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?
The comment about her husband's name was made after Lady Nugee complained to the Speaker, in response to that complaint, and referred to herself....
What does that have to do with the point I was making? I wasn't defending Emily Thronberry's whole character, but stating simply in that instance she shouldn't have been criticised for keeping her maiden name.
You can make the point that Emily Thronberry is a lot grander than 'she likes people to think' in a way that does not imply that she should take her husband's name. I'm also unclear as why Thronberry complaining to speaker somehow justifies May baiting Thronberry about keeping her maiden name. There are plenty of other ways to go at Thronberry.
As always blown out of proportipn. The exhange was something like
[Heckle by ET]
TM: "the shadow foreign Secretary asks "by me"? Yes, Lady Nugee, by me"
Possibly a mistake under pressure. Who knows. But not some mortal insult.
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 ?
Remember this, at a time before enlargement when EU migration was negligible?
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 ?
Remember this, at a time before enlargement when EU migration was negligible?
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.
'Peak Daily Mail' made me laugh. I needed it after reading this thread
Not too sure about the option given to faith schools to teach 'within the tenets of their faith' though.
Yes. Tricky. How do you simultaneously teach that homosexuality is fine, and John and David can happily have kids, but at the same time tell children that gay people, like, say John and David, are also intrinsically foul and evil and must be hurled to their deaths off high walls?
Puzzler.
I can imagine teachers cringing every time they're asked detailed questions about pornography.
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.
I mean that the indigenous people of any nation naturally include a very great many who are, for no fault of their own, unemployable.
People who choose to move here are unlikely to have the same difficulties. If the employment rate for EU nationals were not higher than for UK nationals, it would mean that EU unemployables were moving here just because. Within the EU, of course, there's no reason why they should not. Maybe the weather is nicer or something.
When Britain changes its foreign policy towards a set of countries, then citizens of those countries who under the previous arrangements were allowed to reside here may find that they no longer are. If they don't like that, they should put pressure on their own governments. I haven't got much time for citizens of EEA countries other than Britain who have lived here for years without bothering to apply for British citizenship. If they really considered themselves settled here, why didn't they? Yes, even if that would have caused them to lose the citizenship of their birth country. Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it. I used to be married to one of these types.
It's going to be interesting in the council elections in May just what sort of kicking the Government are going to get...Lib Dems on my patch are actively targeting pro-remain voters and that coupled with the crucifying cuts being imposed on local authorities by Westminster I sense it could be very good for the Lib Dems
I sincerely believe that if some brave government had tackled this idiocy, years ago, we'd never have Brexited. Welfare should be based on contributions. The longer you've worked here, lived here, paid taxes here, the better your benefits. And this should extend over generations, incentivising loyalty. Indeed, I'd add a military option: if you or your mum or dad or grandparents fought or died for Britain, etc etc, then your claim is even stronger.
Not only would we not have Brexited, we'd have had more constructive politics across the board.
One of the main factors that made working class Tories turn out to vote against Labour come hell or high water was always the perception that they were for the shirkers, not the workers. They viscerally objected to the unfairness of living a life of hard graft while their neighbour, relative or acquaintance was better off milking the system.
It's going to be interesting in the council elections in May just what sort of kicking the Government are going to get...Lib Dems on my patch are actively targeting pro-remain voters and that coupled with the crucifying cuts being imposed on local authorities by Westminster I sense it could be very good for the Lib Dems
The pothole party have lost their main cheerleader here. Sad!
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 ?
Remember this, at a time before enlargement when EU migration was negligible?
There is "no obvious limit" to the number of immigrants who could settle in the UK, the home secretary has said.
Unforgettable. And unforgettably stupid. One of the reasons Labour are where they are. A clever, sensible Labour Minister was so stymied by their policy of mass immigration he couldn't admit there was inevitably some outer limit. Like, 80m. 100m? 500 million?
Blunkett of all people refused to admit there could ever be a point (when we are all living 78 to a room?) when we'd taken enough migrants.
It was Newsnight. I remember my jaw dropping. That's when Labour signed their own death warrant.
@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.
By the way, are you bunging Richard Nabavi in with the Loony Leavers now?!
"Boots is shutting more than two-thirds of its photo processing laboratories"
If I held shares in Boots I'd be asking why those weren't shut yesterday.
Presumably because Stefano was still making oodles of money from them. He's the smartest businessman I've ever had the pleasure of getting to know.
Built his inheritance (a loss making Neopolitan business with revenues of $1m) into a 17% stake in Walgreens Boots Alliance plus a few hundred million in cash
"Boots is shutting more than two-thirds of its photo processing laboratories"
If I held shares in Boots I'd be asking why those weren't shut yesterday.
Too soon. Lots of people are going back to film
In the same way as "lots of people" are going back to vinyl. There is a niche, and those part of it are very vocal and really into that niche. But the mass market have moved on.
@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.
By the way, are you bunging Richard Nabavi in with the Loony Leavers now?!
Richard Nabavi is not, so far as I am aware, a Leaver (still less a loony one). I can try drawing Venn diagrams in MS Paint if this would be of assistance.
I do, however, think that it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policy to leave large numbers of the country's residents in limbo as to whether they can stay in the country (especially as Britain will inevitably be conceding the point at some point).
It's going to be interesting in the council elections in May just what sort of kicking the Government are going to get...Lib Dems on my patch are actively targeting pro-remain voters and that coupled with the crucifying cuts being imposed on local authorities by Westminster I sense it could be very good for the Lib Dems
The Conservatives will probably lose seats to the Lib Dems, but gain from Labour, UKIP, and in Scotland.
The NEV's in 2013 were Lab 29%, Con 26%, UKIP 22%, Lib Dem 14%. I doubt if Labour will lead the Conservatives this time round. Plausible numbers might be something like Con 30% Lab 27%, Lib Dem 22%, UKIP 12% this time.
@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.
By the way, are you bunging Richard Nabavi in with the Loony Leavers now?!
Richard Nabavi is not, so far as I am aware, a Leaver (still less a loony one). I can try drawing Venn diagrams in MS Paint if this would be of assistance.
I do, however, think that it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policy to leave large numbers of the country's residents in limbo as to whether they can stay in the country (especially as Britain will inevitably be conceding the point at some point).
Which is why the government doesn't want to do that.
Do you believe it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policty to leave large numbers of the country's citizens in limbo as to whether they can stay in the countries they moved to (especially as Britian is not against conceding the point if a reciprocal deal can be signed)?
@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.
By the way, are you bunging Richard Nabavi in with the Loony Leavers now?!
Richard Nabavi is not, so far as I am aware, a Leaver (still less a loony one). I can try drawing Venn diagrams in MS Paint if this would be of assistance.
