Mr. B2, that's a human pyramid scheme (regarding the specific pensions point).
Also, the Baby Boomers are a big generation, but my own is smaller, and the Millenials are less and less healthy (so will perhaps have a lower life expectancy). Once the bulge in the graph represented by the Baby Boomers is worked through things may improve significantly.
What evidence do you have that the Millennial generation is "less and less healthy"?
They drink and smoke a lot less than Gen X or the Boom, and vegetarianism is much more popular among them.
The idea that they will have a lower life expectancy than the Boomers seems farfetched.
It's actually the currently just-retired for whom expectancy is starting to decrease, having been brought up after the post-war austerity period had ended, on a calorie- and sugar-rich diet and a sedentary lifestyle with the ubiquity of car ownership and the dominance of jobs done whilst sitting down all day.
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Wouldn't that also involve ECJ oversight and regulatory alignment?
That would be ideal, yes. I think the majority of the country would accept that. Remain + soft Leave.
Good enough.
I thought a majority on both sides wanted an end to freedom of movement?
There was no vote on the matter.
If we instilled Leavers' preferences in law, we'd be rebuilding the gallows in prisons across Britain.
Mr. B2, that's a human pyramid scheme (regarding the specific pensions point).
Also, the Baby Boomers are a big generation, but my own is smaller, and the Millenials are less and less healthy (so will perhaps have a lower life expectancy). Once the bulge in the graph represented by the Baby Boomers is worked through things may improve significantly.
What evidence do you have that the Millennial generation is "less and less healthy"?
They drink and smoke a lot less than Gen X or the Boom, and vegetarianism is much more popular among them.
The idea that they will have a lower life expectancy than the Boomers seems farfetched.
A larger percentage of Millennials said they smoked (23 percent) compared to Generation X (22 percent) and Baby Boomer (20 percent) generations. Not only that, but Millennials were also bigger drinkers than older generations.
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
That would be the case if May was pursuing a neoliberal agenda but with the top rate of tax at 45%, still higher than for most of the New Labour years and an extra £8 billion being spent on the NHS over the next few years that is not really true
I am not sure that comparison with New Labour is particularly relevant for the simple reason that Blair embraced so much of the neoliberal agenda .
After Thatcher and Cameron, Blair was probably our third most neoliberal PM since WW2
That may be true. He was also the most electorally successful Labour leader. Since then Labour has lost three elections.
Of course times change and we may all be moving away from the consensus which has dominated the last few decades, not least because it is seen as not delivering for the majority eg on housing.
But it is still not clear what the new consensus is likely to be. Or whether people want what their parents had ie the old consensus but working for them. People who want to own their own homes don’t strike me as inherently radical.
They want to buy their own homes cheaply but inherit expensive homes
The best argument for pushing up IHT
No as most of them will still rely on parental help for a deposit anyway unless they work in the City or for Google
Fact remains that higher IHT would be part of any realistic plan to bring some sort of reasonableness back to the housing market. Alongside a wealth tax, restrictions on foreign property purchases, greater protection for tenants, greater penalties for leaving property unoccupied, and an end to QE.
Nah just CGT on houses but can be rolled over towards purchase of new principal private residence
Plus 1% annual tax on house purchase price (inflation adjusted)
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Wouldn't that also involve ECJ oversight and regulatory alignment?
That would be ideal, yes. I think the majority of the country would accept that. Remain + soft Leave.
Good enough.
I thought a majority on both sides wanted an end to freedom of movement?
There was no vote on the matter.
If we instilled Leavers' preferences in law, we'd be rebuilding the gallows in prisons across Britain.
I was countering your point that you made saying that the majority of people would accept freedom of movement.
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Leave only won more than 50% because of the promise to end free movement. That has to be respected though much of the blame lies with Blair for failing to impose transition controls and work permits on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004
Such controls would have expired by now anyway.
Leave won a small majority of the vote (from a clear minority of the UK population). You cannot infer from that a majority in the UK for ending free movement. That is supposition and not what was on the ballot paper.
So what they would still not have put the pressure on wages, housing and services we had for those 7 years and they would have ended at the same time as they ended in the rest of the EU.
The post referendum polling was quite clear, Leave voters voted to regain sovereignty and end free movement. Without the promise to end free movement it would likely have been 60 to 40% Remain given we were still outside the Euro, not 52% Leave.
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Leave only won more than 50% because of the promise to end free movement. That has to be respected though much of the blame lies with Blair for failing to impose transition controls and work permits on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004
Such controls would have expired by now anyway.
Leave won a small majority of the vote (from a clear minority of the UK population). You cannot infer from that a majority in the UK for ending free movement. That is supposition and not what was on the ballot paper.
It’s unlikely that any party would ever win a majority of the UK population, unless you’re proposing that children be enfranchised. There is longstanding evidence from opinion polls that a majority of the population want immigration to be reduced a little or a lot. Sophistry about what was and wasn’t on the ballot paper won’t change that.
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
That would be the case if May was pursuing a neoliberal agenda but with the top rate of tax at 45%, still higher than for most of the New Labour years and an extra £8 billion being spent on the NHS over the next few years that is not really true
I am not sure that comparison with New Labour is particularly relevant for the simple reason that Blair embraced so much of the neoliberal agenda .
After Thatcher and Cameron, Blair was probably our third most neoliberal PM since WW2
That may be true. He was also the most electorally successful Labour leader. Since then Labour has lost three elections.
Of course times change and we may all be moving away from the consensus which has dominated the last few decades, not least because it is seen as not delivering for the majority eg on housing.
But it is still not clear what the new consensus is likely to be. Or whether people want what their parents had ie the old consensus but working for them. People who want to own their own homes don’t strike me as inherently radical.
They want to buy their own homes cheaply but inherit expensive homes
The best argument for pushing up IHT
Far better to reduce it (say to 10%) but get rid of all the exemptions. A 40 or 50% or higher tax rate makes it worthwhile to find ways round it. A 10% one does not - or much much less so.
Some of the exemptions (like business rollover relief and agricultural land exemptions have a benefit in they prevent productive economic units being broken up)
Turnout in Catalonia now up by 5 percentage points on 2015. Looks like we’re heading to 80%+, which is what the opinion polls were indicating.
That is encouraging.
Biggest rise in turnout is in Barcelona, which should favour the pro-Spain bloc. These will people who have never voted in Catalan elections before, so may be less likely to back independence.
A reasonable hypothesis, though we will still have to see. The landscape has changed a bit since the last election in terms of the parties on offer particular the absence of JxSí as a combined force
Yep, it’s hard to see Junts pel Catalunya and CUP finding much common cause in the next Parliament.
There will come a point when that trend is broken, but there's no particular reason to believe that we've reached that point now.
Except that it has peaked already.
I'm not aware of any actuary who believes that life expectancy is shortening based on current data. Some are reining back their predictions for future increases.
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Wouldn't that also involve ECJ oversight and regulatory alignment?
That would be ideal, yes. I think the majority of the country would accept that. Remain + soft Leave.
Good enough.
I thought a majority on both sides wanted an end to freedom of movement?
There was no vote on the matter.
If we instilled Leavers' preferences in law, we'd be rebuilding the gallows in prisons across Britain.
There was no referendum on capital punishment, ending free movement was a key part of the Leave the EU campaign
There will come a point when that trend is broken, but there's no particular reason to believe that we've reached that point now.
Except that it has peaked already.
I'm not aware of any actuary who believes that life expectancy is shortening based on current data. Some are reining back their predictions for future increases.
You can be assured that the actuaries will be the very last to recognise that fact.
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
That would be the case if May was pursuing a neoliberal agenda but with the top rate of tax at 45%, still higher than for most of the New Labour years and an extra £8 billion being spent on the NHS over the next few years that is not really true
I am not sure that comparison with New Labour is particularly relevant for the simple reason that Blair embraced so much of the neoliberal agenda .
After Thatcher and Cameron, Blair was probably our third most neoliberal PM since WW2
That may be true. He was also the most electorally successful Labour leader. Since then Labour has lost three elections.
Of course times change and we may all be moving away from the consensus which has dominated the last few decades, not least because it is seen as not delivering for the majority eg on housing.
But it is still not clear what the new consensus is likely to be. Or whether people want what their parents had ie the old consensus but working for them. People who want to own their own homes don’t strike me as inherently radical.
