choices.
@kle4 I can't agree. If she really wanted to mock Thronberry for being posh there are other ways of doing so. May calling Thronberry Lady Nugee reminds me of the Daily Mail calling Miriam Gonzalez Durantez 'Miriam Clegg.' I found Emily Thronberry's initial comments odd, but didn't interpret them as dig at May taking on her husband's name. If it was, then Thronberry is also in the wrong.
Do you honestly think May would call Harriet Harman "Mrs Dromey"? It was plainly a dig at her being a Lady, rather than her not taking her husbands name
Well I don't think she would now: not after the controversy the 'Lady Nugee' thing caused.
@kle4 Well, I didn't say May was criticising women who kept their maiden names, but rather Thronberry specifically. As you say, she knew that it would upset her.
But the UK has chosen not to be part of the EEA/Single Market when they leave. If they had chosen to remain members of these then the residents' rights issue would not exist. It's a problem entirely caused by the UK government's choices.
So far the government has mere aspirations. They haven't yet made any choices; only thrown down the gauntlet - give us sectoral deals for everything we have now, but we won't be subject to the ECJ and we won't accept FoM.
Trying to do a preemptive deal which draws a line in the sand on residency was an attempt to salami slice their way towards that improbable outcome.
There it is again - the 3m dressed up as uniformly virtuous contributors. Shame it's nonsense.
Did I imply that all economic activity is virtuous?
You stated that the 3m are economically active and therefore implied it is a uniformly good thing and somehow right for us..
The truth is that a sizeable portion can only survive here through very generous taxpayer funded support.
There is little value in importing a family whose earnings are so low that they pay no tax, yet need support for living expenses, housing, education ,health and so on. You really don't have to go far to find these people in London.
There are also consequences for people who are trying to set down a permanent base and build families when we allow so many transient workers in who accept relatively low pay and modest housing conditions .
You do realise that the employment rate for EU nationals in the UK is higher than that of UK nationals?
@kle4 I can't agree. If she really wanted to mock Thronberry for being posh there are other ways of doing so. May calling Thronberry Lady Nugee reminds me of the Daily Mail calling Miriam Gonzalez Durantez 'Miriam Clegg.' I found Emily Thronberry's initial comments odd, but didn't interpret them as dig at May taking on her husband's name. If it was, then Thronberry is also in the wrong.
Do you honestly think May would call Harriet Harman "Mrs Dromey"? It was plainly a dig at her being a Lady, rather than her not taking her husbands name
Well I don't think she would now: not after the controversy the 'Lady Nugee' thing caused.
@kle4 Well, I didn't say May was criticising women who kept their maiden names, but rather Thronberry specifically.
Yes, and I think that implausible, given the other possibility - that she knows saying it annoys Thornberry (for whatever reason).
I'm not really a fan of May, and she seems to have overreacted to Thornberry's complaint by seeing it as an attack on women like her, but I think even that is more probably explained by a misinterpretation of May's jibe (which we know she is not good at delivering) than the sudden manifestation of a dislike of Thornberry for such a silly reason, when she has far better reasons. Remember that Thornberry lost her job once for being perceived as stuck up and shocked by the sight of a working class house. The background and context make it much more likely it was a poshness quip, even if there were other ways she could make the same point, particularly as she didn't even have to think of the joke, since Guido uses it all the time.
I've sat in on dozens of appeals from those who miss their preferred choice. Excluding those who didn't list a second or third preference and get a far worse choice, for them, as a result, appeal panels are looking for reasons to say yes, and outside of infant class size appeals where the rules are stricter will take accept some pretty weak cases, and in most instances the benefit is clearly more for the parent than appreciably for the child in any case.
But the UK has chosen not to be part of the EEA/Single Market when they leave. If they had chosen to remain members of these then the residents' rights issue would not exist. It's a problem entirely caused by the UK government's choices.
So far the government has mere aspirations. They haven't yet made any choices; only thrown down the gauntlet - give us sectoral deals for everything we have now, but we won't be subject to the ECJ and we won't accept FoM.
Trying to do a preemptive deal which draws a line in the sand on residency was an attempt to salami slice their way towards that improbably outcome.
Salami slicing is precisely how we got from the 1975 Common Market to where we are now in an EU with all its 2017 pretentions. Not nice being on the wrong side of the slicer though is it?
@kle4 I can't agree. If she really wanted to mock Thronberry for being posh there are other ways of doing so. May calling Thronberry Lady Nugee reminds me of the Daily Mail calling Miriam Gonzalez Durantez 'Miriam Clegg.' I found Emily Thronberry's initial comments odd, but didn't interpret them as dig at May taking on her husband's name. If it was, then Thronberry is also in the wrong.
Do you honestly think May would call Harriet Harman "Mrs Dromey"? It was plainly a dig at her being a Lady, rather than her not taking her husbands name
Well I don't think she would now: not after the controversy the 'Lady Nugee' thing caused.
@kle4 Well, I didn't say May was criticising women who kept their maiden names, but rather Thronberry specifically.
Yes, and I think that implausible, given the other possibility - that she knows saying it annoys Thornberry (for whatever reason).