I do, however, think that it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policy to leave large numbers of the country's residents in limbo as to whether they can stay in the country (especially as Britain will inevitably be conceding the point at some point).
Which is why the government doesn't want to do that.
Do you believe it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policty to leave large numbers of the country's citizens in limbo as to whether they can stay in the countries they moved to (especially as Britian is not against conceding the point if a reciprocal deal can be signed)?
Yes I do. But the one is not contingent on the other.
If Britain crashes out of the EU with no deal with the rest of the EU on this point, do you favour mass deportations of EU27 residents?
"Boots is shutting more than two-thirds of its photo processing laboratories"
If I held shares in Boots I'd be asking why those weren't shut yesterday.
Too soon. Lots of people are going back to film
People do want prints, but taken using a digital camera.
You don't need a whole photo processing lab for that.
Also, there are very cheap, very easy and very convenient online services that will provide all that for you without having mess about getting a usb stick, driving to a boots shop, interact with an instore machine, etc etc etc.
"There is "no obvious limit" to the number of immigrants who could settle in the UK, the home secretary has said.
Unforgettable. And unforgettably stupid. One of the reasons Labour are where they are. A clever, sensible Labour Minister was so stymied by their policy of mass immigration he couldn't admit there was inevitably some outer limit. Like, 80m. 100m? 500 million?
Blunkett of all people refused to admit there could ever be a point (when we are all living 78 to a room?) when we'd taken enough migrants.
It was Newsnight. I remember my jaw dropping. That's when Labour signed their own death warrant."
Was it only ever about votes, though? Labour knew there was a strategic problem approaching the 2005 election. They knew Middle England's love affair with Tony Blair was drawing to a close, so if your own populace won't vote for you, import them, regardless of the numbers, regardless of the long term consequences, regardless of the impact on the public services that Labour profess to love. And what has all this led to? BREXIT. Oh the irony.
@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.
By the way, are you bunging Richard Nabavi in with the Loony Leavers now?!
Richard Nabavi is not, so far as I am aware, a Leaver (still less a loony one). I can try drawing Venn diagrams in MS Paint if this would be of assistance.
I do, however, think that it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policy to leave large numbers of the country's residents in limbo as to whether they can stay in the country (especially as Britain will inevitably be conceding the point at some point).
You and Nige on one side, Richard and the 'ardcore on the other?!
@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.
By the way, are you bunging Richard Nabavi in with the Loony Leavers now?!
Richard Nabavi is not, so far as I am aware, a Leaver (still less a loony one). I can try drawing Venn diagrams in MS Paint if this would be of assistance.
I do, however, think that it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policy to leave large numbers of the country's residents in limbo as to whether they can stay in the country (especially as Britain will inevitably be conceding the point at some point).
You and Nige on one side, Richard and the 'ardcore on the other?!
It's a funny old world as a different female Conservative Prime Minister once noted.
Not too sure about the option given to faith schools to teach 'within the tenets of their faith' though.
Yes. Tricky. How do you simultaneously teach that homosexuality is fine, and John and David can happily have kids, but at the same time tell children that gay people, like, say John and David, are also intrinsically foul and evil and must be hurled to their deaths off high walls?
Puzzler.
I can imagine teachers cringing every time they're asked detailed questions about pornography.
Which is why it needs to be on the national curriculum with proper trained subject specialists. It goes beyond sex. Kids live online without the skills or knowledge or maturity to cope. Which is also why allowing parents to opt out makes no sense. Parents don't have those skills either.
@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.
By the way, are you bunging Richard Nabavi in with the Loony Leavers now?!
Richard Nabavi is not, so far as I am aware, a Leaver (still less a loony one). I can try drawing Venn diagrams in MS Paint if this would be of assistance.
I do, however, think that it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policy to leave large numbers of the country's residents in limbo as to whether they can stay in the country (especially as Britain will inevitably be conceding the point at some point).
Which is why the government doesn't want to do that.
Do you believe it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policty to leave large numbers of the country's citizens in limbo as to whether they can stay in the countries they moved to (especially as Britian is not against conceding the point if a reciprocal deal can be signed)?
Yes I do. But the one is not contingent on the other.
If Britain crashes out of the EU with no deal with the rest of the EU on this point, do you favour mass deportations of EU27 residents?
No but we're not there right now. Nor do I propose shackling our negotiators before they start talking with the other party, do you?
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?
How is that 'the more obvious point.' The discussion wasn't about the Labour party or the Conservative party, but about the intended meaning of May's statement towards one particular MP.
In any case, having a female leader by itself does not necessarily make a party open or inclusive. The Conservatives had Thatcher as their leader for more than a decade. Yet, they were, according to Mrs May of all people seen as the 'nasty party', and had to put in a bit of effort, to attract the votes of minorities and those from the LGBT community. Not in the least that while under Thatcher, it Section 28 was passed which is hardly an advertisement of openness and inclusivity.
The Conservative Party is now a lot more open and inclusive post 2005 though, that I must say.
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.
Even I wouldn't have forecast seeing the likes of @Richard_Nabavi and @fitalass entertain policies that are too right wing for Nigel Farage.
Yes I do. But the one is not contingent on the other.
If Britain crashes out of the EU with no deal with the rest of the EU on this point, do you favour mass deportations of EU27 residents?
I'm struggling to see how how leaving open the possibility of crashing out of the EU with no deal, in a situation where we've guaranteed no deportation of EU27 citizens from the UK but UK citizens are open to being deported on masse from EU27 countries, is better than wanting to get it sorted out amicably in advance in a fair and reciprocal negotiation. Have I missed something?
@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.
By the way, are you bunging Richard Nabavi in with the Loony Leavers now?!
Richard Nabavi is not, so far as I am aware, a Leaver (still less a loony one). I can try drawing Venn diagrams in MS Paint if this would be of assistance.
I do, however, think that it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policy to leave large numbers of the country's residents in limbo as to whether they can stay in the country (especially as Britain will inevitably be conceding the point at some point).
Which is why the government doesn't want to do that.
Do you believe it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policty to leave large numbers of the country's citizens in limbo as to whether they can stay in the countries they moved to (especially as Britian is not against conceding the point if a reciprocal deal can be signed)?
Yes I do. But the one is not contingent on the other.
If Britain crashes out of the EU with no deal with the rest of the EU on this point, do you favour mass deportations of EU27 residents?
No but we're not there right now. Nor do I propose shackling our negotiators before they start talking with the other party, do you?
If your answer is no, what are you trying to negotiate with?
@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.
By the way, are you bunging Richard Nabavi in with the Loony Leavers now?!
Richard Nabavi is not, so far as I am aware, a Leaver (still less a loony one). I can try drawing Venn diagrams in MS Paint if this would be of assistance.
