Taking a leaf out of OGH's book, I look at the popularity of Brexit similarly to net leader favourability ratings. If we view the poll similarly to asking us if we had a favourable / unfavourable view of Brexit, then the poll would be at -56 for favourability with Labour voters (ignoring don't knows). Now:
Favourability = f1(Like of Policy) + f2(Like of party doing policy) + f3(Like of how policy being done)
I suspect that LibDebs are strongly negative on f1,.
No one much is changing their mind. Dying voters are disproportionately Leave, new voters are disproportionately Remain. By and large everyone else is holding to their point of view for now. There are straws in the wind that suggest that some Leavers are having qualms (there was a poll a while back that showed that Brexit pessimists far outweighed Brexit optimists) but few have so far have had Damascene conversions.
You're probably right that the referendum and its aftermath have solidified views and stopped the trend for people to become more anti as they get older. The gradual shift toward Remain in the polls most likely reflects actuarial wastage of the leave vote.
The actuarial trends may be more complex. In 1975, young people were the most EEC-sceptic, voting Yes by about 60/40% instead of 80/20% for older age groups.
So apparently the age group ~61-80 needs to die off. The few left in the 80-100 age group may be more pro-EU than my generation. Does anyone know?
There is also the possibility of people changing their minds! The swings in polls over the EU have swung about a lot, with peak euroscepticism early eighties and peak europhilia late eighties.
One question is whether the historic pattern of people becoming more Conservative with age continues, and it may be different for Generation Rent and Generation Student Debt. I also think that it may well be not be as true for social and cultural issues as for economic ones.
Polls for and against EU membership have swung around wildly over the years.
But, at a basic level, British Social Attitudes have shown an inexorable rise in Euroscepticism over the course of the last 25 years.
In the UK generally or Greater England specifically?
I'm always confused by the arguments that we'll get the same or better deals outside the EU than inside. That trade deals will just "roll over". I live under the assumption that we have the somewhat good trade deals we have because the terms are negotiated in bulk, so we can benefit from other economies strengths and put our own strengths to bolster our EU partners. So our deal with NZ may be based on stuff they want from Italy or Poland, so we get the benefit of their desire for their goods, rather than the fact that they don't need much from us and are in competition with us on goods like lamb. So when I increasingly see people say WTO won't be that bad, or "so and so country" will "roll-over" the deal I don't see why.
Why would Canada treat the UK the same as the EU when our economy is different and they may not get the same benefits of that deal than before? Why would the US? Indeed, the US don't like the terms and want to force the UK to worse terms than when we were in the EU; if our supposed "special relationship" means a worse deal and challenges at the WTO what can we expect from others?
The UK has a bigger economy than Canada or New Zealand and we are a bigger market for them than they are for us so we hold some leeway there. That is not the case with the US though which is a bigger economy than the UK and where they are a bigger market for us than we are for them
But does size matter? I'm a veggie, so the guy wanting my money who offers huge steaks will still lose to the salad man. If smaller economies don't want or need what we offer then might they not have the upper hand? Again, I don't really pretend to understand trade, but from a lay view I can at least understand why collective bargaining would mean a "better deal" and why leaving that would leave others not inclined to just give us the same as what we had before. And that's before politics gets involved; like ex-colonies wanting to prove further independence from us...
Except they do need what we offer and largely tariff free access to the UK as percentage wise Australia, New Zealand and Canada export more to the UK than the UK does to them. With the US it is the reverse admittedly.
Australia, New Zealand and Canada are also culturally closer to the UK than to Asia as we are culturally closer to them than continental Europe
Hammond is the obvious choice for May's replacement. I'm surprised he is mentioned so rarely.
I think you're going to have to share your working there.
Points in favour of Hammond include: 1) earlier this week pb'ers were asked to applaud the excellent state of the economy under Hammond 2) reality will converge on Hammond's Brexit cautions, making him seem a peerless sage 3) after Brexit, MPs will be looking for a quiet life and safe pair of hands 4) you can get 66/1 from Betfred
He's also incredibly dull, has as bad a tin ear for politics as Theresa May and is an unreconciled Remainer within a party for whom support for Brexit remains a sine qua non.