I'm not really a fan of May, and she seems to have overreacted to Thornberry's complaint by seeing it as an attack on women like her, but I think even that is more probably explained by a misinterpretation of May's jibe (which we know she is not good at delivering) than the sudden manifestation of a dislike of Thornberry for such a silly reason, when she has far better reasons. Remember that Thornberry lost her job once for being perceived as stuck up and shocked by the sight of a working class house. The background and context make it much more likely it was a poshness quip, even if there were other ways she could make the same point, particularly as she didn't even have to think of the joke, since Guido uses it all the time.
If anything I'd say the context makes it less likely that it's a poshness quip. There are so many other ways of going at Thronberry for being posh - mentioning Thronberry's mocking of the house with the St George's flag, being the most brutal and effective way to hammer that point home. Of course, May could have always just directly reference that her husband was Sir Christopher Nugee. I also don't think that May suddenly disliked Thronberry because she kept her maiden name. But I do think that she knew that making a dig calling her by her husband's name would upset her, and the reasons why.
There it is again - the 3m dressed up as uniformly virtuous contributors. Shame it's nonsense.
Did I imply that all economic activity is virtuous?
You stated that the 3m are economically active and therefore implied it is a uniformly good thing and somehow right for us..
The truth is that a sizeable portion can only survive here through very generous taxpayer funded support.
There is little value in importing a family whose earnings are so low that they pay no tax, yet need support for living expenses, housing, education ,health and so on. You really don't have to go far to find these people in London.
There are also consequences for people who are trying to set down a permanent base and build families when we allow so many transient workers in who accept relatively low pay and modest housing conditions .
You do realise that the employment rate for EU nationals in the UK is higher than that of UK nationals?
Could that number be distorted by the fact that EU nationals that work have to say they're here, EU nationals that don't work, don't?
I can't see why those that want to attack division use stats that are based on division to argue. EU people are people, and UK people are people - they're much the same. If you don't believe that then you've lost your own argument.
There it is again - the 3m dressed up as uniformly virtuous contributors. Shame it's nonsense.
Did I imply that all economic activity is virtuous?
You stated that the 3m are economically active and therefore implied it is a uniformly good thing and somehow right for us..
The truth is that a sizeable portion can only survive here through very generous taxpayer funded support.
There is little value in importing a family whose earnings are so low that they pay no tax, yet need support for living expenses, housing, education ,health and so on. You really don't have to go far to find these people in London.
There are also consequences for people who are trying to set down a permanent base and build families when we allow so many transient workers in who accept relatively low pay and modest housing conditions .
To find these people in London I have to walk precisely 30 yards, where the Roma Big Issue sellers have their pitch. They're very polite, and don't care how many they sell, because they get tax credits & housing benefit from the get go
They come here TO be homeless and get the benefits.
If I walked another 10 yards I would find Bulgarians sleeping rough on the corner of Arlington St. Etc etc
There are lots of fairly ordinary people doing it too.
Just normal folk from Portugal, Slovakia, Greece, Lithuania etc - who bring their families with them and then take a low paid job.
All fairly pleasant people when I met them, but how on earth is 16 hrs a week's work on minimum wage going to fund £1500 a month for a poorly kept place in East Ham, Edmonton, Barking etc - without handouts?
It would seem that way. May is, at best, bloody hamfisted with her put downs. She can come across as clunky, rude and cold. There are many worse, but she is hardly a great leader for difficult times.
I am so happy to see so many on the Right calling for the Lords to go. It is an absolute anachronism. Can anyone imagine if it did not exist and someone proposed setting it up?
Something like it, yes, although obviously it wouldn't be called the Lords without the historic reasoning (personally I am reasonably supportive of a subordinate, appointed revising chamber, and feel leaving it named as House of Lords would be a nod to its original purpose and reframing of the role)
HoL would be fine if it wasn't stuffed with political appointees.
The exact process of appointment is a difficult question, althogh of course switching to an elected chamber entirely would require significant changes in purpose. I could see it being the case that no-one could go straight from the commons to the lords, or that that there must be categories of appointees (academic, military etc) and limit to a set period eg 15 years, and no more could be placed in a particular category until there is a vacancy, limiting how many purely 'reward' political appointments there could be.
Honours are for political rewards (in part), peerages should be in expectation of involvement and therefore some form of expertise.
The issue (which "working" or political peers were designed to overcome) was that the government needs representatives in the Lords which takes time and effort so you need people who will commit to a full time job.
Inevitably it was Blair who screwed it up - he said that because the composition of the HoL didn't reflect the result of the 1997 election vast numbers of new peers needs to be created - hence why the government doesn't have a majority and the size of the house is so large.
@kle4 I can't agree. If she really wanted to mock Thronberry for being posh there are other ways of doing so. May calling Thronberry Lady Nugee reminds me of the Daily Mail calling Miriam Gonzalez Durantez 'Miriam Clegg.' I found Emily Thronberry's initial comments odd, but didn't interpret them as dig at May taking on her husband's name. If it was, then Thronberry is also in the wrong.
Do you honestly think May would call Harriet Harman "Mrs Dromey"? It was plainly a dig at her being a Lady, rather than her not taking her husbands name
Indeed I've heard people refer to Mr Dromey as "Mr Harman" on the basis that his wife is more famous than he is and it makes the connection.
This is something that is causing a lot of heartache to EU27 residents in Britain, as I know from personal conversations. They're genuinely very concerned that they're going to be thrown out of the UK.