They want to buy their own homes cheaply but inherit expensive homes
The best argument for pushing up IHT
No as most of them will still rely on parental help for a deposit anyway unless they work in the City or for Google
Fact remains that higher IHT would be part of any realistic plan to bring some sort of reasonableness back to the housing market. Alongside a wealth tax, restrictions on foreign property purchases, greater protection for tenants, greater penalties for leaving property unoccupied, and an end to QE.
... or reduce immigration.
Yet our fruit and veg needs to be picked, our coffee served, and our tables waited upon, and unemployment is at a record low. And the pensions of the coming army of retired folk need to be paid for by someone.
Turnout in Catalonia now up by 5 percentage points on 2015. Looks like we’re heading to 80%+, which is what the opinion polls were indicating.
That is encouraging.
Biggest rise in turnout is in Barcelona, which should favour the pro-Spain bloc. These will people who have never voted in Catalan elections before, so may be less likely to back independence.
That may be good news for Ciudadanos.
On 80%+ turnout I’d expect both Cs and PSC vote to go up, if the opinion polling has been accurate. Cs will be the biggest pro-Spain party in the new Parliament. That’s quite an achievement.
Indeed - it may propel them forward in other areas too where there has been one party rule for way too long and corruption is of course at it's worst as here in Andalucia.
Mr. B2, that's a human pyramid scheme (regarding the specific pensions point).
Also, the Baby Boomers are a big generation, but my own is smaller, and the Millenials are less and less healthy (so will perhaps have a lower life expectancy). Once the bulge in the graph represented by the Baby Boomers is worked through things may improve significantly.
What evidence do you have that the Millennial generation is "less and less healthy"?
They drink and smoke a lot less than Gen X or the Boom, and vegetarianism is much more popular among them.
The idea that they will have a lower life expectancy than the Boomers seems farfetched.
A larger percentage of Millennials said they smoked (23 percent) compared to Generation X (22 percent) and Baby Boomer (20 percent) generations. Not only that, but Millennials were also bigger drinkers than older generations.
Those figures are from the United States, which has a major problem with youth obesity and health.
Here is a report from the ONS (UK). The picture is rather different!
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
That would be the case if May was pursuing a neoliberal agenda but with the top rate of tax at 45%, still higher than for most of the New Labour years and an extra £8 billion being spent on the NHS over the next few years that is not really true
I am not sure that comparison with New Labour is particularly relevant for the simple reason that Blair embraced so much of the neoliberal agenda .
After Thatcher and Cameron, Blair was probably our third most neoliberal PM since WW2
That may be true. He was also the most electorally successful Labour leader. Since then Labour has lost three elections.
Of course times change and we may all be moving away from the consensus which has dominated the last few decades, not least because it is seen as not delivering for the majority eg on housing.
But it is still not clear what the new consensus is likely to be. Or whether people want what their parents had ie the old consensus but working for them. People who want to own their own homes don’t strike me as inherently radical.
They want to buy their own homes cheaply but inherit expensive homes
The best argument for pushing up IHT
No as most of them will still rely on parental help for a deposit anyway unless they work in the City or for Google
Fact remains that higher IHT would be part of any realistic plan to bring some sort of reasonableness back to the housing market. Alongside a wealth tax, restrictions on foreign property purchases, greater protection for tenants, greater penalties for leaving property unoccupied, and an end to QE.
... or reduce immigration.
Yet our fruit and veg needs to be picked, our coffee served, and our tables waited upon, and unemployment is at a record low. And the pensions of the coming army of retired folk need to be paid for by someone.
Jobs like we need to be more efficient.
Isn't importing people a long term ponies scheme?
Not if the bulge in people with generous pension entitlements will pass when they are all departed from this world.
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Wouldn't that also involve ECJ oversight and regulatory alignment?
That would be ideal, yes. I think the majority of the country would accept that. Remain + soft Leave.
Good enough.
I thought a majority on both sides wanted an end to freedom of movement?
There was no vote on the matter.
If we instilled Leavers' preferences in law, we'd be rebuilding the gallows in prisons across Britain.
There was no referendum on capital punishment, ending free movement was a key part of the Leave the EU campaign
So was £350m a week for the NHS, plus a whole bunch of other hokey claims.
Socially conservative xenophobes have simply homed in on the one claim they prefer, and think they can deliver.
The left which abolished the 10p starting rate of tax, for instance. That hurt those without much in favour of those with more.
Or the left which wanted to reward those inheriting a house at the expense of those without the promise of unearned wealth.
Or the left which imposed a higher rate of marginal tax (over 60%) on those earning just over £100K than those earning two or three times that.
This selective rant mode is a bit pointless, quite apart from debating whether Brown should be considered on the left at all. You're aware that the 10p rate was introduced by Labour? I agree that we also got rid of it in order to help reduce the standard rate, and that that was a mistake. But overall people on the lowest income benefited very substantially under Labour, both directly and through improved public services.
I pay the 60% rate myself on the top slice of income as I'm exactly in that position and sometime it would be good to sort it out - it's a bit silly but honestly worrying about people on over £100K/year needn't be the left's first priority.
But a wealth tax, as advocated by that noted lefty Charles, would be a good idea, and harder to evade than IHT and income tax. Publication of all tax returns, as in Norway, would also be a good step towards getting a sensible debate and reducing avoidance.
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Leave only won more than 50% because of the promise to end free movement. That has to be respected though much of the blame lies with Blair for failing to impose transition controls and work permits on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004
Such controls would have expired by now anyway.
Leave won a small majority of the vote (from a clear minority of the UK population). You cannot infer from that a majority in the UK for ending free movement. That is supposition and not what was on the ballot paper.
The polling on FOM is pretty heavily in favour of ending it I think. It has always been one of the maddest features of the EU when it requires the host country to provide a vast range of benefits from day 1 including the nonsense of sending them back to the families in the country of origin. Lunacy.
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Leave only won more than 50% because of the promise to end free movement. That has to be respected though much of the blame lies with Blair for failing to impose transition controls and work permits on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004
Such controls would have expired by now anyway.
Leave won a small majority of the vote (from a clear minority of the UK population). You cannot infer from that a majority in the UK for ending free movement. That is supposition and not what was on the ballot paper.
It’s unlikely that any party would ever win a majority of the UK population, unless you’re proposing that children be enfranchised. There is longstanding evidence from opinion polls that a majority of the population want immigration to be reduced a little or a lot. Sophistry about what was and wasn’t on the ballot paper won’t change that.
It's hardly sophistry. There is polling evidence for a whole bunch of things (until very recently a majority supported bringing back hanging!).
There was no vote on ending freedom of movement so one cannot and should not infer from the referendum that they command a majority for its repeal.
There will come a point when that trend is broken, but there's no particular reason to believe that we've reached that point now.
Except that it has peaked already.
I'm not aware of any actuary who believes that life expectancy is shortening based on current data. Some are reining back their predictions for future increases.
You can be assured that the actuaries will be the very last to recognise that fact.
You do realise that your link, though clumsily worded, confirms what I wrote?
If you click through to the link - which, incidentally, was based on a report from actuaries - you would have seen that the first two bullet points were:
"•Recent population data has highlighted that, since 2011, the rate at which mortality is improving has been slower than in previous years •However, mortality is expected to continue to improve and there is significant uncertainty as to whether this will be at a slower rate than experienced in the first decade of this century"
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Leave only won more than 50% because of the promise to end free movement. That has to be respected though much of the blame lies with Blair for failing to impose transition controls and work permits on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004
Such controls would have expired by now anyway.
Leave won a small majority of the vote (from a clear minority of the UK population). You cannot infer from that a majority in the UK for ending free movement. That is supposition and not what was on the ballot paper.
It’s unlikely that any party would ever win a majority of the UK population, unless you’re proposing that children be enfranchised. There is longstanding evidence from opinion polls that a majority of the population want immigration to be reduced a little or a lot. Sophistry about what was and wasn’t on the ballot paper won’t change that.
It's hardly sophistry. There is polling evidence for a whole bunch of things (until very recently a majority supported bringing back hanging!).
There was no vote on ending freedom of movement so one cannot and should not infer from the referendum that they command a majority for its repeal.
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
That would be the case if May was pursuing a neoliberal agenda but with the top rate of tax at 45%, still higher than for most of the New Labour years and an extra £8 billion being spent on the NHS over the next few years that is not really true
I am not sure that comparison with New Labour is particularly relevant for the simple reason that Blair embraced so much of the neoliberal agenda .