I do, however, think that it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policy to leave large numbers of the country's residents in limbo as to whether they can stay in the country (especially as Britain will inevitably be conceding the point at some point).
Taking this off the table was offered to the EU very recently - and rejected.
Remainers should stop grandstanding and whinging. And start getting real.
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.
Yes I do. But the one is not contingent on the other.
If Britain crashes out of the EU with no deal with the rest of the EU on this point, do you favour mass deportations of EU27 residents?
I'm struggling to see how how leaving open the possibility of crashing out of the EU with no deal, in a situation where we've guaranteed no deportation of EU27 citizens from the UK but UK citizens are open to being deported on masse from EU27 countries, is better than wanting to get it sorted out amicably in advance in a fair and reciprocal negotiation. Have I missed something?
You've missed that if Britain isn't going to do mass deportations (and it isn't), it has nothing to negotiate with and in the meantime has unnecessarily distressed large numbers of its residents.
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.
Why should you? I assumed the facts would help shape your argument. More fool me, I guess.
@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.
By the way, are you bunging Richard Nabavi in with the Loony Leavers now?!
Richard Nabavi is not, so far as I am aware, a Leaver (still less a loony one). I can try drawing Venn diagrams in MS Paint if this would be of assistance.
I do, however, think that it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policy to leave large numbers of the country's residents in limbo as to whether they can stay in the country (especially as Britain will inevitably be conceding the point at some point).
Which is why the government doesn't want to do that.
Do you believe it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policty to leave large numbers of the country's citizens in limbo as to whether they can stay in the countries they moved to (especially as Britian is not against conceding the point if a reciprocal deal can be signed)?
Yes I do. But the one is not contingent on the other.
If Britain crashes out of the EU with no deal with the rest of the EU on this point, do you favour mass deportations of EU27 residents?
No but we're not there right now. Nor do I propose shackling our negotiators before they start talking with the other party, do you?
If your answer is no, what are you trying to negotiate with?
I want the government to negotiate a reciprocal deal. What part of that is difficult to understand?
@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.
By the way, are you bunging Richard Nabavi in with the Loony Leavers now?!
Richard Nabavi is not, so far as I am aware, a Leaver (still less a loony one). I can try drawing Venn diagrams in MS Paint if this would be of assistance.
I do, however, think that it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policy to leave large numbers of the country's residents in limbo as to whether they can stay in the country (especially as Britain will inevitably be conceding the point at some point).
Which is why the government doesn't want to do that.
Do you believe it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policty to leave large numbers of the country's citizens in limbo as to whether they can stay in the countries they moved to (especially as Britian is not against conceding the point if a reciprocal deal can be signed)?
Yes I do. But the one is not contingent on the other.
If Britain crashes out of the EU with no deal with the rest of the EU on this point, do you favour mass deportations of EU27 residents?
No but we're not there right now. Nor do I propose shackling our negotiators before they start talking with the other party, do you?
If your answer is no, what are you trying to negotiate with?
I want the government to negotiate a reciprocal deal. What part of that is difficult to understand?
The part that suggests you've got anything to negotiate with.
You've missed that if Britain isn't going to do mass deportations (and it isn't), it has nothing to negotiate with and in the meantime has unnecessarily distressed large numbers of its residents.
OK, so by that logic what is preventing our EU friends from unilaterally giving exactly the same guarantee? Or at the very least agreeing to talk about the issue in advance, rather than imposing an entirely arbitrary, unnecessary and cruel embargo on even opening preliminary talks on the matter?
Edit: Also, it's nonsense to say there's nothing to negotiate about. There's the question of healthcare costs, for a starter, and one which may be of major significance.
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.
The whole point of that Treaty (and others) is to turn nation states into member states.
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?
How is that 'the more obvious point.' The discussion wasn't about the Labour party or the Conservative party, but about the intended meaning of May's statement towards one particular MP.
In any case, having a female leader by itself does not necessarily make a party open or inclusive. The Conservatives had Thatcher as their leader for more than a decade. Yet, they were, according to Mrs May of all people seen as the 'nasty party', and had to put in a bit of effort, to attract the votes of minorities and those from the LGBT community. Not in the least that while under Thatcher, it Section 28 was passed which is hardly an advertisement of openness and inclusivity.
The Conservative Party is now a lot more open and inclusive post 2005 though, that I must say.
There are many ethnic minority communities who are openly hostile to the LGBT community.
The UK suggested an immediate deal guaranteeing residents rights but the EU refused. The EU is the villain in this piece and today the Lords sided with the EU.
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.
@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.
By the way, are you bunging Richard Nabavi in with the Loony Leavers now?!
Richard Nabavi is not, so far as I am aware, a Leaver (still less a loony one). I can try drawing Venn diagrams in MS Paint if this would be of assistance.
I do, however, think that it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policy to leave large numbers of the country's residents in limbo as to whether they can stay in the country (especially as Britain will inevitably be conceding the point at some point).
Which is why the government doesn't want to do that.
Do you believe it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policty to leave large numbers of the country's citizens in limbo as to whether they can stay in the countries they moved to (especially as Britian is not against conceding the point if a reciprocal deal can be signed)?
Yes I do. But the one is not contingent on the other.
If Britain crashes out of the EU with no deal with the rest of the EU on this point, do you favour mass deportations of EU27 residents?
No but we're not there right now. Nor do I propose shackling our negotiators before they start talking with the other party, do you?
If your answer is no, what are you trying to negotiate with?
I want the government to negotiate a reciprocal deal. What part of that is difficult to understand?
The part that suggests you've got anything to negotiate with.
We do. The other governments want us to agree to guarantee these residents can stay. If we've not unilaterally already done that then that is something to negotiate with even if we want to do it anyway as they can't guarantee we want to do that anyway until we've done it.
How do some people get away with use of the C-word, and abusing other posters as "Gobshites" in a non ironic and unfriendly way? I have been banned on numerous occassions for far less, some consistency please
You've missed that if Britain isn't going to do mass deportations (and it isn't), it has nothing to negotiate with and in the meantime has unnecessarily distressed large numbers of its residents.
OK, so by that logic what is preventing our EU friends from unilaterally giving exactly the same guarantee? Or at the very least agreeing to talk about in advance, rather than imposing an entirely arbitrary, unnecessary and cruel embargo on even opening preliminary talks on the matter?
Edit: Also, it's nonsense to say there's nothing to negotiate about. There's healthcare costs, for a starter, and one which may be of major significance.
Fair play to you, you may be a Remainer but you haven't lost the plot, and unlike some you do realise that the first responsibility of the UK government is to UK citizens.