So, no doubt, are UK citizens living in EU27 countries. Unilaterally and unconditionally closing the issue will simply mean they are left till last. What possible incentive would our EU friends then have to expedite the matter?
It's a risk, I agree. There is also, however, the possibility, that a unilateral gesture of this type would be received as an olive branch and responded to in kind, buying the UK government some badly needed goodwill at a time when there's precious little of the stuff going around.
Since Britain is almost certainly going to concede on the point eventually (as, for that matter are the EU27), there's a lot to be said for seeing what we can get for it by trying the unexpected gambit of being nice.
I think you are being naive unfortunately.
Perhaps if there was no history on this point your strategy would work.
But we've already gone to them and said "This is unreasonable. Let's just agree this minor point and take it off the table" and we're slapped down (even though that is the likely outcome).
If we go back now and say "ok we'll give you the point anyway" it will just be taken as weakness, not niceness.
That's a fair point actually. It illustrates the drawbacks of Theresa May's ponderous style. Too slow, too late and an opportunity goes begging.
It doesn't indicate anything of the sort.
It merely demonstrates she and you disagree about the optimal negotiation tactics
There it is again - the 3m dressed up as uniformly virtuous contributors. Shame it's nonsense.
Did I imply that all economic activity is virtuous?
You stated that the 3m are economically active and therefore implied it is a uniformly good thing and somehow right for us..
The truth is that a sizeable portion can only survive here through very generous taxpayer funded support.
There is little value in importing a family whose earnings are so low that they pay no tax, yet need support for living expenses, housing, education ,health and so on. You really don't have to go far to find these people in London.
There are also consequences for people who are trying to set down a permanent base and build families when we allow so many transient workers in who accept relatively low pay and modest housing conditions .
You do realise that the employment rate for EU nationals in the UK is higher than that of UK nationals?
Could that number be distorted by the fact that EU nationals that work have to say they're here, EU nationals that don't work, don't?
I can't see why those that want to attack division use stats that are based on division to argue. EU people are people, and UK people are people - they're much the same. If you don't believe that then you've lost your own argument.
I do believe that. (Although note that people who are claiming benefits have to say they are here too.) I was simply asking @chestnut whether he was aware of the employment rate of EU nationals - I have already said I would keep them all unilaterally, were it down to me, employed or not.
On the politics of this vote, I'm not at all convinced that Labour and the LibDems favouring the rights of foreigners over British citizens will be seen as fair by voters. Fairness is all about reciprocity - this is a political mistake (and a really odd issue to choose to oppose the government on), as well as being a negotiating blunder if allowed to stand.
It would seem that way. May is, at best, bloody hamfisted with her put downs. She can come across as clunky, rude and cold. There are many worse, but she is hardly a great leader for difficult times.
It would seem that way. May is, at best, bloody hamfisted with her put downs. She can come across as clunky, rude and cold. There are many worse, but she is hardly a great leader for difficult times.
May isn't that talented at the despatch box. Although as her opposition is Jeremy Corbyn, she doesn't really need to be.
I kind of feel neutral on May. I am erring towards a more critical perspective now (thus my agreement with Alstair's post) but I don't dislike her. I disliked Cameron and Osborne during their time in office a lot more than I do May.
How May handles Brexit will tell us a lot about her as a leader. Right now, I guess you could say that May isn't the ideal leader, but then it's hard to envisage an better alternative than May right now.
There it is again - the 3m dressed up as uniformly virtuous contributors. Shame it's nonsense.
Did I imply that all economic activity is virtuous?
You stated that the 3m are economically active and therefore implied it is a uniformly good thing and somehow right for us..
The truth is that a sizeable portion can only survive here through very generous taxpayer funded support.
There is little value in importing a family whose earnings are so low that they pay no tax, yet need support for living expenses, housing, education ,health and so on. You really don't have to go far to find these people in London.
There are also consequences for people who are trying to set down a permanent base and build families when we allow so many transient workers in who accept relatively low pay and modest housing conditions .
To find these people in London I have to walk precisely 30 yards, where the Roma Big Issue sellers have their pitch. They're very polite, and don't care how many they sell, because they get tax credits & housing benefit from the get go
They come here TO be homeless and get the benefits.
If I walked another 10 yards I would find Bulgarians sleeping rough on the corner of Arlington St. Etc etc
There are lots of fairly ordinary people doing it too.
Just normal folk from Portugal, Slovakia, Greece, Lithuania etc - who bring their families with them and then take a low paid job.
All fairly pleasant people when I met them, but how on earth is 16 hrs a week's work on minimum wage going to fund £1500 a month for a poorly kept place in East Ham, Edmonton, Barking etc - without handouts?
Why SHOULD 16 hours a week keep a place in East Ham, Edmonton or Barking? Why shouldn't you be working 40 hours plus to keep a place there?
I have no problem whatsoever with migrants who come here to work and build a life to support their family. Work does not mean two eight hour days a week though.
It would seem that way. May is, at best, bloody hamfisted with her put downs. She can come across as clunky, rude and cold. There are many worse, but she is hardly a great leader for difficult times.
There it is again - the 3m dressed up as uniformly virtuous contributors. Shame it's nonsense.