After Thatcher and Cameron, Blair was probably our third most neoliberal PM since WW2
That may be true. He was also the most electorally successful Labour leader. Since then Labour has lost three elections.
Of course times change and we may all be moving away from the consensus which has dominated the last few decades, not least because it is seen as not delivering for the majority eg on housing.
But it is still not clear what the new consensus is likely to be. Or whether people want what their parents had ie the old consensus but working for them. People who want to own their own homes don’t strike me as inherently radical.
They want to buy their own homes cheaply but inherit expensive homes
The best argument for pushing up IHT
So the rich just avoid it more, and middle-classes get hit harder?
Not sure that will be popular.
Sadly the problem with politics nowadays is that what is necessary isn't popular and what is popular isn't necessary.
The best one line summary of the political present. Perhaps it was ever thus.
Build more houses. Increasing the supply will help reduce prices.
Only very slowly, and at the margin. Despite politicians' unwillingness to address the issue, the key is making property unattractive as an investment, other than as your own home. To give some credit to odious Osbo, even he grasped that this was the essential problem.
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
ue
I am not sure that comparison with New Labour is particularly relevant for the simple reason that Blair embraced so much of the neoliberal agenda .
After Thatcher and Cameron, Blair was probably our third most neoliberal PM since WW2
That may be true. He was also the most electorally successful Labour leader. Since then Labour has lost three elections.
Of course times change and we may all be moving away from the consensus which has dominated the last few decades, not least because it is seen as not delivering for the majority eg on housing.
But it is still not clear what the new consensus is likely to be. Or whether people want what their parents had ie the old consensus but working for them. People who want to own their own homes don’t strike me as inherently radical.
They want to buy their own homes cheaply but inherit expensive homes
The best argument for pushing up IHT
No as most of them will still rely on parental help for a deposit anyway unless they work in the City or for Google
Fact remains that higher IHT would be part of any realistic plan to bring some sort of reasonableness back to the housing market. Alongside a wealth tax, restrictions on foreign property purchases, greater protection for tenants, greater penalties for leaving property unoccupied, and an end to QE.
... or reduce immigration.
Yet our fruit and veg needs to be picked, our coffee served, and our tables waited upon, and unemployment is at a record low. And the pensions of the coming army of retired folk need to be paid for by someone.
Jobs like we need to be more efficient.
Isn't importing people a long term ponies scheme?
Not if the bulge in people with generous pension entitlements will pass when they are all departed from this world.
So we end up with lots of less we'll off people, who may need support from social services rather than pensions.
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Leave only won more than 50% because of the promise to end free movement. That has to be respected though much of the blame lies with Blair for failing to impose transition controls and work permits on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004
Such controls would have expired by now anyway.
Leave won a small majority of the vote (from a clear minority of the UK population). You cannot infer from that a majority in the UK for ending free movement. That is supposition and not what was on the ballot paper.
It’s unlikely that any party would ever win a majority of the UK population, unless you’re proposing that children be enfranchised. There is longstanding evidence from opinion polls that a majority of the population want immigration to be reduced a little or a lot. Sophistry about what was and wasn’t on the ballot paper won’t change that.
It's hardly sophistry. There is polling evidence for a whole bunch of things (until very recently a majority supported bringing back hanging!).
There was no vote on ending freedom of movement so one cannot and should not infer from the referendum that they command a majority for its repeal.
It really is that simple.
I have no principle objections to capital punishment. It is not an unusual or remarkable view, albeit one without much representation in Parliament.
On one hand, we have the Brexit result and opinion polls over many years showing opposition to current levels of immigration. What can you point to that actually shows a majority want to retain freedom of movement and high levels of immigration?
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Leave only won more than 50% because of the promise to end free movement. That has to be respected though much of the blame lies with Blair for failing to impose transition controls and work permits on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004
Such controls would have expired by now anyway.
Leave won a small majority of the vote (from a clear minority of the UK population). You cannot infer from that a majority in the UK for ending free movement. That is supposition and not what was on the ballot paper.
So what they would still not have put the pressure on wages, housing and services we had for those 7 years and they would have ended at the same time as they ended in the rest of the EU.
The post referendum polling was quite clear, Leave voters voted to regain sovereignty and end free movement. Without the promise to end free movement it would likely have been 60 to 40% Remain given we were still outside the Euro, not 52% Leave.
Even on the poll you have cherry-picked (and in any case it's a poll not a referendum) only a THIRD of leave voters cited this as the main reason for their vote. That's a crushingly low figure when one considers that fully 48% voted Remain!
>>>>
Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.”
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Leave only won more than 50% because of the promise to end free movement. That has to be respected though much of the blame lies with Blair for failing to impose transition controls and work permits on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004
Such controls would have expired by now anyway.
Leave won a small majority of the vote (from a clear minority of the UK population). You cannot infer from that a majority in the UK for ending free movement. That is supposition and not what was on the ballot paper.
...
It's hardly sophistry. There is polling evidence for a whole bunch of things (until very recently a majority supported bringing back hanging!).
There was no vote on ending freedom of movement so one cannot and should not infer from the referendum that they command a majority for its repeal.
It really is that simple.
I have no principle objections to capital punishment. It is not an unusual or remarkable view, albeit one without much representation in Parliament.
On one hand, we have the Brexit result and opinion polls over many years showing opposition to current levels of immigration. What can you point to that actually shows a majority want to retain freedom of movement and high levels of immigration?
There is a whole bunch of things the public say they want or do not want which are not enshrined in law, nor subject to referendums. Hanging is just one such example – was a clear majority in the country for it until very recently.
Mr. B2, that's a human pyramid scheme (regarding the specific pensions point).
Also, the Baby Boomers are a big generation, but my own is smaller, and the Millenials are less and less healthy (so will perhaps have a lower life expectancy). Once the bulge in the graph represented by the Baby Boomers is worked through things may improve significantly.
Are you sure the millennials are less healthy? The figures for smoking, drug use and drinking all suggest exactly the opposite.
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Leave only won more than 50% because of the promise to end free movement. That has to be respected though much of the blame lies with Blair for failing to impose transition controls and work permits on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004
Such controls would have expired by now anyway.
Leave won a small majority of the vote (from a clear minority of the UK population). You cannot infer from that a majority in the UK for ending free movement. That is supposition and not what was on the ballot paper.
...
It's hardly sophistry. There is polling evidence for a whole bunch of things (until very recently a majority supported bringing back hanging!).
There was no vote on ending freedom of movement so one cannot and should not infer from the referendum that they command a majority for its repeal.
It really is that simple.
I have no principle objections to capital punishment. It is not an unusual or remarkable view, albeit one without much representation in Parliament.
On one hand, we have the Brexit result and opinion polls over many years showing opposition to current levels of immigration. What can you point to that actually shows a majority want to retain freedom of movement and high levels of immigration?
There is a whole bunch of things the public say they want or do not want which are not enshrined in law, nor subject to referendums. Hanging is just one such example – was a clear majority in the country for it until very recently.
So in other words, government should only take public opinion into account when it accords with your own views?
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
...
...
It's hardly sophistry. There is polling evidence for a whole bunch of things (until very recently a majority supported bringing back hanging!).
There was no vote on ending freedom of movement so one cannot and should not infer from the referendum that they command a majority for its repeal.
It really is that simple.
I have no principle objections to capital punishment. It is not an unusual or remarkable view, albeit one without much representation in Parliament.
On one hand, we have the Brexit result and opinion polls over many years showing opposition to current levels of immigration. What can you point to that actually shows a majority want to retain freedom of movement and high levels of immigration?
There is a whole bunch of things the public say they want or do not want which are not enshrined in law, nor subject to referendums. Hanging is just one such example – was a clear majority in the country for it until very recently.
So in other words, government should only take public opinion into account when it accords with your own views?
Got it.
No. But in matters of economic policymaking they should not seek to infer their own preferences from public votes on other matters.
The ballot paper asked whether we wanted to leave the EU. It did not mention FOM nor £350m a week for the NHS (a hokey claim which lasted all of 24 hours after the vote!).
I think the trouble is a fair amount of younger voters (which nowadays seems to refer to under 55s or under 45s) want a party which socially liberal but fiscally conservative. That’s a bit of a simplication, but I think there something in that. John Curtice has found that attitudes to neoliberalism do not differ among the generations; it is cultural values that do. But the above party doesn’t really exist anymore in the eyes of many voters - Brexit is associated in some way with social conservatism, and after seeing the priorities of Leave voters in that poll posted yesterday, it’s easy to see why. I think many voters may not be enamoured with Corbyn economics, especially middle class Remainers, but they see Labour as closer to their socially liberal values than the Tories are, so they’ve decided to prioritise that.