You've missed that if Britain isn't going to do mass deportations (and it isn't), it has nothing to negotiate with and in the meantime has unnecessarily distressed large numbers of its residents.
OK, so by that logic what is preventing our EU friends from unilaterally giving exactly the same guarantee? Or at the very least agreeing to talk about in advance, rather than imposing an entirely arbitrary, unnecessary and cruel embargo on even opening preliminary talks on the matter?
Our EU friends should unilaterally offer the same guarantee. I don't see this as just a failure by the British.
I have more sympathy with them disdaining the transparently calculated attempt to break down the "no prenegotiations before Article 50" line they have taken. Theresa May was far too slow and far too obvious when she tried that gambit.
You've missed that if Britain isn't going to do mass deportations (and it isn't), it has nothing to negotiate with and in the meantime has unnecessarily distressed large numbers of its residents.
OK, so by that logic what is preventing our EU friends from unilaterally giving exactly the same guarantee? Or at the very least agreeing to talk about the issue in advance, rather than imposing an entirely arbitrary, unnecessary and cruel embargo on even opening preliminary talks on the matter?
Edit: Also, it's nonsense to say there's nothing to negotiate about. There's healthcare costs, for a starter, and one which may be of major significance.
For heavens sake it wasn't the the rest of the EU that got us into this mess!
"Boots is shutting more than two-thirds of its photo processing laboratories"
If I held shares in Boots I'd be asking why those weren't shut yesterday.
Too soon. Lots of people are going back to film
In the same way as "lots of people" are going back to vinyl. There is a niche, and those part of it are very vocal and really into that niche. But the mass market have moved on.
Vinyl sales are growing again. I started re-buying last summer.
There's something about the artwork and something about listening to it on a record player that a CD, or god forbid a download - can't replicate. It's about collecting as well.
Perhaps it's age.
My better half has gone back to the printed book as well. Thrown her e-reader away. Digital photographs are so disposable that the feeling of ownership is missing also. They don't have that special feeling of a actual print.
It's as though digitization has been an phase. Owning a digital file is such an empty experience.
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.
Forgive me, AnneJCP, but my central case isn't 'May used the incorrect name'. My central case is that May implied that Thornberry (happy now) should have taken on her husband's name.
Secondly, a accidental typo in a rush to reply to a number of posters is nothing compared to a deliberate referral of Thornberry as 'Lady Nugee', in order to imply that should have taken on her married name. One is accidentally putting an r before o on a random internet message board that Thornberry will most likely not read. The other is a public attempt to humilate/embrass her.
@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.
By the way, are you bunging Richard Nabavi in with the Loony Leavers now?!
Richard Nabavi is not, so far as I am aware, a Leaver (still less a loony one). I can try drawing Venn diagrams in MS Paint if this would be of assistance.
I do, however, think that it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policy to leave large numbers of the country's residents in limbo as to whether they can stay in the country (especially as Britain will inevitably be conceding the point at some point).
Which is why the government doesn't want to do that.
Do you believe it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policty to leave large numbers of the country's citizens in limbo as to whether they can stay in the countries they moved to (especially as Britian is not against conceding the point if a reciprocal deal can be signed)?
Yes I do. But the one is not contingent on the other.
If Britain crashes out of the EU with no deal with the rest of the EU on this point, do you favour mass deportations of EU27 residents?
No but we're not there right now. Nor do I propose shackling our negotiators before they start talking with the other party, do you?
If your answer is no, what are you trying to negotiate with?
I want the government to negotiate a reciprocal deal. What part of that is difficult to understand?
The part that suggests you've got anything to negotiate with.
We do. The other governments want us to agree to guarantee these residents can stay. If we've not unilaterally already done that then that is something to negotiate with even if we want to do it anyway as they can't guarantee we want to do that anyway until we've done it.
If Britain is obviously going to do it anyway, there's nothing to negotiate with.
It's the duty of politicians to prioritise the interests of their own nationals over the interests of foreign nationals.
Or so you'd think..
It's getting ridiculous now, the contempt some Remainers have for their fellow citizens is hard to believe. I honestly never realised that the country was so divided.
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?
How is that 'the more obvious point.' The discussion wasn't about the Labour party or the Conservative party, but about the intended meaning of May's statement towards one particular MP.
In any case, having a female leader by itself does not necessarily make a party open or inclusive. The Conservatives had Thatcher as their leader for more than a decade. Yet, they were, according to Mrs May of all people seen as the 'nasty party', and had to put in a bit of effort, to attract the votes of minorities and those from the LGBT community. Not in the least that while under Thatcher, it Section 28 was passed which is hardly an advertisement of openness and inclusivity.
The Conservative Party is now a lot more open and inclusive post 2005 though, that I must say.
There are many ethnic minority communities who are openly hostile to the LGBT community.
There also many ethnic minorities who are not hostile to the LGBT community. Many of those belonging to the LGBT community are ethnic minorities.
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.
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.
Forgive me, AnneJCP, but my central case isn't 'May used the incorrect name'. My central case is that May implied that Thornberry (happy now) should have taken on her husband's name.
Secondly, a accidental typo in a rush to reply to a number of posters is nothing compared to a deliberate referral of Thornberry as 'Lady Nugee', in order to imply that should have taken on her married name. One is accidentally putting an r before o on a random internet message board that Thornberry will most likely not read. The other is a public attempt to humilate/embrass her.
She was not implying she should have taken her husbands name, she was mocking her for being a "Lady". Please accept this point, it is painful to keep seeing the misunderstanding. It isn't as if any of us correcting you have anything to gain from it being so, it just is.
I have more sympathy with them disdaining the transparently calculated attempt to break down the "no prenegotiations before Article 50" line they have taken. Theresa May was far too slow and far too obvious when she tried that gambit.
TBH I don't really understand the EU27's ideological purity on that point. We're leaving. There's a lot to discuss. There's not much time to discuss it. It will damage both sides to get it wrong. Why on earth not get on with it, at least in preliminary scoping discussions?
It's going to be interesting in the council elections in May just what sort of kicking the Government are going to get...Lib Dems on my patch are actively targeting pro-remain voters and that coupled with the crucifying cuts being imposed on local authorities by Westminster I sense it could be very good for the Lib Dems
The Conservatives will probably lose seats to the Lib Dems, but gain from Labour, UKIP, and in Scotland.
The NEV's in 2013 were Lab 29%, Con 26%, UKIP 22%, Lib Dem 14%. I doubt if Labour will lead the Conservatives this time round. Plausible numbers might be something like Con 30% Lab 27%, Lib Dem 22%, UKIP 12% this time.