Did I imply that all economic activity is virtuous?
You stated that the 3m are economically active and therefore implied it is a uniformly good thing and somehow right for us..
The truth is that a sizeable portion can only survive here through very generous taxpayer funded support.
There is little value in importing a family whose earnings are so low that they pay no tax, yet need support for living expenses, housing, education ,health and so on. You really don't have to go far to find these people in London.
There are also consequences for people who are trying to set down a permanent base and build families when we allow so many transient workers in who accept relatively low pay and modest housing conditions .
To find these people in London I have to walk precisely 30 yards, where the Roma Big Issue sellers have their pitch. They're very polite, and don't care how many they sell, because they get tax credits & housing benefit from the get go
They come here TO be homeless and get the benefits.
If I walked another 10 yards I would find Bulgarians sleeping rough on the corner of Arlington St. Etc etc
There are lots of fairly ordinary people doing it too.
Just normal folk from Portugal, Slovakia, Greece, Lithuania etc - who bring their families with them and then take a low paid job.
All fairly pleasant people when I met them, but how on earth is 16 hrs a week's work on minimum wage going to fund £1500 a month for a poorly kept place in East Ham, Edmonton, Barking etc - without handouts?
Well, quite. No more benefits. It ends. Now.
It's the systems, not the people.
When people get accused of bigotry and xenophobia, I think it gives their accusers a free pass in avoiding the more uncomfortable questions about systemic failure.
Brexit isn't xenophobic or racist - not in the main anyway - it's a reaction to systemic failures in the design of the EU and some of our own system failures where the EU impedes or prevents corrective action.
There it is again - the 3m dressed up as uniformly virtuous contributors. Shame it's nonsense.
Did I imply that all economic activity is virtuous?
You stated that the 3m are economically active and therefore implied it is a uniformly good thing and somehow right for us..
The truth is that a sizeable portion can only survive here through very generous taxpayer funded support.
There is little value in importing a family whose earnings are so low that they pay no tax, yet need support for living expenses, housing, education ,health and so on. You really don't have to go far to find these people in London.
There are also consequences for people who are trying to set down a permanent base and build families when we allow so many transient workers in who accept relatively low pay and modest housing conditions .
To find these people in London I have to walk precisely 30 yards, where the Roma Big Issue sellers have their pitch. They're very polite, and don't care how many they sell, because they get tax credits & housing benefit from the get go
They come here TO be homeless and get the benefits.
If I walked another 10 yards I would find Bulgarians sleeping rough on the corner of Arlington St. Etc etc
There are lots of fairly ordinary people doing it too.
Just normal folk from Portugal, Slovakia, Greece, Lithuania etc - who bring their families with them and then take a low paid job.
All fairly pleasant people when I met them, but how on earth is 16 hrs a week's work on minimum wage going to fund £1500 a month for a poorly kept place in East Ham, Edmonton, Barking etc - without handouts?
Why SHOULD 16 hours a week keep a place in East Ham, Edmonton or Barking? Why shouldn't you be working 40 hours plus to keep a place there?
I have no problem whatsoever with migrants who come here to work and build a life to support their family. Work does not mean two eight hour days a week though.
Before this thread hits Peak Daily Mail, maybe you or someone else would look up the rate of benefit claims from EU nationals, compared to UK nationals.
Thornberry wasn't criticised for keeping her maiden name:
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, is it in order for the Prime Minister to refer to a Member of this House not by her own name, but by the name of her husband? Secondly, for the record, I have never been a lady, and it will take a great deal more than being married to a knight of the realm to make me one.
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May) Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not in any way intend to be disorderly in this House, and if the hon. Lady is concerned about the reference that I made to her, then of course I will apologise for that. I have to say to her, though, that for the last 36 years I have been referred to by my husband’s name. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker Order. No sedentary shrieking from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is required.
I cannot say I agree with your interpretations - calling her lady nudge was clearly a mocking reference to her being a lady, she couldn't call her lady thornberry because there's even less justification for that, so what seems to have occurred is May was mocking Thornberry for being posh but sensitive about it, Thornberry objected on the grounds she does not go by that name, which is fair enough, although decided to bring up that it was her husband's name rather than merely point out she does not go by that name, and then May got prissy as she has no problem going by her husbands name so who cares.
Pettiness all around, but I would struggle to see how it could possibly be tied into May's feminist credentials one way or another.
I just saw the clip. May was being stupid. Why does it bother May what Thornberry calls herself ? It is none of her bloody business. Trouble with May is that she is so uncharismatic that even if she tried to be funny [ I doubt that as she has not got an ounce of humour in her ] it would come out as harsh and insensitive.
I am so happy to see so many on the Right calling for the Lords to go. It is an absolute anachronism. Can anyone imagine if it did not exist and someone proposed setting it up?
I imagine there are those on the right who are happy to see the Lords go because it is no longer enough of an anachronism. The rot set in with the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876.
They're in a position to say to the Commons: 'stop and think; don't be so stupid'. They can't have their career damaged for this when the 'elected dictatorship' gets out of hand. It did with Blair and Thatcher.
When a hereditary peer dies, the elections held are farcical, because only aristocrats with a title and a stately home can stand. FFS. But what other 2nd. chamber has several hundred retired experts on tap for £300 per day? I'd reform it bit by bit and be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The stately home requirenent is a new one on me! Doesn't the Duke of Manchester live in a council house? (Just checked. He's currently residing in a Clark County jail!)