I think this is a very sound analysis frankly. There are inevitable goodies offered by the parties to buy votes (and the taking away of goodies losing votes), but, and it is just a feeling, I do feel that social liberal fiscal conservative (at least leaning more conservative) is a common position, particularly with this very sober and restrained youth we now have, and really the socially liberal part is getting prioritised right now.
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Wouldn't that also involve ECJ oversight and regulatory alignment?
That would be ideal, yes. I think the majority of the country would accept that. Remain + soft Leave.
Good enough.
I thought a majority on both sides wanted an end to freedom of movement?
There was no vote on the matter.
If we instilled Leavers' preferences in law, we'd be rebuilding the gallows in prisons across Britain.
There was no referendum on capital punishment, ending free movement was a key part of the Leave the EU campaign
So was £350m a week for the NHS, plus a whole bunch of other hokey claims.
Socially conservative xenophobes have simply homed in on the one claim they prefer, and think they can deliver.
No other reason.
As the poll I linked to showed the £350 m for the NHS was not even in the top 3 reasons for Leave voters voting Leave unlike ending free movement
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Leave only won more than 50% because of the promise to end free movement. That has to be respected though much of the blame lies with Blair for failing to impose transition controls and work permits on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004
Such controls would have expired by now anyway.
Leave won a small majority of the vote (from a clear minority of the UK population). You cannot infer from that a majority in the UK for ending free movement. That is supposition and not what was on the ballot paper.
So what they would still not have put the pressure on wages, housing and services we had for those 7 years and they would have ended at the same time as they ended in the rest of the EU.
The post referendum polling was quite clear, Leave voters voted to regain sovereignty and end free movement. Without the promise to end free movement it would likely have been 60 to 40% Remain given we were still outside the Euro, not 52% Leave.
Even on the poll you have cherry-picked (and in any case it's a poll not a referendum) only a THIRD of leave voters cited this as the main reason for their vote. That's a crushingly low figure when one considers that fully 48% voted Remain!
>>>>
Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.”
Most of course wanted both but those were the 2 main reasons
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Wouldn't that also involve ECJ oversight and regulatory alignment?
That would be ideal, yes. I think the majority of the country would accept that. Remain + soft Leave.
Good enough.
I thought a majority on both sides wanted an end to freedom of movement?
There was no vote on the matter.
If we instilled Leavers' preferences in law, we'd be rebuilding the gallows in prisons across Britain.
There was no referendum on capital punishment, ending free movement was a key part of the Leave the EU campaign
So was £350m a week for the NHS, plus a whole bunch of other hokey claims.
Socially conservative xenophobes have simply homed in on the one claim they prefer, and think they can deliver.
No other reason.
As the poll I linked to showed the £350 m for the NHS was not even in the top 3 reasons for Leave voters voting Leave unlike ending free movement
So what? The number for ending FOM is crushingly low – hardly a basis for jeopardising a good EEA/EFTA deal, hence my original point.
Mr. B2, that's a human pyramid scheme (regarding the specific pensions point).
Also, the Baby Boomers are a big generation, but my own is smaller, and the Millenials are less and less healthy (so will perhaps have a lower life expectancy). Once the bulge in the graph represented by the Baby Boomers is worked through things may improve significantly.
Are you sure the millennials are less healthy? The figures for smoking, drug use and drinking all suggest exactly the opposite.
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
...
...
It's hardly sophistry. There is polling evidence for a whole bunch of things (until very recently a majority supported bringing back hanging!).
There was no vote on ending freedom of movement so one cannot and should not infer from the referendum that they command a majority for its repeal.
It really is that simple.
I have no principle objections to capital punishment. It is not an unusual or remarkable view, albeit one without much representation in Parliament.
On one hand, we have the Brexit result and opinion polls over many years showing opposition to current levels of immigration. What can you point to that actually shows a majority want to retain freedom of movement and high levels of immigration?
There is a whole bunch of things the public say they want or do not want which are not enshrined in law, nor subject to referendums. Hanging is just one such example – was a clear majority in the country for it until very recently.
So in other words, government should only take public opinion into account when it accords with your own views?
Got it.
No. But in matters of economic policymaking they should not seek to infer their own preferences from public votes on other matters.
The ballot paper asked whether we wanted to leave the EU. It did not mention FOM nor £350m a week for the NHS (a hokey claim which lasted all of 24 hours after the vote!).
Freedom of movement is about much more than economics. That tone deafness played a significant role in the Remain campaign’s failure.
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
...
...
It's hardly sophistry. There is polling evidence for a whole bunch of things (until very recently a majority supported bringing back hanging!).
There was no vote on ending freedom of movement so one cannot and should not infer from the referendum that they command a majority for its repeal.
It really is that simple.
....
So in other words, government should only take public opinion into account when it accords with your own views?
Got it.
No. But in matters of economic policymaking they should not seek to infer their own preferences from public votes on other matters.
The ballot paper asked whether we wanted to leave the EU. It did not mention FOM nor £350m a week for the NHS (a hokey claim which lasted all of 24 hours after the vote!).
Freedom of movement is about much more than economics. That tone deafness played a significant role in the Remain campaign’s failure.
I think the trouble is a fair amount of younger voters (which nowadays seems to refer to under 55s or under 45s) want a party which socially liberal but fiscally conservative. That’s a bit of a simplication, but I think there something in that. John Curtice has found that attitudes to neoliberalism do not differ among the generations; it is cultural values that do. But the above party doesn’t really exist anymore in the eyes of many voters - Brexit is associated in some way with social conservatism, and after seeing the priorities of Leave voters in that poll posted yesterday, it’s easy to see why. I think many voters may not be enamoured with Corbyn economics, especially middle class Remainers, but they see Labour as closer to their socially liberal values than the Tories are, so they’ve decided to prioritise that.
I think this is a very sound analysis frankly. There are inevitable goodies offered by the parties to buy votes (and the taking away of goodies losing votes), but, and it is just a feeling, I do feel that social liberal fiscal conservative (at least leaning more conservative) is a common position, particularly with this very sober and restrained youth we now have, and really the socially liberal part is getting prioritised right now.
Certainly the big picture is that the Tories risk alienating themselves from a chunk of socially and economically liberal voters amongst the ABs who would previously have looked towards tolerant one-nation pro-business conservatism as their natural home. Those calling here over recent days for the moderates to be 'purged' from the party would appear eager to accelerate this trend.
I think the trouble is a fair amount of younger voters (which nowadays seems to refer to under 55s or under 45s) want a party which socially liberal but fiscally conservative. That’s a bit of a simplication, but I think there something in that. John Curtice has found that attitudes to neoliberalism do not differ among the generations; it is cultural values that do. But the above party doesn’t really exist anymore in the eyes of many voters - Brexit is associated in some way with social conservatism, and after seeing the priorities of Leave voters in that poll posted yesterday, it’s easy to see why. I think many voters may not be enamoured with Corbyn economics, especially middle class Remainers, but they see Labour as closer to their socially liberal values than the Tories are, so they’ve decided to prioritise that.
I think this is a very sound analysis frankly. There are inevitable goodies offered by the parties to buy votes (and the taking away of goodies losing votes), but, and it is just a feeling, I do feel that social liberal fiscal conservative (at least leaning more conservative) is a common position, particularly with this very sober and restrained youth we now have, and really the socially liberal part is getting prioritised right now.
There is no difference between the main parties on issues like gay marriage now and on issues like the NHS and tax little difference between under 30s and pensioners, on immigration there may be more of a difference but even then plenty of young people in the North and Midlands voted Leave for tighter immigration controls
The left which abolished the 10p starting rate of tax, for instance. That hurt those without much in favour of those with more.
Or the left which wanted to reward those inheriting a house at the expense of those without the promise of unearned wealth.
Or the left which imposed a higher rate of marginal tax (over 60%) on those earning just over £100K than those earning two or three times that.
This selective rant mode is a bit pointless, quite apart from debating whether Brown should be considered on the left at all. You're aware that the 10p rate was introduced by Labour? I agree that we also got rid of it in order to help reduce the standard rate, and that that was a mistake. But overall people on the lowest income benefited very substantially under Labour, both directly and through improved public services.