66/1 is about right.
See point 3. Incredible dullness may seem a virtue after the fireworks of Brexit over the last few years. Hammond could be 2019's John Major.
It's unlikely the Conservatives would want someone even less charismatic than Theresa May.
Yes it is unlikely but how unlikely? That's the key. It is about deciding if Hammond has a five per cent chance (20/1 against) or less than two per cent (66/1 from Betfred). Or looked at from another angle, is Hammond in Number 10 more or less likely than Tissue Price's man in the White House?
If any other politician had made been found to make a similar statement about another minority group they would be finished, immediately.
I had decided that since the Tories were becoming fascism-lite I had no choice but Corbyn, but the recent revelations (or highlighting of past behaviour) has removed that choice too.
There is now no point in voting.
Given the huge ideological differences from the Greens to Corbyn Labour to the LDs to the Tories to UKIP talk of lack of choice is really old hat
Says the Tory party's PB spokesman ...
The Greens are too far left for me, Corbyn's Labour is not something I want to be associated with nor is your bunch any better with their quotient of rabid nationalists. UKIP I regard as little more than disorganised Nazis. Most of the smaller right-wing parties I regard as one step from being the KKK
The Lib Dems....
I want a return to the days when the Tories were the sensible economic safe hands and Labour offered half sensible social reforms.
So basically Cameron v Blair and a cigarette paper between them
Hammond is the obvious choice for May's replacement. I'm surprised he is mentioned so rarely.
I think you're going to have to share your working there.
Points in favour of Hammond include: 1) earlier this week pb'ers were asked to applaud the excellent state of the economy under Hammond 2) reality will converge on Hammond's Brexit cautions, making him seem a peerless sage 3) after Brexit, MPs will be looking for a quiet life and safe pair of hands 4) you can get 66/1 from Betfred
He's also incredibly dull, has as bad a tin ear for politics as Theresa May and is an unreconciled Remainer within a party for whom support for Brexit remains a sine qua non.
66/1 is about right.
See point 3. Incredible dullness may seem a virtue after the fireworks of Brexit over the last few years. Hammond could be 2019's John Major.
Major also had a human touch and a sense of humour. I've not seen either with Hammond.
In Theresa's notoriously disastrous conference speech* a year ago, I think that Hammonds kind act and gentle humour came out when he passed her a cough sweet. The act was more remarkeable for it coming from someone she had been briefing against.
* What can she do to top it this year?
If it had been Boris, he'd have passed her a revolver. I don't mind Hammond, despite his general Eeyoreness, but he's not PM material. I think they have to look beyond the usual suspects.
If any other politician had made been found to make a similar statement about another minority group they would be finished, immediately.
I had decided that since the Tories were becoming fascism-lite I had no choice but Corbyn, but the recent revelations (or highlighting of past behaviour) has removed that choice too.
There is now no point in voting.
Given the huge ideological differences from the Greens to Corbyn Labour to the LDs to the Tories to UKIP talk of lack of choice is really old hat
Says the Tory party's PB spokesman ...
The Greens are too far left for me, Corbyn's Labour is not something I want to be associated with nor is your bunch any better with their quotient of rabid nationalists. UKIP I regard as little more than disorganised Nazis. Most of the smaller right-wing parties I regard as one step from being the KKK
The Lib Dems....
I want a return to the days when the Tories were the sensible economic safe hands and Labour offered half sensible social reforms.
So basically Cameron v Blair and a cigarette paper between them
Betting on when Jacob Rees-Mogg grows a pair? If he really does control or influence 60 or 100 ERG members, then 48 letters to the 1922 should be within his well-tailored reach.
I hope he's been paying attention to what's just gone down in Canberra.....
Do not be absurd. Australia? Far away from England and full of colonists.....
A Conservative Party riven with infighting and right-wingers plotting to bring down the PM, who then shafts their candidate and has his preferred candidate installed.
Nothing to learn there.
Perhaps if they weren't called 'Liberals' some might make the connection....