But the elected hereditaries is completely intentional. When Labour threw out the other hereditaries they promised reform of the Lords. The 92 were meant to keep them honest by being *so* anachronistic that even the British couldn't stomach it
How has Fillon described what he says is the left-wing nature of the plot against him?
I first heard that he was calling it left-wing on the BBC and thought it was a BBC fantasy until I learnt that France 24 are saying the same. Apparently there was a leaflet campaign to this effect but it had to be abandoned owing to harsh responses.
Who is he saying those who are trying to ruin his chances want as president?
(The other question that might have been put to him if he'd chosen to hold a press conference today is this: so his wife Penelope did do a lot of work for him then?)
All fairly pleasant people when I met them, but how on earth is 16 hrs a week's work on minimum wage going to fund £1500 a month for a poorly kept place in East Ham, Edmonton, Barking etc - without handouts?
Why SHOULD 16 hours a week keep a place in East Ham, Edmonton or Barking? Why shouldn't you be working 40 hours plus to keep a place there?
I have no problem whatsoever with migrants who come here to work and build a life to support their family. Work does not mean two eight hour days a week though.
Before this thread hits Peak Daily Mail, maybe you or someone else would look up the rate of benefit claims from EU nationals, compared to UK nationals.
I can't stand the Daily Mail and believe in treating people as individuals not labels so no thanks. As far as I'm concerned I'm very liberal on immigration and am happy to welcome any and all migrants [from EU or outside] who are able to work and support themselves and their families. And individuals who can't, can ask for help in their own nation.
There it is again - the 3m dressed up as uniformly virtuous contributors. Shame it's nonsense.
Did I imply that all economic activity is virtuous?
You stated that the 3m are economically active and therefore implied it is a uniformly good thing and somehow right for us..
The truth is that a sizeable portion can only survive here through very generous taxpayer funded support.
There is little value in importing a family whose earnings are so low that they pay no tax, yet need support for living expenses, housing, education ,health and so on. You really don't have to go far to find these people in London.
There are also consequences for people who are trying to set down a permanent base and build families when we allow so many transient workers in who accept relatively low pay and modest housing conditions .
To find these people in London I have to walk precisely 30 yards, where the Roma Big Issue sellers have their pitch. They're very polite, and don't care how many they sell, because they get tax credits & housing benefit from the get go
They come here TO be homeless and get the benefits.
If I walked another 10 yards I would find Bulgarians sleeping rough on the corner of Arlington St. Etc etc
There are lots of fairly ordinary people doing it too.
Just normal folk from Portugal, Slovakia, Greece, Lithuania etc - who bring their families with them and then take a low paid job.
All fairly pleasant people when I met them, but how on earth is 16 hrs a week's work on minimum wage going to fund £1500 a month for a poorly kept place in East Ham, Edmonton, Barking etc - without handouts?
Why SHOULD 16 hours a week keep a place in East Ham, Edmonton or Barking? Why shouldn't you be working 40 hours plus to keep a place there?
I have no problem whatsoever with migrants who come here to work and build a life to support their family. Work does not mean two eight hour days a week though.
Before this thread hits Peak Daily Mail, maybe you or someone else would look up the rate of benefit claims from EU nationals, compared to UK nationals.
There it is again - the 3m dressed up as uniformly virtuous contributors. Shame it's nonsense.
Did I imply that all economic activity is virtuous?
You stated that the 3m are economically active and therefore implied it is a uniformly good thing and somehow right for us..
The truth is that a sizeable portion can only survive here through very generous taxpayer funded support.
There is little value in importing a family whose earnings are so low that they pay no tax, yet need support for living expenses, housing, education ,health and so on. You really don't have to go far to find these people in London.
There are also consequences for people who are trying to set down a permanent base and build families when we allow so many transient workers in who accept relatively low pay and modest housing conditions .
You do realise that the employment rate for EU nationals in the UK is higher than that of UK nationals?
It's very sad how quickly Leavers' basic sense of decency has degraded. Policy stances that a few months ago were too extreme for the wildest headbangers are now presented unblushingly as practical common sense.
It's very sad how quickly Leavers' basic sense of decency has degraded. Policy stances that a few months ago were too extreme for the wildest headbangers are now presented unblushingly as practical common sense.
Who is proposing as common sense to change the rights of those who came here legally.
People are proposing as common sense to agree a reciprocal deal that protects the rights of those who moved legally whether into or out of our nation.
@AlastairMeeks & Nigel sitting in a tree, K-IS-S-I-N-G ☺️
/twitter.com/lbc/status/837045651426922496
It's very sad how quickly Leavers' basic sense of decency has degraded. Policy stances that a few months ago were too extreme for the wildest headbangers are now presented unblushingly as practical common sense.
Pettiness all around, but I would struggle to see how it could possibly be tied into May's feminist credentials one way or another.
Not to mention the more obvious point, which is that Labour argue about words, and Conservatives choose not just one but two women PMs, both on merit, when Labour hasn't yet managed its first woman (permanent) leader.
There it is again - the 3m dressed up as uniformly virtuous contributors. Shame it's nonsense.