One would've thought that the Lib Dems would do solidly but not spectacularly. Their performance in last May's local elections was no great shakes and, although they can play the Continuity Remain card this time around, the proportion of voters for whom the EU is a cherished cultural touchstone will be very much smaller than 48% - hence the fact that they're still engaged in a battle for third place in the polls with Ukip, and losing the majority of the skirmishes at that.
Unless I'm badly mistaken and there is a huge Lib Dem revival in the English county councils, then I expect that it'll be a mixed picture for the Conservatives but that they'll have enough positives to take away to count it as a good round of elections, in the context of being the sitting Government. They're likely to go backwards in the English councils and might do the same in Wales, but they should cement their position as the new second party in Scotland and will be hoping to bag several of the new mayoral offices. Cambridgeshire should be a one horse race, and if they can also secure at least one out of two from the Bristol-plus/Avon-minus and West Midlands contests then they'll have something to celebrate.
The SNP may ship some council seats to the Tories and Lib Dems, but they won't be at all bothered about any of that because they'll be too busy driving a big sharp pike with a Saltire tied to the staff into the prone corpse of Scottish Labour. The rest of the Labour Party will be shouting as loudly as possible about mayoral victories in those regions still relatively friendly to it, so as to try as best it can to distract from decline elsewhere which is wholly at odds with the performance expected from any halfway competent Opposition in mid-term.
Ukip are a bit of a sideshow in all of this, but it will be interesting to see whether their support declines relative to their 2013 result or collapses. Their showing at around 12% in the Westminster VI polls is remarkably resilient, but local elections and general elections are very different beasts, of course.
It's the duty of politicians to prioritise the interests of their own nationals over the interests of foreign nationals.
Or so you'd think..
It's getting ridiculous now, the contempt some Remainers have for their fellow citizens is hard to believe. I honestly never realised that the country was so divided.
It isn't, its just that extremists shout the loudest
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.
And if it was higher, they'd be "taking all our jobs".
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.
Forgive me, AnneJCP, but my central case isn't 'May used the incorrect name'. My central case is that May implied that Thornberry (happy now) should have taken on her husband's name.
Secondly, a accidental typo in a rush to reply to a number of posters is nothing compared to a deliberate referral of Thornberry as 'Lady Nugee', in order to imply that should have taken on her married name. One is accidentally putting an r before o on a random internet message board that Thornberry will most likely not read. The other is a public attempt to humilate/embrass her.
She was not implying she should have taken her husbands name, she was mocking her for being a "Lady". Please accept this point, it is painful to keep seeing the misunderstanding. It isn't as if any of us correcting you have anything to gain from it being so, it just is.
I'm not going to accept that point. Nor do I accept that it is a 'misunderstanding'. This is an online discussion forum. It's supposed to be an exchange of views, not a right-wing get together.
"Boots is shutting more than two-thirds of its photo processing laboratories"
If I held shares in Boots I'd be asking why those weren't shut yesterday.
Too soon. Lots of people are going back to film
In the same way as "lots of people" are going back to vinyl. There is a niche, and those part of it are very vocal and really into that niche. But the mass market have moved on.
Vinyl sales are growing again. I started re-buying last summer.
There's something about the artwork and something about listening to it on a record player that a CD, or god forbid a download - can't replicate. It's about collecting as well.
Perhaps it's age.
My better half has gone back to the printed book as well. Thrown her e-reader away. Digital photographs are so disposable that the feeling of ownership is missing also. They don't have that special feeling of a actual print.
It's as though digitization has been an phase. Owning a digital file is such an empty experience.
As I say, there is a niche. But Boots business model isn't about catering to the niche. There are specialist record shops and specialist photographic shops and I am sure they will be happy to accommodate the enthusiast. Woolies went out of business in part because they kept holding on to the past of kids spending their pocket money on physical CDs on whatever was top of the hit parade that week.
But the mass market is about providing an easy way of allowing people to pick which of the 1000s of snaps they have taken on their iPhone (or digital SLR) and having them printed..and there are plenty of good online services which provide this.
I have more sympathy with them disdaining the transparently calculated attempt to break down the "no prenegotiations before Article 50" line they have taken. Theresa May was far too slow and far too obvious when she tried that gambit.
TBH I don't really understand the EU27's ideological purity on that point. We're leaving. There's a lot to discuss. There's not much time to discuss it. It will damage both sides to get it wrong. Why on earth not get on with it, at least in preliminary scoping discussions?
It's a power play. If there's no prenegotiation, time becomes a weapon for the EU27 in the actual negotiation.
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.
Forgive me, AnneJCP, but my central case isn't 'May used the incorrect name'. My central case is that May implied that Thornberry (happy now) should have taken on her husband's name.
Secondly, a accidental typo in a rush to reply to a number of posters is nothing compared to a deliberate referral of Thornberry as 'Lady Nugee', in order to imply that should have taken on her married name. One is accidentally putting an r before o on a random internet message board that Thornberry will most likely not read. The other is a public attempt to humilate/embrass her.
She was not implying she should have taken her husbands name, she was mocking her for being a "Lady". Please accept this point, it is painful to keep seeing the misunderstanding. It isn't as if any of us correcting you have anything to gain from it being so, it just is.
I'm not going to accept that point. Nor do I accept that it is a 'misunderstanding'. This is an online discussion forum. It's supposed to be an exchange of views, not a right-wing get together.
Well it is a misunderstanding, and you are embarrassing yourself by continuing to make it. It has nothing to do with right wing or left wing, it is just blatantly obvious. Don't play the victim, there's a good girl
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.
Forgive me, AnneJCP, but my central case isn't 'May used the incorrect name'. My central case is that May implied that Thornberry (happy now) should have taken on her husband's name.
Secondly, a accidental typo in a rush to reply to a number of posters is nothing compared to a deliberate referral of Thornberry as 'Lady Nugee', in order to imply that should have taken on her married name. One is accidentally putting an r before o on a random internet message board that Thornberry will most likely not read. The other is a public attempt to humilate/embrass her.
She was not implying she should have taken her husbands name, she was mocking her for being a "Lady". Please accept this point, it is painful to keep seeing the misunderstanding. It isn't as if any of us correcting you have anything to gain from it being so, it just is.
I'm not going to accept that point. Nor do I accept that it is a 'misunderstanding'. This is an online discussion forum. It's supposed to be an exchange of views, not a right-wing get together.
Militant Black Girl The Apocalypse in full on Socialist Justice Warrior mode!
You've missed that if Britain isn't going to do mass deportations (and it isn't), it has nothing to negotiate with and in the meantime has unnecessarily distressed large numbers of its residents.
OK, so by that logic what is preventing our EU friends from unilaterally giving exactly the same guarantee? Or at the very least agreeing to talk about the issue in advance, rather than imposing an entirely arbitrary, unnecessary and cruel embargo on even opening preliminary talks on the matter?