Turnbull's preferred candidate was Bishop, Morrison was the compromise between Turnbull/Bishop and Abbott/Dutton
Taking a leaf out of OGH's book, I look at the popularity of Brexit similarly to net leader favourability ratings. If we view the poll similarly to asking us if we had a favourable / unfavourable view of Brexit, then the poll would be at -56 for favourability with Labour voters (ignoring don't knows). Now:
Favourability = f1(Like of Policy) + f2(Like of party doing policy) + f3(Like of how policy being done)
I suspect that LibDebs are strongly negative on f1,.
No one much is changing their mind. Dying voters are disproportionately Leave, new voters are disproportionately Remain. By and large everyone else is holding to their point of view for now. There are straws in the wind that suggest that some Leavers are having qualms (there was a poll a while back that showed that Brexit pessimists far outweighed Brexit optimists) but few have so far have had Damascene conversions.
You're probably right that the referendum and its aftermath have solidified views and stopped the trend for people to become more anti as they get older. The gradual shift toward Remain in the polls most likely reflects actuarial wastage of the leave vote.
The actuarial trends may be more complex. In 1975, young people were the most EEC-sceptic, voting Yes by about 60/40% instead of 80/20% for older age groups.
So apparently the age group ~61-80 needs to die off. The few left in the 80-100 age group may be more pro-EU than my generation. Does anyone know?
There is also the possibility of people changing their minds! The swings in polls over the EU have swung about a lot, with peak euroscepticism early eighties and peak europhilia late eighties.
One question is whether the historic pattern of people becoming more Conservative with age continues, and it may be different for Generation Rent and Generation Student Debt. I also think that it may well be not be as true for social and cultural issues as for economic ones.
Polls for and against EU membership have swung around wildly over the years.
But, at a basic level, British Social Attitudes have shown an inexorable rise in Euroscepticism over the course of the last 25 years.
In the UK generally or Greater England specifically?
Wales voted Leave too as did a majority of Northern Irish Protestants
I'd included Wales; the clue's in the 'Greater'. Northern Irish Protestants haven't formed their enclave of Prodmania yet, much as they & you would like them to.
If any other politician had made been found to make a similar statement about another minority group they would be finished, immediately.
I had decided that since the Tories were becoming fascism-lite I had no choice but Corbyn, but the recent revelations (or highlighting of past behaviour) has removed that choice too.
There is now no point in voting.
Given the huge ideological differences from the Greens to Corbyn Labour to the LDs to the Tories to UKIP talk of lack of choice is really old hat
Says the Tory party's PB spokesman ...
The Greens are too far left for me, Corbyn's Labour is not something I want to be associated with nor is your bunch any better with their quotient of rabid nationalists. UKIP I regard as little more than disorganised Nazis. Most of the smaller right-wing parties I regard as one step from being the KKK
The Lib Dems....
I want a return to the days when the Tories were the sensible economic safe hands and Labour offered half sensible social reforms.
So basically Cameron v Blair and a cigarette paper between them
You prefer what we have now?
Well on an argument of choice at least voters cannot say "they are all the same'
Why would Canada treat the UK the same as the EU when our economy is different and they may not get the same benefits of that deal than before? Why would the US? Indeed, the US don't like the terms and want to force the UK to worse terms than when we were in the EU; if our supposed "special relationship" means a worse deal and challenges at the WTO what can we expect from others?
PB mistake #1 - Reason has no place in Brexit.
As long as we have blue passports and can thumb our nose at Johnny Foreigner then everything will be as it should be even if there is an economic disaster. At least any hardship will be self inflicted and that makes it OK because it is not just self-harm, it is British self-harm, the finest kind in the world....
Arguing against a caricature of your opponents most extreme argument will get nobody anywhere
Its what some Remain supporters have been doing for over 2 years....and they wonder why so few, if any, are changing their minds....
Those who are incandescent over the referendum result have been given a glimpse into the world of the poorest in society in a way no social experiment could have achieved. The pressure that a lack of control brings was given an outlet for the latter by the referendum. "Wow this a small taste of how people less fortunate than me have felt for decades" rather than "I want my old life back, racist thicko's" might be a better way to look at things perhaps.