Did I imply that all economic activity is virtuous?
You stated that the 3m are economically active and therefore implied it is a uniformly good thing and somehow right for us..
The truth is that a sizeable portion can only survive here through very generous taxpayer funded support.
There is little value in importing a family whose earnings are so low that they pay no tax, yet need support for living expenses, housing, education ,health and so on. You really don't have to go far to find these people in London.
There are also consequences for people who are trying to set down a permanent base and build families when we allow so many transient workers in who accept relatively low pay and modest housing conditions .
To find these people in London I have to walk precisely 30 yards, where the Roma Big Issue sellers have their pitch. They're very polite, and don't care how many they sell, because they get tax credits & housing benefit from the get go
They come here TO be homeless and get the benefits.
If I walked another 10 yards I would find Bulgarians sleeping rough on the corner of Arlington St. Etc etc
There are lots of fairly ordinary people doing it too.
Just normal folk from Portugal, Slovakia, Greece, Lithuania etc - who bring their families with them and then take a low paid job.
All fairly pleasant people when I met them, but how on earth is 16 hrs a week's work on minimum wage going to fund £1500 a month for a poorly kept place in East Ham, Edmonton, Barking etc - without handouts?
Why SHOULD 16 hours a week keep a place in East Ham, Edmonton or Barking? Why shouldn't you be working 40 hours plus to keep a place there?
I have no problem whatsoever with migrants who come here to work and build a life to support their family. Work does not mean two eight hour days a week though.
Before this thread hits Peak Daily Mail, maybe you or someone else would look up the rate of benefit claims from EU nationals, compared to UK nationals.
Why should we,we shouldn't be importing unemployment or the unemployable.
Pettiness all around, but I would struggle to see how it could possibly be tied into May's feminist credentials one way or another.
Not to mention the more obvious point, which is that Labour argue about words, and Conservatives choose not just one but two women PMs, both on merit, when Labour hasn't yet managed its first woman (permanent) leader.
So which party is more open and inclusive?
Not only has Labour never elected a female leader ... Has any female candidate for party leader ever beaten any male candidate?
@kle4 I can't agree. If she really wanted to mock Thronberry for being posh there are other ways of doing so. May calling Thronberry Lady Nugee reminds me of the Daily Mail calling Miriam Gonzalez Durantez 'Miriam Clegg.' I found Emily Thronberry's initial comments odd, but didn't interpret them as dig at May taking on her husband's name. If it was, then Thronberry is also in the wrong.
Do you honestly think May would call Harriet Harman "Mrs Dromey"? It was plainly a dig at her being a Lady, rather than her not taking her husbands name
Well I don't think she would now: not after the controversy the 'Lady Nugee' thing caused.
@kle4 Well, I didn't say May was criticising women who kept their maiden names, but rather Thronberry specifically.
Yes, and I think that implausible, given the other possibility - that she knows saying it annoys Thornberry (for whatever reason).
I'm not really a fan of May, and she seems to have overreacted to Thornberry's complaint by seeing it as an attack on women like her, but I think even that is more probably explained by a misinterpretation of May's jibe (which we know she is not good at delivering) than the sudden manifestation of a dislike of Thornberry for such a silly reason, when she has far better reasons. Remember that Thornberry lost her job once for being perceived as stuck up and shocked by the sight of a working class house. The background and context make it much more likely it was a poshness quip, even if there were other ways she could make the same point, particularly as she didn't even have to think of the joke, since Guido uses it all the time.
If anything I'd say the context makes it less likely that it's a poshness quip. There are so many other ways of going at Thronberry for being posh - mentioning Thronberry's mocking of the house with the St George's flag, being the most brutal and effective way to hammer that point home. Of course, May could have always just directly reference that her husband was Sir Christopher Nugee. I also don't think that May suddenly disliked Thronberry because she kept her maiden name. But I do think that she knew that making a dig calling her by her husband's name would upset her, and the reasons why.
Forgive me, Ms Apocalypse: it seems strange that you are arguing a case around someone's correct name and yet your fingers seem unable to type her name correctly.
The issue for negotiation is what the terms of movement of labour will be in the future. To make a unilateral guarantee for people currently resident in the UK is to concede nothing. The only real argument against it is that it would just be gratuitous virtue signalling.
Of course a unilateral guarantee would be a concession, and a very foolish one. It would concede the very important principle that we want the same rights for UK citizens in the EU as EU citizens have here.
Absolutely right. This idea that insane acts of generosity will inspire equal kindness from flinty selfish EU politicians with their own demanding voters, is just nuts.
When we waived the transition period for the A8 countries it wasn't out of generosity but out of self-interest. We thought we were getting one over on the stuffy French and Germans, with their irrational fear of the Polish plumber, and truth be told, we were.
From a Brexiteer perspective, the fact that this act of economic selfishness also contributed to building the Brexit vote coalition is just the deliciously ironic icing on the cake, but it's no reason to abandon the competitive advantage we've gained in the intervening period.
If we still had the 48 000 immigrants a year we had under Major rather than the almost 300 000 immigrants we now have I doubt we would have voted for Brexit
Half of that 300,000 were non-EU citizens. Who was the incompetent Home Secretary ?