Edit: Also, it's nonsense to say there's nothing to negotiate about. There's healthcare costs, for a starter, and one which may be of major significance.
For heavens sake it wasn't the the rest of the EU that got us into this mess!
No it was a series of British Governments of all stripes salami slicing our statehood and democracy away without getting the consent of the people, indeed poo pooing the concerns of the people, till that was the people actually got a chance to speak on the subject, and, even if given an imperfect and indeed "nuclear" option decided, "enough".
Eventually the lack of consent bites you on the bum, and the collective whining from the great and the good (see the Lords) is merely an arse covering exercise that they've spent decades, in some cases, talking bollocks, that to their mortified surprise was at odds with what the British people actually wanted all along.
@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.
By the way, are you bunging Richard Nabavi in with the Loony Leavers now?!
Richard Nabavi is not, so far as I am aware, a Leaver (still less a loony one). I can try drawing Venn diagrams in MS Paint if this would be of assistance.
I do, however, think that it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policy to leave large numbers of the country's residents in limbo as to whether they can stay in the country (especially as Britain will inevitably be conceding the point at some point).
Which is why the government doesn't want to do that.
Do you believe it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policty to leave large numbers of the country's citizens in limbo as to whether they can stay in the countries they moved to (especially as Britian is not against conceding the point if a reciprocal deal can be signed)?
Yes I do. But the one is not contingent on the other.
If Britain crashes out of the EU with no deal with the rest of the EU on this point, do you favour mass deportations of EU27 residents?
No but we're not there right now. Nor do I propose shackling our negotiators before they start talking with the other party, do you?
If your answer is no, what are you trying to negotiate with?
I want the government to negotiate a reciprocal deal. What part of that is difficult to understand?
The part that suggests you've got anything to negotiate with.
We do. The other governments want us to agree to guarantee these residents can stay. If we've not unilaterally already done that then that is something to negotiate with even if we want to do it anyway as they can't guarantee we want to do that anyway until we've done it.
If Britain is obviously going to do it anyway, there's nothing to negotiate with.
Then why tie the government's hand before the negotiations?
I note no-one has yet accepted my challenge of actually looking up employment activity rates of our EU friends compared to the natives.
They are irrelevant.
UK citizens are here by birthright. It is entirely reasonable to expect that invited persons from elsewhere would have higher employment, capital and average income rates. They should also have lower levels of criminality.
A failure on any of those metrics would be an awful indictment of immigration policy.
That said, I make the same point to you that was made to William. You are trying to turn EU immigrants into a homogenised virtuous blob of 3m people, rather than look at them as 3m individuals.
Assess them individually, and then advance your case to retain those who have records of criminality, poor employment and a need for taxpayer subsidy,
I note no-one has yet accepted my challenge of actually looking up employment activity rates of our EU friends compared to the natives.
They are irrelevant.
UK citizens are here by birthright. It is entirely reasonable to expect that invited persons from elsewhere would have higher employment, capital and average income rates. They should also have lower levels of criminality.
A failure on any of those metrics would be an awful indictment of immigration policy.
That said, I make the same point to you that was made to William. You are trying to turn EU immigrants into an homogenised virtuous blob of 3m people, rather than look at them as 3m individuals
Assess them individually, and then advance your case to retain those who have records of criminality, poor employment and a need for taxpayer subsidy,
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.
Forgive me, AnneJCP, but my central case isn't 'May used the incorrect name'. My central case is that May implied that Thornberry (happy now) should have taken on her husband's name.
Secondly, a accidental typo in a rush to reply to a number of posters is nothing compared to a deliberate referral of Thornberry as 'Lady Nugee', in order to imply that should have taken on her married name. One is accidentally putting an r before o on a random internet message board that Thornberry will most likely not read. The other is a public attempt to humilate/embrass her.
She was not implying she should have taken her husbands name, she was mocking her for being a "Lady". Please accept this point, it is painful to keep seeing the misunderstanding. It isn't as if any of us correcting you have anything to gain from it being so, it just is.
I'm not going to accept that point. Nor do I accept that it is a 'misunderstanding'. This is an online discussion forum. It's supposed to be an exchange of views, not a right-wing get together.
Well it is a misunderstanding, and you are embarrassing yourself by continuing to make it. It has nothing to do with right wing or left wing, it is just blatantly obvious. Don't play the victim, there's a good girl
'Playing the victim?' Why the strawman arguments isam? I'm simply stating my thoughts and arguments - I haven't implied that I'm any sort of victim at all.
No need to be patronising.
Furthermore, something isn't a 'misunderstanding', or 'embarrassing', because you state it is.
For heavens sake it wasn't the the rest of the EU that got us into this mess!
No it wasn't, except to the extent that they misjudged things. Nonetheless we are where we are, and a democratic decision has been taken. We are leaving, that's the new reality, and (as Theresa May has correctly seen), that means we need to start grown-up talks to determine the relationship between the UK outside the EU and the EU27, in both sides' interests given the new reality. It's not a zero-sum game, both sides have a lot to lose.
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.
Forgive me, AnneJCP, but my central case isn't 'May used the incorrect name'. My central case is that May implied that Thornberry (happy now) should have taken on her husband's name.
Secondly, a accidental typo in a rush to reply to a number of posters is nothing compared to a deliberate referral of Thornberry as 'Lady Nugee', in order to imply that should have taken on her married name. One is accidentally putting an r before o on a random internet message board that Thornberry will most likely not read. The other is a public attempt to humilate/embrass her.
She was not implying she should have taken her husbands name, she was mocking her for being a "Lady". Please accept this point, it is painful to keep seeing the misunderstanding. It isn't as if any of us correcting you have anything to gain from it being so, it just is.
I'm not going to accept that point. Nor do I accept that it is a 'misunderstanding'. This is an online discussion forum. It's supposed to be an exchange of views, not a right-wing get together.
Militant Black Girl The Apocalypse in full on Socialist Justice Warrior mode!
If we're really being picky, I'm not technically Black but mixed race. After all, we know how some PBers feel about mixed race people being called Black....
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.
Forgive me, AnneJCP, but my central case isn't 'May used the incorrect name'. My central case is that May implied that Thornberry (happy now) should have taken on her husband's name.
Secondly, a accidental typo in a rush to reply to a number of posters is nothing compared to a deliberate referral of Thornberry as 'Lady Nugee', in order to imply that should have taken on her married name. One is accidentally putting an r before o on a random internet message board that Thornberry will most likely not read. The other is a public attempt to humilate/embrass her.
She was not implying she should have taken her husbands name, she was mocking her for being a "Lady". Please accept this point, it is painful to keep seeing the misunderstanding. It isn't as if any of us correcting you have anything to gain from it being so, it just is.