I pay the 60% rate myself on the top slice of income as I'm exactly in that position and sometime it would be good to sort it out - it's a bit silly but honestly worrying about people on over £100K/year needn't be the left's first priority.
But a wealth tax, as advocated by that noted lefty Charles, would be a good idea, and harder to evade than IHT and income tax. Publication of all tax returns, as in Norway, would also be a good step towards getting a sensible debate and reducing avoidance.
NOT a wealth tax. A property tax. Far easier to administer and harder to avoid
Mr. B2, that's a human pyramid scheme (regarding the specific pensions point).
Also, the Baby Boomers are a big generation, but my own is smaller, and the Millenials are less and less healthy (so will perhaps have a lower life expectancy). Once the bulge in the graph represented by the Baby Boomers is worked through things may improve significantly.
Are you sure the millennials are less healthy? The figures for smoking, drug use and drinking all suggest exactly the opposite.
Too early to say. It's us chubby middle-aged car-addicted office workers that are the unhealthy ones.
I think the trouble is a fair amount of younger voters (which nowadays seems to refer to under 55s or under 45s) want a party which socially liberal but fiscally conservative. That’s a bit of a simplication, but I think there something in that. John Curtice has found that attitudes to neoliberalism do not differ among the generations; it is cultural values that do. But the above party doesn’t really exist anymore in the eyes of many voters - Brexit is associated in some way with social conservatism, and after seeing the priorities of Leave voters in that poll posted yesterday, it’s easy to see why. I think many voters may not be enamoured with Corbyn economics, especially middle class Remainers, but they see Labour as closer to their socially liberal values than the Tories are, so they’ve decided to prioritise that.
I think this is a very sound analysis frankly. There are inevitable goodies offered by the parties to buy votes (and the taking away of goodies losing votes), but, and it is just a feeling, I do feel that social liberal fiscal conservative (at least leaning more conservative) is a common position, particularly with this very sober and restrained youth we now have, and really the socially liberal part is getting prioritised right now.
Certainly the big picture is that the Tories risk alienating themselves from a chunk of socially and economically liberal voters amongst the ABs who would previously have looked towards tolerant one-nation pro-business conservatism as their natural home. Those calling here over recent days for the moderates to be 'purged' from the party would appear eager to accelerate this trend.
The Tories still won ABs in June, they just won C2s as well. Labour won DEs as it always does
@matt_dathan: You win some, you lose some: Mark Garnier keeps his job as trade minister after Cabinet Office inquiry concludes he didn't break the ministerial code for asking his assistant to buy a sex toy
Clearly there is some wiggle room in the application of the Code.
He didn’t lie about it. Green would still be in his job if he hadn’t made untrue statements about what he had been told.
Morally, they both come across to me as sleazy pillocks.
Hard to understand why he did lie.Why did he just not comment , or say he could not confirm or deny the allegations , due to whatever .
Indeed,a strange definitiveness in his words on that point apparently, which has cost him. Hopefully not to the point of obscuring what else has done wrong.
On the general points of codes of conduct, they can hinge on pretty fine definitions sometimes, and of course ever since the Livingstone case the importance of acting in an official capacity or not is much clearer, and at lower levels I understand it to be quite common to note even investigate if there has been either a reasonable explanation of the issues or an apology has been offered, if the allegation is one of poor behaviour.
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Wouldn't that also involve ECJ oversight and regulatory alignment?
That would be ideal, yes. I think the majority of the country would accept that. Remain + soft Leave.
Good enough.
I thought a majority on both sides wanted an end to freedom of movement?
There was no vote on the matter.
If we instilled Leavers' preferences in law, we'd be rebuilding the gallows in prisons across Britain.
There was no referendum on capital punishment, ending free movement was a key part of the Leave the EU campaign
So was £350m a week for the NHS, plus a whole bunch of other hokey claims.
Socially conservative xenophobes have simply homed in on the one claim they prefer, and think they can deliver.
No other reason.
As the poll I linked to showed the £350 m for the NHS was not even in the top 3 reasons for Leave voters voting Leave unlike ending free movement
So what? The number for ending FOM is crushingly low – hardly a basis for jeopardising a good EEA/EFTA deal, hence my original point.
No it most certainly is not, it was the second most popular reason for those 17 million who voted Leave and many of not most of those who put sovereignty first also want to end free movement
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Wouldn't that also involve ECJ oversight and regulatory alignment?
That would be ideal, yes. I think the majority of the country would accept that. Remain + soft Leave.
Good enough.
I thought a majority on both sides wanted an end to freedom of movement?
There was no vote on the matter.
If we instilled Leavers' preferences in law, we'd be rebuilding the gallows in prisons across Britain.
There was no referendum on capital punishment, ending free movement was a key part of the Leave the EU campaign
So was £350m a week for the NHS, plus a whole bunch of other hokey claims.
Socially conservative xenophobes have simply homed in on the one claim they prefer, and think they can deliver.
No other reason.
As the poll I linked to showed the £350 m for the NHS was not even in the top 3 reasons for Leave voters voting Leave unlike ending free movement
So what? The number for ending FOM is crushingly low – hardly a basis for jeopardising a good EEA/EFTA deal, hence my original point.
–––
Supposition! You cannot pick and choose what you think people voted for. All you can say is that a small majority wanted to leave the EU. Remember that 16 million voted to remain in the EU under the current system – which includes FOM.
It is this inability to compromise over free movement that is obstructing a decent deal. Perhaps one day you will get it. But as you are more concerned about losing voters to Ukip than the health of the country I doubt it!!
Also, on topic. London is going to be a disaster for the Tories. 8 years in charge and home ownership is dropping to a post war low in the city. Until the government finds a way to change that London may as well be written off.
The Tories lost London even in 2015 when they won an overall majority, that does not mean individual London boroughs cannot be saved
The tide has shifted since then, three more years of private landlords leeching off the working man/woman, fewer home owners and the governing party implementing a locally unpopular policy (Brexit).
Until the Conservative party is seen to be on the side of people earning between £26-45k and ensuring people who have that level of income can afford to buy or eventually buy their own flat/house then London is not going to vote for us. I've only been saying it for 10 years.
I don't disagree but of course social change and the shift of the white working and lower middle class to Kent and Essex and the increasing ethnic makeup of London also favour Labour in the capital.
Yet in terms of the borough elections next year the Tories are only defending 9 out of the 32 boroughs up for election so there is every chance they can defend most if not all of those especially with national polling still almost neck and neck.
Buy yourself a monthly all-zones Oyster pass; you're going to be busy...
Saw this on my timeline, I think it’s a really interesting bit of analysis. I was never a big fan of individualism, but Jones here is pretty damning in his critique of it. Thought it may start off an interesting discussion here:
That would be the case if May was pursuing a neoliberal agenda but with the top rate of tax at 45%, still higher than for most of the New Labour years and an extra £8 billion being spent on the NHS over the next few years that is not really true
I am not sure that comparison with New Labour is particularly relevant for the simple reason that Blair embraced so much of the neoliberal agenda .
After Thatcher and Cameron, Blair was probably our third most neoliberal PM since WW2
That may be true. He was also the most electorally successful Labour leader. Since then Labour has lost three elections.
Of course times change and we may all be moving away from the consensus which has dominated the last few decades, not least because it is seen as not delivering for the majority eg on housing.
But it is still not clear what the new consensus is likely to be. Or whether people want what their parents had ie the old consensus but working for them. People who want to own their own homes don’t strike me as inherently radical.
They want to buy their own homes cheaply but inherit expensive homes
The best argument for pushing up IHT
So the rich just avoid it more, and middle-classes get hit harder?
Not sure that will be popular.
Sadly the problem with politics nowadays is that what is necessary isn't popular and what is popular isn't necessary.
The best one line summary of the political present. Perhaps it was ever thus.
It's because life is more complicated than our ideologies and tribalism are able to account for, but those are the only things capable of regularly motivating enough people to get anything done at all.
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Wouldn't that also involve ECJ oversight and regulatory alignment?
That would be ideal, yes. I think the majority of the country would accept that. Remain + soft Leave.
Good enough.
I thought a majority on both sides wanted an end to freedom of movement?
There was no vote on the matter.
If we instilled Leavers' preferences in law, we'd be rebuilding the gallows in prisons across Britain.
There was no referendum on capital punishment, ending free movement was a key part of the Leave the EU campaign
So was £350m a week for the NHS, plus a whole bunch of other hokey claims.