The issue for negotiation is what the terms of movement of labour will be in the future. To make a unilateral guarantee for people currently resident in the UK is to concede nothing. The only real argument against it is that it would just be gratuitous virtue signalling.
Of course a unilateral guarantee would be a concession, and a very foolish one. It would concede the very important principle that we want the same rights for UK citizens in the EU as EU citizens have here.
Absolutely right. This idea that insane acts of generosity will inspire equal kindness from flinty selfish EU politicians with their own demanding voters, is just nuts.
When we waived the transition period for the A8 countries it wasn't out of generosity but out of self-interest. We thought we were getting one over on the stuffy French and Germans, with their irrational fear of the Polish plumber, and truth be told, we were.
From a Brexiteer perspective, the fact that this act of economic selfishness also contributed to building the Brexit vote coalition is just the deliciously ironic icing on the cake, but it's no reason to abandon the competitive advantage we've gained in the intervening period.
If we still had the 48 000 immigrants a year we had under Major rather than the almost 300 000 immigrants we now have I doubt we would have voted for Brexit
Half of that 300,000 were non-EU citizens. Who was the incompetent Home Secretary ?
If the 150,000 that came from the 93% of the world were very good people that we are lucky to have then why is the Home Secretary incompetent for letting them in?
It's very sad how quickly Leavers' basic sense of decency has degraded. Policy stances that a few months ago were too extreme for the wildest headbangers are now presented unblushingly as practical common sense.
Remainers are the extremists now.
Your little hobby horse EU doesn't seem so popular now, eh?
The issue for negotiation is what the terms of movement of labour will be in the future. To make a unilateral guarantee for people currently resident in the UK is to concede nothing. The only real argument against it is that it would just be gratuitous virtue signalling.
Of course a unilateral guarantee would be a concession, and a very foolish one. It would concede the very important principle that we want the same rights for UK citizens in the EU as EU citizens have here.
Absolutely right. This idea that insane acts of generosity will inspire equal kindness from flinty selfish EU politicians with their own demanding voters, is just nuts.
When we waived the transition period for the A8 countries it wasn't out of generosity but out of self-interest. We thought we were getting one over on the stuffy French and Germans, with their irrational fear of the Polish plumber, and truth be told, we were.
From a Brexiteer perspective, the fact that this act of economic selfishness also contributed to building the Brexit vote coalition is just the deliciously ironic icing on the cake, but it's no reason to abandon the competitive advantage we've gained in the intervening period.
If we still had the 48 000 immigrants a year we had under Major rather than the almost 300 000 immigrants we now have I doubt we would have voted for Brexit
Half of that 300,000 were non-EU citizens. Who was the incompetent Home Secretary ?
How did we actually cope before we had 300k immigration ?
"Islam will be largest religion in the world by 2070, says report
Atheists, agnostics and non-religious people will decline from 16.4 per cent of the world's population to 13.2 per cent by 2050, the report added, despite growing in Europe and North America."
There it is again - the 3m dressed up as uniformly virtuous contributors. Shame it's nonsense.
Did I imply that all economic activity is virtuous?
You stated that the 3m are economically active and therefore implied it is a uniformly good thing and somehow right for us..
The truth is that a sizeable portion can only survive here through very generous taxpayer funded support.
There is little value in importing a family whose earnings are so low that they pay no tax, yet need support for living expenses, housing, education ,health and so on. You really don't have to go far to find these people in London.
There are also consequences for people who are trying to set down a permanent base and build families when we allow so many transient workers in who accept relatively low pay and modest housing conditions .
You do realise that the employment rate for EU nationals in the UK is higher than that of UK nationals?
It would be outrageous if it were not, surely?
They can't win , can they ? If it was lower, they would be accused of sponging on the welfare state.
The issue for negotiation is what the terms of movement of labour will be in the future. To make a unilateral guarantee for people currently resident in the UK is to concede nothing. The only real argument against it is that it would just be gratuitous virtue signalling.
Of course a unilateral guarantee would be a concession, and a very foolish one. It would concede the very important principle that we want the same rights for UK citizens in the EU as EU citizens have here.
Absolutely right. This idea that insane acts of generosity will inspire equal kindness from flinty selfish EU politicians with their own demanding voters, is just nuts.
When we waived the transition period for the A8 countries it wasn't out of generosity but out of self-interest. We thought we were getting one over on the stuffy French and Germans, with their irrational fear of the Polish plumber, and truth be told, we were.
From a Brexiteer perspective, the fact that this act of economic selfishness also contributed to building the Brexit vote coalition is just the deliciously ironic icing on the cake, but it's no reason to abandon the competitive advantage we've gained in the intervening period.
If we still had the 48 000 immigrants a year we had under Major rather than the almost 300 000 immigrants we now have I doubt we would have voted for Brexit
Half of that 300,000 were non-EU citizens. Who was the incompetent Home Secretary ?
Comments
The first criticism cannot reasonably I think be said to be criticism thornberry for not using her husbands name. Where would the wish to do that even come from, its implausible. But we know many MPs read Guido, and he loves to mock Thornberry by using her titled name, and noted she does not like it, and May decided to use that. The feminism of the matter does not seem relevant to May's jibe, it was analogous to namecalling Osborne as Gideon, calling someone something they don't like - in the Commons, where you don't go by name, there are few opportunities to wind people up like that.