I'm not going to accept that point. Nor do I accept that it is a 'misunderstanding'. This is an online discussion forum. It's supposed to be an exchange of views, not a right-wing get together.
Well it is a misunderstanding, and you are embarrassing yourself by continuing to make it. It has nothing to do with right wing or left wing, it is just blatantly obvious. Don't play the victim, there's a good girl
'Playing the victim?' Why the strawman arguments isam? I'm simply stating my thoughts and arguments - I haven't implied that I'm any sort of victim at all.
No need to be patronising.
Furthermore, something isn't a 'misunderstanding', or 'embarrassing', because you state it is.
Haha, get the landing net!
No things aren't necessarily 'embarrassing' or 'misunderstandings' just because I say so, but you are repeatedly making an embarrassing misunderstanding whether I say so or not!
This board will be an absolute delight when the newly independent Scots start behaving to the RUK in the same high handed way we are behaving towards the other 27.
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.
Forgive me, AnneJCP, but my central case isn't 'May used the incorrect name'. My central case is that May implied that Thornberry (happy now) should have taken on her husband's name.
Secondly, a accidental typo in a rush to reply to a number of posters is nothing compared to a deliberate referral of Thornberry as 'Lady Nugee', in order to imply that should have taken on her married name. One is accidentally putting an r before o on a random internet message board that Thornberry will most likely not read. The other is a public attempt to humilate/embrass her.
I quite agree. I felt the same about those who repeatedly referred to Edward Miliband as 'David' and those who repeatedly referred to Mr Hunt as Mr *unt'.
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.
Forgive me, AnneJCP, but my central case isn't 'May used the incorrect name'. My central case is that May implied that Thornberry (happy now) should have taken on her husband's name.
Secondly, a accidental typo in a rush to reply to a number of posters is nothing compared to a deliberate referral of Thornberry as 'Lady Nugee', in order to imply that should have taken on her married name. One is accidentally putting an r before o on a random internet message board that Thornberry will most likely not read. The other is a public attempt to humilate/embrass her.
She was not implying she should have taken her husbands name, she was mocking her for being a "Lady". Please accept this point, it is painful to keep seeing the misunderstanding. It isn't as if any of us correcting you have anything to gain from it being so, it just is.
I'm not going to accept that point. Nor do I accept that it is a 'misunderstanding'. This is an online discussion forum. It's supposed to be an exchange of views, not a right-wing get together.
Militant Black Girl The Apocalypse in full on Socialist Justice Warrior mode!
If we're really being picky, I'm not technically Black but mixed race. After all, we know how some PBers feel about mixed race people being called Black....
Aren't you racist for self-identifying as Black and denying your White heritage?
@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.
By the way, are you bunging Richard Nabavi in with the Loony Leavers now?!
Richard Nabavi is not, so far as I am aware, a Leaver (still less a loony one). I can try drawing Venn diagrams in MS Paint if this would be of assistance.
I do, however, think that it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policy to leave large numbers of the country's residents in limbo as to whether they can stay in the country (especially as Britain will inevitably be conceding the point at some point).
Taking this off the table was offered to the EU very recently - and rejected.
Remainers should stop grandstanding and whinging. And start getting real.
No. It's not about whinging. Threatening 3m with deportation is a serious matter. That is what we are effectively doing with this fiasco. Agreed, the EU are also doing it. We should rise above.
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.
Forgive me, AnneJCP, but my central case isn't 'May used the incorrect name'. My central case is that May implied that Thornberry (happy now) should have taken on her husband's name.
Secondly, a accidental typo in a russ her.
She was not implying shing so, it just is.
I'm not going to accept that point. Nor do I accept that it is a 'misunderstanding'. This is an online discussion forum. It's supposed to be an exchange of views, not a right-wing get together.
The only 'right-wing' vote I have ever cast was a second preference in a PCC election, and only then because there was no independent to vote for. This place is right leaning to be sure, and frankly economically at least I'd include myself in that, but it's a bit ridiculous to typify the alternate view to the one you were proposing as part of a right wing get together, when for one the issue is not left or right wing at all, and for two the principal proponent of the alternate view would, and I hope you would agree, not form part of a cosy right wing get together. It is incredibly common for people to ascribe all opposing views as belonging to some uniform partisan faction, but it is complete bollocks, and by tying my own view into that cosy get together you imply my view is not formed by some analysis, but because I am a right wing person, which is if nothing else lazy and complacent thinking, no different to the blanket dismissal of some proposal from the left because it comes from lefties (until such times as a right winger proposes it, whereupon it becomes awesome).
And given this was about an exchange of views, I must point out the idea the reference to Lady Nugee was a deliberate implication that she should have taken on her husband's name is merely your opinion, people pettily mocking your typo doesn't make it not an opinion. I respect that it is your opinion, even if frankly I cannot understand how you think it plausible for May, someone you claim to respect to a certain degree, to for no reason attack Thornberry in such a way. If you believe that is what May was doing, rather than her getting pissy in overreaction to Thornberry's own overreaction, then it would seem that you think she is both a idiot and an arse. How can you respect or even hold a neutral view of someone if you genuinely think they, for no stated reason, decided to mock Thornberry over such a matter?
Comments
[Heckle by ET]
TM: "the shadow foreign Secretary asks "by me"? Yes, Lady Nugee, by me"
Possibly a mistake under pressure. Who knows. But not some mortal insult.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3265219.stm
Blunkett: No limit on migration
There is "no obvious limit" to the number of immigrants who could settle in the UK, the home secretary has said.
Why do you keep calling the person in question 'Thronberry'? It seems a bit odd. Maybe you need to check your autocomplete?
BTW we all know that the way to really annoy her is to wave English flags at her, or make generic comments about white vans.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/politique/2017/03/01/31001-20170301ARTFIG00360-editorial-election-confisquee.php
(I don't think Google Translate will quite do it justice...)
People who choose to move here are unlikely to have the same difficulties. If the employment rate for EU nationals were not higher than for UK nationals, it would mean that EU unemployables were moving here just because. Within the EU, of course, there's no reason why they should not. Maybe the weather is nicer or something.
One of the main factors that made working class Tories turn out to vote against Labour come hell or high water was always the perception that they were for the shirkers, not the workers. They viscerally objected to the unfairness of living a life of hard graft while their neighbour, relative or acquaintance was better off milking the system.
If I held shares in Boots I'd be asking why those weren't shut yesterday.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2810292/Migrants-really-swamping-parts-UK-says-Blunkett-Ex-Home-Secretary-backs-minister-rebuked-No-10-TV-comments.html
Built his inheritance (a loss making Neopolitan business with revenues of $1m) into a 17% stake in Walgreens Boots Alliance plus a few hundred million in cash
I do, however, think that it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policy to leave large numbers of the country's residents in limbo as to whether they can stay in the country (especially as Britain will inevitably be conceding the point at some point).