Socially conservative xenophobes ason.
As the poll I linked to showed the £350 m for the NHS was not even in the top 3 reasons for Leave voters voting Leave unlike ending free movement
So what? The number for ending FOM is crushingly low – hardly a basis for jeopardising a good EEA/EFTA deal, hence my original point.
No it most certainly is not, it was the second most e movement
Supposition!!
An astonishing 82% of Leave voters and even 58% of Remain voters wanted to end free movement and see EU migrants subject to the same immigration controls as non EU migrants according to this NRSC poll
I don't suppose there's a chance that the polls are wrong and that people have been shifting one way or the other in Catalonia, and are just too embarrassed to admit it to a pollster?
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Wouldn't that also involve ECJ oversight and regulatory alignment?
That would be ideal, yes. I think the majority of the country would accept that. Remain + soft Leave.
Good enough.
I thought a majority on both sides wanted an end to freedom of movement?
There was no vote on the matter.
If we instilled Leavers' preferences in law, we'd be rebuilding the gallows in prisons across Britain.
There was no referendum on capital punishment, ending free movement was a key part of the Leave the EU campaign
So was £350m a week for the NHS, plus a whole bunch of other hokey claims.
Socially conservative xenophobes ason.
...
...
...
Supposition!!
An astonishing 82% of Leave voters and even 58% of Remain voters wanted to end free movement and see EU migrants subject to the same immigration controls as non EU migrants according to this NRSC poll
I think the trouble is a fair amount of younger voters (which nowadays seems to refer to under 55s or under 45s) want a party which socially liberal but fiscally conservative. That’s a bit of a simplication, but I think there something in that. John Curtice has found that attitudes to neoliberalism do not differ among the generations; it is cultural values that do. But the above party doesn’t really exist anymore in the eyes of many voters - Brexit is associated in some way with social conservatism, and after seeing the priorities of Leave voters in that poll posted yesterday, it’s easy to see why. I think many voters may not be enamoured with Corbyn economics, especially middle class Remainers, but they see Labour as closer to their socially liberal values than the Tories are, so they’ve decided to prioritise that.
I think this is a very sound analysis frankly. There are inevitable goodies offered by the parties to buy votes (and the taking away of goodies losing votes), but, and it is just a feeling, I do feel that social liberal fiscal conservative (at least leaning more conservative) is a common position, particularly with this very sober and restrained youth we now have, and really the socially liberal part is getting prioritised right now.
There is no difference between the main parties on issues like gay marriage now and on issues like the NHS and tax little difference between under 30s and pensioners, on immigration there may be more of a difference but even then plenty of young people in the North and Midlands voted Leave for tighter immigration controls
There is however a big perception of difference between the main parties, or else why are social liberals turning so much more toward labour?
I've always said that we need to be all the way out or all the way in. A Berlin-London axis would probably be better for Europe than a Berlin-Paris flavour. Perhaps after my generation have popped our clogs...
Longer term we would be better off in a reformed EFTA with Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and just leave the EU to the Eurozone
We could do that now, be as Norway, had Brexit not been hijacked by socially conservative xenophobes whose primary reason for leaving the EU is to block freedom of movement. It is that obsession that is preventing a simple, reasonable, economically benign EFTA deal being done.
Wouldn't that also involve ECJ oversight and regulatory alignment?
That would be ideal, yes. I think the majority of the country would accept that. Remain + soft Leave.
Good enough.
I thought a majority on both sides wanted an end to freedom of movement?
There was no vote on the matter.
If we instilled Leavers' preferences in law, we'd be rebuilding the gallows in prisons across Britain.
There was no referendum on capital punishment, ending free movement was a key part of the Leave the EU campaign
So was £350m a week for the NHS, plus a whole bunch of other hokey claims.
Socially conservative xenophobes ason.
...
...
...
Supposition!!
An astonishing 82% of Leave voters and even 58% of Remain voters wanted to end free movement and see EU migrants subject to the same immigration controls as non EU migrants according to this NRSC poll
I think the trouble is a fair amount of younger voters (which nowadays seems to refer to under 55s or under 45s) want a party which socially liberal but fiscally conservative. That’s a bit of a simplication, but I think there something in that. John Curtice has found that attitudes to neoliberalism do not differ among the generations; it is cultural values that do. But the above party doesn’t really exist anymore in the eyes of many voters - Brexit is associated in some way with social conservatism, and after seeing the priorities of Leave voters in that poll posted yesterday, it’s easy to see why. I think many voters may not be enamoured with Corbyn economics, especially middle class Remainers, but they see Labour as closer to their socially liberal values than the Tories are, so they’ve decided to prioritise that.
I think this is a very sound analysis frankly. There are inevitable goodies offered by the parties to buy votes (and the taking away of goodies losing votes), but, and it is just a feeling, I do feel that social liberal fiscal conservative (at least leaning more conservative) is a common position, particularly with this very sober and restrained youth we now have, and really the socially liberal part is getting prioritised right now.
Certainly the big picture is that the Tories risk alienating themselves from a chunk of socially and economically liberal voters amongst the ABs who would previously have looked towards tolerant one-nation pro-business conservatism as their natural home. Those calling here over recent days for the moderates to be 'purged' from the party would appear eager to accelerate this trend.
The Tories still won ABs in June, they just won C2s as well. Labour won DEs as it always does
Certainly the big picture is that the Tories risk alienating themselves from a chunk of socially and economically liberal voters amongst the ABs who would previously have looked towards tolerant one-nation pro-business conservatism as their natural home. Those calling here over recent days for the moderates to be 'purged' from the party would appear eager to accelerate this trend.
Wouldn't that also involve ECJ oversight and regulatory alignment?
---
I thought a majority on both sides wanted an end to freedom of movement?
---
---
So was £350m a week for the NHS, plus a whole bunch of other hokey claims.
Socially conservative xenophobes ason.
...
...
...
Supposition!!
---
An astonishing 70% of the UK public most likely also want to pay vastly less income tax, yet there are no such plans to reduce income tax to 15%.
Since when has that been in any party manifesto? Ending free movement was a key plank of the winning Leave canpaign
So was £350m a week for the NHS. Yet that promise has been conveniently forgotten because it does not suit the agenda of right-wingers who have hijacked Brexit. A compromise should be sought but the Brexiteers are making it impossible. Anyway, I have to go. Thanks for the debate!!
Wouldn't that also involve ECJ oversight and regulatory alignment?
---
I thought a majority on both sides wanted an end to freedom of movement?
---
---
So was £350m a week for the NHS, plus a whole bunch of other hokey claims.
Socially conservative xenophobes ason.
...
...
...
Supposition!!
---
An astonishing 70% of the UK public most likely also want to pay vastly less income tax, yet there are no such plans to reduce income tax to 15%.
Since when has that been in any party manifesto? Ending free movement was a key plank of the winning Leave canpaign
So was £350m a week for the NHS. Yet that promise has been conveniently forgotten because it does not suit the agenda of right-wingers who have hijacked Brexit. A compromise should be sought but the Brexiteers are making it impossible. Anyway, I have to go. Thanks for the debate!!
there's less than half an hour (now 13 mins) to go in this dramatic election, which could shape the future of both Catalonia and Spain as a whole.
We should have some exit poll data then, however it will be hours before the official result emerges.
Close the polls rather early don't they? Though I suppose it hardly matters if turnout is as high as reported - if people really want to vote, they'll find the time I suppose.
@tnewtondunn: Breaking: Boris Johnson has accused the police of bringing down Damian Green in revenge: "It has the slight feeling of a vendetta".
They forced him to lie so they did.
They should not have kept personal copies of police material for years on the off chance they might one day have the opportunity to call him out on a lie he had not at the time made. He made misleading statements and has been sacked, that's fine, but their sins are worse.
there's less than half an hour (now 13 mins) to go in this dramatic election, which could shape the future of both Catalonia and Spain as a whole.
We should have some exit poll data then, however it will be hours before the official result emerges.
Close the polls rather early don't they? Though I suppose it hardly matters if turnout is as high as reported - if people really want to vote, they'll find the time I suppose.
Just about the only thing they do early in Spain. I guess the polling workers are entitled to their dinner as well.