Pettiness all around, but I would struggle to see how it could possibly be tied into May's feminist credentials one way or another.
https://www.channel4.com/news/government-defeated-on-eu-nationals
Miss Maria Abaya Cruz marries Mr Juan Gubat Calayan
Maria's married name is now Mrs Maria Cruz Calayan
all offspring carry over both the mother's married names
They have a son Rik Cruz Calayan and a daughter Jena Cruz Calayan
When the daughter married Mr Jhon Dayo Batad she becomes Mrs Jena Calayan Batad.
and so on.
Murderer Tanveer Ahmed inspires Pakistani hardliners from Scottish jail
From the article -
On Monday evening, about 400 gathered outside his family's home in the city of Mirpur, in Pakistan-administered Kashmir for a rally in his honour. The crowd chanted slogans praising Ahmed as "brave" and "courageous".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39112840
But no point banging on about it.
You might be forgiven for thinking she was accusing Thornberry of sloth...
Makes me worry for the future of my family in this area.
There - I said it
The truth is that a sizeable portion can only survive here through very generous taxpayer funded support.
There is little value in importing a family whose earnings are so low that they pay no tax, yet need support for living expenses, housing, education ,health and so on. You really don't have to go far to find these people in London.
There are also consequences for people who are trying to set down a permanent base and build families when we allow so many transient workers in who accept relatively low pay and modest housing conditions .
https://twitter.com/prwhittle/status/837022794932183041
@kle4 Well, I didn't say May was criticising women who kept their maiden names, but rather Thronberry specifically. As you say, she knew that it would upset her.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/thousands-miss-out-on-first-choice-secondary-school-030kr5csk
Trying to do a preemptive deal which draws a line in the sand on residency was an attempt to salami slice their way towards that improbable outcome.
I'm not really a fan of May, and she seems to have overreacted to Thornberry's complaint by seeing it as an attack on women like her, but I think even that is more probably explained by a misinterpretation of May's jibe (which we know she is not good at delivering) than the sudden manifestation of a dislike of Thornberry for such a silly reason, when she has far better reasons. Remember that Thornberry lost her job once for being perceived as stuck up and shocked by the sight of a working class house. The background and context make it much more likely it was a poshness quip, even if there were other ways she could make the same point, particularly as she didn't even have to think of the joke, since Guido uses it all the time.
http://www.sterlingtimes.co.uk/gotcha1.jpg
I can't see why those that want to attack division use stats that are based on division to argue. EU people are people, and UK people are people - they're much the same. If you don't believe that then you've lost your own argument.
Just normal folk from Portugal, Slovakia, Greece, Lithuania etc - who bring their families with them and then take a low paid job.
All fairly pleasant people when I met them, but how on earth is 16 hrs a week's work on minimum wage going to fund £1500 a month for a poorly kept place in East Ham, Edmonton, Barking etc - without handouts?
It would seem that way. May is, at best, bloody hamfisted with her put downs. She can come across as clunky, rude and cold. There are many worse, but she is hardly a great leader for difficult times.
Inevitably it was Blair who screwed it up - he said that because the composition of the HoL didn't reflect the result of the 1997 election vast numbers of new peers needs to be created - hence why the government doesn't have a majority and the size of the house is so large.
Not too sure about the option given to faith schools to teach 'within the tenets of their faith' though.
It merely demonstrates she and you disagree about the optimal negotiation tactics
I kind of feel neutral on May. I am erring towards a more critical perspective now (thus my agreement with Alstair's post) but I don't dislike her. I disliked Cameron and Osborne during their time in office a lot more than I do May.
How May handles Brexit will tell us a lot about her as a leader. Right now, I guess you could say that May isn't the ideal leader, but then it's hard to envisage an better alternative than May right now.
I have no problem whatsoever with migrants who come here to work and build a life to support their family. Work does not mean two eight hour days a week though.
When people get accused of bigotry and xenophobia, I think it gives their accusers a free pass in avoiding the more uncomfortable questions about systemic failure.
Brexit isn't xenophobic or racist - not in the main anyway - it's a reaction to systemic failures in the design of the EU and some of our own system failures where the EU impedes or prevents corrective action.
https://twitter.com/lbc/status/837045651426922496
But the elected hereditaries is completely intentional. When Labour threw out the other hereditaries they promised reform of the Lords. The 92 were meant to keep them honest by being *so* anachronistic that even the British couldn't stomach it
I first heard that he was calling it left-wing on the BBC and thought it was a BBC fantasy until I learnt that France 24 are saying the same. Apparently there was a leaflet campaign to this effect but it had to be abandoned owing to harsh responses.
Who is he saying those who are trying to ruin his chances want as president?
(The other question that might have been put to him if he'd chosen to hold a press conference today is this: so his wife Penelope did do a lot of work for him then?)
People are proposing as common sense to agree a reciprocal deal that protects the rights of those who moved legally whether into or out of our nation.
So which party is more open and inclusive?
Your little hobby horse EU doesn't seem so popular now, eh?
"Islam will be largest religion in the world by 2070, says report
Atheists, agnostics and non-religious people will decline from 16.4 per cent of the world's population to 13.2 per cent by 2050, the report added, despite growing in Europe and North America."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/01/islam-will-largest-religion-world-2070-says-report/