The NEV's in 2013 were Lab 29%, Con 26%, UKIP 22%, Lib Dem 14%. I doubt if Labour will lead the Conservatives this time round. Plausible numbers might be something like Con 30% Lab 27%, Lib Dem 22%, UKIP 12% this time.
Do you believe it is wrong both morally and as a matter of policty to leave large numbers of the country's citizens in limbo as to whether they can stay in the countries they moved to (especially as Britian is not against conceding the point if a reciprocal deal can be signed)?
People do want prints, but taken using a digital camera.
You don't need a whole photo processing lab for that.
If Britain crashes out of the EU with no deal with the rest of the EU on this point, do you favour mass deportations of EU27 residents?
Unforgettable. And unforgettably stupid. One of the reasons Labour are where they are. A clever, sensible Labour Minister was so stymied by their policy of mass immigration he couldn't admit there was inevitably some outer limit. Like, 80m. 100m? 500 million?
Blunkett of all people refused to admit there could ever be a point (when we are all living 78 to a room?) when we'd taken enough migrants.
It was Newsnight. I remember my jaw dropping. That's when Labour signed their own death warrant."
Was it only ever about votes, though? Labour knew there was a strategic problem approaching the 2005 election. They knew Middle England's love affair with Tony Blair was drawing to a close, so if your own populace won't vote for you, import them, regardless of the numbers, regardless of the long term consequences, regardless of the impact on the public services that Labour profess to love. And what has all this led to? BREXIT. Oh the irony.
In any case, having a female leader by itself does not necessarily make a party open or inclusive. The Conservatives had Thatcher as their leader for more than a decade. Yet, they were, according to Mrs May of all people seen as the 'nasty party', and had to put in a bit of effort, to attract the votes of minorities and those from the LGBT community. Not in the least that while under Thatcher, it Section 28 was passed which is hardly an advertisement of openness and inclusivity.
The Conservative Party is now a lot more open and inclusive post 2005 though, that I must say.
Remainers should stop grandstanding and whinging. And start getting real.
And I support the Government on rejecting the HOL 's amendment
Next daft question.
Seriously; grow up.
Edit: Also, it's nonsense to say there's nothing to negotiate about. There's the question of healthcare costs, for a starter, and one which may be of major significance.
How do some people get away with use of the C-word, and abusing other posters as "Gobshites" in a non ironic and unfriendly way? I have been banned on numerous occassions for far less, some consistency please
I have more sympathy with them disdaining the transparently calculated attempt to break down the "no prenegotiations before Article 50" line they have taken. Theresa May was far too slow and far too obvious when she tried that gambit.
There's something about the artwork and something about listening to it on a record player that a CD, or god forbid a download - can't replicate. It's about collecting as well.
Perhaps it's age.
My better half has gone back to the printed book as well. Thrown her e-reader away. Digital photographs are so disposable that the feeling of ownership is missing also. They don't have that special feeling of a actual print.
It's as though digitization has been an phase. Owning a digital file is such an empty experience.
Secondly, a accidental typo in a rush to reply to a number of posters is nothing compared to a deliberate referral of Thornberry as 'Lady Nugee', in order to imply that should have taken on her married name. One is accidentally putting an r before o on a random internet message board that Thornberry will most likely not read. The other is a public attempt to humilate/embrass her.
I see you flounced my Question.
Next daft question
Unless I'm badly mistaken and there is a huge Lib Dem revival in the English county councils, then I expect that it'll be a mixed picture for the Conservatives but that they'll have enough positives to take away to count it as a good round of elections, in the context of being the sitting Government. They're likely to go backwards in the English councils and might do the same in Wales, but they should cement their position as the new second party in Scotland and will be hoping to bag several of the new mayoral offices. Cambridgeshire should be a one horse race, and if they can also secure at least one out of two from the Bristol-plus/Avon-minus and West Midlands contests then they'll have something to celebrate.
The SNP may ship some council seats to the Tories and Lib Dems, but they won't be at all bothered about any of that because they'll be too busy driving a big sharp pike with a Saltire tied to the staff into the prone corpse of Scottish Labour. The rest of the Labour Party will be shouting as loudly as possible about mayoral victories in those regions still relatively friendly to it, so as to try as best it can to distract from decline elsewhere which is wholly at odds with the performance expected from any halfway competent Opposition in mid-term.
Ukip are a bit of a sideshow in all of this, but it will be interesting to see whether their support declines relative to their 2013 result or collapses. Their showing at around 12% in the Westminster VI polls is remarkably resilient, but local elections and general elections are very different beasts, of course.
But the mass market is about providing an easy way of allowing people to pick which of the 1000s of snaps they have taken on their iPhone (or digital SLR) and having them printed..and there are plenty of good online services which provide this.
Militant Black GirlThe Apocalypse in full on Socialist Justice Warrior mode!Eventually the lack of consent bites you on the bum, and the collective whining from the great and the good (see the Lords) is merely an arse covering exercise that they've spent decades, in some cases, talking bollocks, that to their mortified surprise was at odds with what the British people actually wanted all along.
UK citizens are here by birthright. It is entirely reasonable to expect that invited persons from elsewhere would have higher employment, capital and average income rates. They should also have lower levels of criminality.
A failure on any of those metrics would be an awful indictment of immigration policy.
That said, I make the same point to you that was made to William. You are trying to turn EU immigrants into a homogenised virtuous blob of 3m people, rather than look at them as 3m individuals.
Assess them individually, and then advance your case to retain those who have records of criminality, poor employment and a need for taxpayer subsidy,
No need to be patronising.
Furthermore, something isn't a 'misunderstanding', or 'embarrassing', because you state it is.
No things aren't necessarily 'embarrassing' or 'misunderstandings' just because I say so, but you are repeatedly making an embarrassing misunderstanding whether I say so or not!
And given this was about an exchange of views, I must point out the idea the reference to Lady Nugee was a deliberate implication that she should have taken on her husband's name is merely your opinion, people pettily mocking your typo doesn't make it not an opinion. I respect that it is your opinion, even if frankly I cannot understand how you think it plausible for May, someone you claim to respect to a certain degree, to for no reason attack Thornberry in such a way. If you believe that is what May was doing, rather than her getting pissy in overreaction to Thornberry's own overreaction, then it would seem that you think she is both a idiot and an arse. How can you respect or even hold a neutral view of someone if you genuinely think they, for no stated reason, decided to mock Thornberry over such a matter?
Good night all.