- Together for Catalonia (JxC), headed by sacked president Carles Puigdemont - Social democrat Republican Left of Catalonia (ERC), one of Catalonia's oldest parties - Far-left, anti-EU Popular Unity Candidacy (CUP)
For the unionists, there are:
- The governing conservative Popular Party (PP) - The liberal Citizens (C's) - The Socialists (PSC)
In the middle is the In Common We Can alliance, which focuses on social issues.
I think the trouble is a fair amount of younger voters (which nowadays seems to refer to under 55s or under 45s) want a party which socially liberal but fiscally conservative. That’s a bit of a simplication, but I think there something in that. John Curtice has found that attitudes to neoliberalism do not differ among the generations; it is cultural values that do. But the above party doesn’t really exist anymore in the eyes of many voters - Brexit is associated in some way with social conservatism, and after seeing the priorities of Leave voters in that poll posted yesterday, it’s easy to see why. I think many voters may not be enamoured with Corbyn economics, especially middle class Remainers, but they see Labour as closer to their socially liberal values than the Tories are, so they’ve decided to prioritise that.
I think this is a very sound analysis frankly. There are inevitable goodies offered by the parties to buy votes (and the taking away of goodies losing votes), but, and it is just a feeling, I do feel that social liberal fiscal conservative (at least leaning more conservative) is a common position, particularly with this very sober and restrained youth we now have, and really the socially liberal part is getting prioritised right now.
There is no difference between the main parties on issues like gay marriage now and on issues like the NHS and tax little difference between under 30s and pensioners, on immigration there may be more of a difference but even then plenty of young people in the North and Midlands voted Leave for tighter immigration controls
There is however a big perception of difference between the main parties, or else why are social liberals turning so much more toward labour?
As Curtice also showed social liberals have always been more Labour (and indeed LD) than Conservative and social conservatives more Conservative, just the difference was a bit more pronounced in 2017 than 2015.
I think the trouble is a fair amount of younger voters (which nowadays seems to refer to under 55s or under 45s) want a party which socially liberal but fiscally conservative. That’s a bit of a simplication, but I think there something in that. John Curtice has found that attitudes to neoliberalism do not differ among the generations; it is cultural values that do. But the above party doesn’t really exist anymore in the eyes of many voters - Brexit is associated in some way with social conservatism, and after seeing the priorities of Leave voters in that poll posted yesterday, it’s easy to see why. I think many voters may not be enamoured with Corbyn economics, especially middle class Remainers, but they see Labour as closer to their socially liberal values than the Tories are, so they’ve decided to prioritise that.
I think this is a very sound analysis frankly. There are inevitable goodies offered by the parties to buy votes (and the taking away of goodies losing votes), but, and it is just a feeling, I do feel that social liberal fiscal conservative (at least leaning more conservative) is a common position, particularly with this very sober and restrained youth we now have, and really the socially liberal part is getting prioritised right now.
Certainly the big picture is that the Tories risk alienating themselves from a chunk of socially and economically liberal voters amongst the ABs who would previously have looked towards tolerant one-nation pro-business conservatism as their natural home. Those calling here over recent days for the moderates to be 'purged' from the party would appear eager to accelerate this trend.
The Tories still won ABs in June, they just won C2s as well. Labour won DEs as it always does
Certainly the big picture is that the Tories risk alienating themselves from a chunk of socially and economically liberal voters amongst the ABs who would previously have looked towards tolerant one-nation pro-business conservatism as their natural home. Those calling here over recent days for the moderates to be 'purged' from the party would appear eager to accelerate this trend.
Yet the Tories still won ABs by a bigger margin than any other class group at the general election
John Snow just said on Ch 4 News "Theresa May has chosen not to sack another of her close colleagues for sending his assistant to buy sex toys believing an apology was sufficient...."
Dysfunctional doesn't begin to describe what this Tory government sounds like...
Wouldn't that also involve ECJ oversight and regulatory alignment?
---
I thought a majority on both sides wanted an end to freedom of movement?
---
---
So was £350m a week for the NHS, plus a whole bunch of other hokey claims.
Socially conservative xenophobes ason.
...
...
...
Supposition!!
---
An astonishing 70% of the UK public most likely also want to pay vastly less income tax, yet there are no such plans to reduce income tax to 15%.
Since when has that been in any party manifesto? Ending free movement was a key plank of the winning Leave canpaign
So was £350m a week for the NHS. Yet that promise has been conveniently forgotten because it does not suit the agenda of right-wingers who have hijacked Brexit. A compromise should be sought but the Brexiteers are making it impossible. Anyway, I have to go. Thanks for the debate!!
Boris still wants to deliver the £350m a week for the NHS and once we are fully out it may even be possible to do that but sovereignty and ending free movement were still the key reasons for the Leave vote
John Snow just said on Ch 4 News "Theresa May has chosen not to sack another of her close colleagues for sending his assistant to buy sex toys believing an apology was sufficient...."
Dysfunctional doesn't begin to describe what this Tory government sounds like...
An apology probably was sufficient I'd have thought. It was stupid and improper, but if he's apologised, learned his lesson, is it sack worthy when no lies are involved?
Since when has that been in any party manifesto? Ending free movement was a key plank of the winning Leave canpaign
So was £350m a week for the NHS. Yet that promise has been conveniently forgotten because it does not suit the agenda of right-wingers who have hijacked Brexit. A compromise should be sought but the Brexiteers are making it impossible. Anyway, I have to go. Thanks for the debate!!
£350mn, completely forgotten?
Yes indeed, completely forgotten by the leading Tories who made the promise.
Looks like the 'Special Relationship' has died a death with that vote given the UK voted against the USA and Israel (and did not even abstain). Canada, Australia and Poland who at least abstained may go up the 'Special Relationship' list, at least while Trump is President
Mr. B2, that's a human pyramid scheme (regarding the specific pensions point).
Also, the Baby Boomers are a big generation, but my own is smaller, and the Millenials are less and less healthy (so will perhaps have a lower life expectancy). Once the bulge in the graph represented by the Baby Boomers is worked through things may improve significantly.
What evidence do you have that the Millennial generation is "less and less healthy"?
They drink and smoke a lot less than Gen X or the Boom, and vegetarianism is much more popular among them.
The idea that they will have a lower life expectancy than the Boomers seems farfetched.
We are fast approaching an era where most antibiotics won't work and poverty in old age will rocket due to collapsing pension and social care provision. I don't think it at all far fetched to imagine that most people of my age and younger (I'm 41) will die earlier than our parents.
All exit and phone polls released this evening in Catalonia echo the previous polling - indy-bloc just under or just over majority. However, both PSC and Cs are predicted to make decent gains (Cs could be spectacular), which may indicate the separatist vote share has fallen. All will be clear before midnight, but it looks like continued stalemate instead of a decisive, gamechanging shift. That is pretty much what I expected.
"There is little connection between racism and calls for greater immigration control, according to a think tank.
Despite claims that last year’s EU referendum was driven by xenophobic attitudes towards immigration, British people are actually ‘nuanced and sophisticated’ on the subject, Open Europe’s study found."
Mr. B2, that's a human pyramid scheme (regarding the specific pensions point).
Also, the Baby Boomers are a big generation, but my own is smaller, and the Millenials are less and less healthy (so will perhaps have a lower life expectancy). Once the bulge in the graph represented by the Baby Boomers is worked through things may improve significantly.
What evidence do you have that the Millennial generation is "less and less healthy"?
They drink and smoke a lot less than Gen X or the Boom, and vegetarianism is much more popular among them.
The idea that they will have a lower life expectancy than the Boomers seems farfetched.
We are fast approaching an era where most antibiotics won't work and poverty in old age will rocket due to collapsing pension and social care provision. I don't think it at all far fetched to imagine that most people of my age and younger (I'm 41) will die earlier than our parents.
Though if we die earlier we would not need to work for so long to pay for our pensions and social care
Mr. B2, that's a human pyramid scheme (regarding the specific pensions point).
Also, the Baby Boomers are a big generation, but my own is smaller, and the Millenials are less and less healthy (so will perhaps have a lower life expectancy). Once the bulge in the graph represented by the Baby Boomers is worked through things may improve significantly.
What evidence do you have that the Millennial generation is "less and less healthy"?
They drink and smoke a lot less than Gen X or the Boom, and vegetarianism is much more popular among them.
The idea that they will have a lower life expectancy than the Boomers seems farfetched.
We are fast approaching an era where most antibiotics won't work and poverty in old age will rocket due to collapsing pension and social care provision. I don't think it at all far fetched to imagine that most people of my age and younger (I'm 41) will die earlier than our parents.
John Snow just said on Ch 4 News "Theresa May has chosen not to sack another of her close colleagues for sending his assistant to buy sex toys believing an apology was sufficient...."
Dysfunctional doesn't begin to describe what this Tory government sounds like...
An apology probably was sufficient I'd have thought. It was stupid and improper, but if he's apologised, learned his lesson, is it sack worthy when no lies are involved?
I just wonder whether people who don't take too much notice of day to day politics might get the impression governing the country is the last thing on their minds
John Snow just said on Ch 4 News "Theresa May has chosen not to sack another of her close colleagues for sending his assistant to buy sex toys believing an apology was sufficient...."
Dysfunctional doesn't begin to describe what this Tory government sounds like...
An apology probably was sufficient I'd have thought. It was stupid and improper, but if he's apologised, learned his lesson, is it sack worthy when no lies are involved?
I just wonder whether people who don't take too much notice of day to day politics might get the impression governing the country is the last thing on their minds
There's plenty of stuff out there to make us question how well everyone are doing their jobs, but a guy who stupidly asked an assistant to buy a sex toy I don't think demonstrates much of anything - I doubt it took much time.
Mr. B2, that's a human pyramid scheme (regarding the specific pensions point).
Also, the Baby Boomers are a big generation, but my own is smaller, and the Millenials are less and less healthy (so will perhaps have a lower life expectancy). Once the bulge in the graph represented by the Baby Boomers is worked through things may improve significantly.
What evidence do you have that the Millennial generation is "less and less healthy"?
They drink and smoke a lot less than Gen X or the Boom, and vegetarianism is much more popular among them.
The idea that they will have a lower life expectancy than the Boomers seems farfetched.
We are fast approaching an era where most antibiotics won't work and poverty in old age will rocket due to collapsing pension and social care provision. I don't think it at all far fetched to imagine that most people of my age and younger (I'm 41) will die earlier than our parents.
Mr. B2, that's a human pyramid scheme (regarding the specific pensions point).
Also, the Baby Boomers are a big generation, but my own is smaller, and the Millenials are less and less healthy (so will perhaps have a lower life expectancy). Once the bulge in the graph represented by the Baby Boomers is worked through things may improve significantly.
What evidence do you have that the Millennial generation is "less and less healthy"?
They drink and smoke a lot less than Gen X or the Boom, and vegetarianism is much more popular among them.
The idea that they will have a lower life expectancy than the Boomers seems farfetched.
We are fast approaching an era where most antibiotics won't work and poverty in old age will rocket due to collapsing pension and social care provision. I don't think it at all far fetched to imagine that most people of my age and younger (I'm 41) will die earlier than our parents.
Like. I think that we’ve a major problem with antibiotics. As the guy who taught me Biology for A level in 1957 expected, and provided evidence which I for one believed. However no-one took any notice of us; general opinion was that we’d find replacement antibiotics in good time.
Looks like the 'Special Relationship' has died a death with that vote given the UK voted against the USA and Israel (and did not even abstain). Canada, Australia and Poland who at least abstained may go up the 'Special Relationship' list, at least while Trump is President
Worse than that, Mr HYUFD. Apart from Israel itself, it looks as though the only friends that Trump has are Guatemala, Honduras, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Togo. I think I could find two of these on the map.
So the USA is a giant again - but only among pygmies.
I think our vote was pathetic. It is not for foreign states to tell others what their capital should be, and even less so to tell other powers whether they can recognise that fact.
Of course, there are nearly 4 million reasons why the British government acted as it did.
Looks like the 'Special Relationship' has died a death with that vote given the UK voted against the USA and Israel (and did not even abstain). Canada, Australia and Poland who at least abstained may go up the 'Special Relationship' list, at least while Trump is President
Worse than that, Mr HYUFD. Apart from Israel itself, it looks as though the only friends that Trump has are Guatemala, Honduras, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Togo. I think I could find two of these on the map.
So the USA is a giant again - but only among pygmies.
Yes but nations who at least abstained did not vote against the USA and Israel over Jerusalem even if they did not endorse Jerusalem as the Israeli capital either
Comments
If we instilled Leavers' preferences in law, we'd be rebuilding the gallows in prisons across Britain.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/01/16/2BE024A100000578-3218502-image-a-23_1441119959004.jpg
There will come a point when that trend is broken, but there's no particular reason to believe that we've reached that point now.
http://www.millennialmarketing.com/2009/12/millennials-are-they-healthier-than-earlier-generations/
And a more up to date one, less obese, but still unhealthy...
http://www.medicaldaily.com/eating-habits-millennial-generation-alcoholic-drinks-obese-people-388874
A larger percentage of Millennials said they smoked (23 percent) compared to Generation X (22 percent) and Baby Boomer (20 percent) generations. Not only that, but Millennials were also bigger drinkers than older generations.
https://www.ft.com/content/78146114-15f5-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c
Plus 1% annual tax on house purchase price (inflation adjusted)
The post referendum polling was quite clear, Leave voters voted to regain sovereignty and end free movement. Without the promise to end free movement it would likely have been 60 to 40% Remain given we were still outside the Euro, not 52% Leave.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
https://www.ft.com/content/78146114-15f5-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c
Sounds like we need to be more efficient.
Isn't importing people a long term ponzi scheme?
Here is a report from the ONS (UK). The picture is rather different!
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/drugusealcoholandsmoking/bulletins/opinionsandlifestylesurveyadultdrinkinghabitsingreatbritain/2014
Socially conservative xenophobes have simply homed in on the one claim they prefer, and think they can deliver.
No other reason.
I pay the 60% rate myself on the top slice of income as I'm exactly in that position and sometime it would be good to sort it out - it's a bit silly but honestly worrying about people on over £100K/year needn't be the left's first priority.
But a wealth tax, as advocated by that noted lefty Charles, would be a good idea, and harder to evade than IHT and income tax. Publication of all tax returns, as in Norway, would also be a good step towards getting a sensible debate and reducing avoidance.
There was no vote on ending freedom of movement so one cannot and should not infer from the referendum that they command a majority for its repeal.
It really is that simple.
If you click through to the link - which, incidentally, was based on a report from actuaries - you would have seen that the first two bullet points were:
"•Recent population data has highlighted that, since 2011, the rate at which mortality is improving has been slower than in previous years
•However, mortality is expected to continue to improve and there is significant uncertainty as to whether this will be at a slower rate than experienced in the first decade of this century"
On one hand, we have the Brexit result and opinion polls over many years showing opposition to current levels of immigration. What can you point to that actually shows a majority want to retain freedom of movement and high levels of immigration?
>>>>
Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.”
Hows life in the big smoke treated you
Got it.
Indeed. The OP was groundless!
On the general points of codes of conduct, they can hinge on pretty fine definitions sometimes, and of course ever since the Livingstone case the importance of acting in an official capacity or not is much clearer, and at lower levels I understand it to be quite common to note even investigate if there has been either a reasonable explanation of the issues or an apology has been offered, if the allegation is one of poor behaviour.
It is this inability to compromise over free movement that is obstructing a decent deal. Perhaps one day you will get it. But as you are more concerned about losing voters to Ukip than the health of the country I doubt it!!
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/uk/1200955/voters-want-end-free-movement-also-continued-free-trade-brexit-deal/
We can still get a perfectly good free trade deal with the EU and replace free movement with a work permits system
We should have some exit poll data then, however it will be hours before the official result emerges.
There are three separatist parties or alliances:
- Together for Catalonia (JxC), headed by sacked president Carles Puigdemont
- Social democrat Republican Left of Catalonia (ERC), one of Catalonia's oldest parties
- Far-left, anti-EU Popular Unity Candidacy (CUP)
For the unionists, there are:
- The governing conservative Popular Party (PP)
- The liberal Citizens (C's)
- The Socialists (PSC)
In the middle is the In Common We Can alliance, which focuses on social issues.
Dysfunctional doesn't begin to describe what this Tory government sounds like...
https://twitter.com/catalannews/status/943921158075895808
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-42445868
Despite claims that last year’s EU referendum was driven by xenophobic attitudes towards immigration, British people are actually ‘nuanced and sophisticated’ on the subject, Open Europe’s study found."
http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/21/people-didnt-vote-brexit-racist-study-finds-7176198/
So the USA is a giant again - but only among pygmies.
Nou Fil
Of course, there are nearly 4 million reasons why the British government acted as it did.