Try to be empathetic, see the best in people rather than assume base motives. Think about the Room 101 chapter in 1984. Winston loves Julia, she is the one chink of light in his life, but when trapped with his worst fears, he behaves as he thought he never could. No one wants to betray a loved one, but can we all say we wouldn't crack in a nightmarish situation? If their lives were free from the rats in the cage - extreme money worries, job stability, access to hospital places, reliance on the state and so on, people may not have been attracted to a campaign considered so distasteful
Very good posts today, Mr Russell.
Since the decisive groups were the old, who have never been as affluent as they are today, and a minority of affluent Eurosceptic obsessives (much overrepresented on here), it’s arrant nonsense.
The poor are being used as a figleaf for the reactionary actions of those groups.
Taking a leaf out of OGH's book, I look at the popularity of Brexit similarly to net leader favourability ratings. If we view the poll similarly to asking us if we had a favourable / unfavourable view of Brexit, then the poll would be at -56 for favourability with Labour voters (ignoring don't knows). Now:
Favourability = f1(Like of Policy) + f2(Like of party doing policy) + f3(Like of how policy being done)
I suspect that LibDebs are strongly negative on f1,.
No one much is changing their mind. Dying voters are disproportionately Leave, new voters are disproportionately Remain. By and large everyone else is holding to their point of view for now. There are straws in the wind that suggest that some Leavers are having qualms (there was a poll a while back that showed that Brexit pessimists far outweighed Brexit optimists) but few have so far have had Damascene conversions.
You're probably right that the referendum and its aftermath have solidified views and stopped the trend for people to become more anti as they get older. The gradual shift toward Remain in the polls most likely reflects actuarial wastage of the leave vote.
The actuarial trends may be more complex. In 1975, young people were the most EEC-sceptic, voting Yes by about 60/40% instead of 80/20% for older age groups.
So apparently the age group ~61-80 needs to die off. The few left in the 80-100 age group may be more pro-EU than my generation. Does anyone know?
SNIP
Polls for and against EU membership have swung around wildly over the years.
But, at a basic level, British Social Attitudes have shown an inexorable rise in Euroscepticism over the course of the last 25 years.
In the UK generally or Greater England specifically?
Wales voted Leave too as did a majority of Northern Irish Protestants
I'd included Wales; the clue's in the 'Greater'. Northern Irish Protestants haven't formed their enclave of Prodmania yet, much as they & you would like them to.
I recall one poster – it may even have been HYUFD himself – was proposing an ethnic homeland for protestants in the extreme north-east of the island of Ireland the other day –the six counties becoming the two/three counties.
I'm always confused by the arguments that we'll get the same or better deals outside the EU than inside. That trade deals will just "roll over". I live under the assumption that we have the somewhat good trade deals we have because the terms are negotiated in bulk, so we can benefit from other economies strengths and put our own strengths to bolster our EU partners. So our deal with NZ may be based on stuff they want from Italy or Poland, so we get the benefit of their desire for their goods, rather than the fact that they don't need much from us and are in competition with us on goods like lamb. So when I increasingly see people say WTO won't be that bad, or "so and so country" will "roll-over" the deal I don't see why.
Why would Canada treat the UK the same as the EU when our economy is different and they may not get the same benefits of that deal than before? Why would the US? Indeed, the US don't like the terms and want to force the UK to worse terms than when we were in the EU; if our supposed "special relationship" means a worse deal and challenges at the WTO what can we expect from others?
The UK has a bigger economy than Canada or New Zealand and we are a bigger market for them than they are for us so we hold some leeway there. That is not the case with the US though which is a bigger economy than the UK and where they are a bigger market for us than we are for them
But does size matter? I'm a veggie, so the guy wanting my money who offers huge steaks will still lose to the salad man. If smaller economies don't want or need what we offer then might they not have the upper hand? Again, I don't really pretend to understand trade, but from a lay view I can at least understand why collective bargaining would mean a "better deal" and why leaving that would leave others not inclined to just give us the same as what we had before. And that's before politics gets involved; like ex-colonies wanting to prove further independence from us...
Except they do need what we offer and largely tariff free access to the UK as percentage wise Australia, New Zealand and Canada export more to the UK than the UK does to them. With the US it is the reverse admittedly.
Australia, New Zealand and Canada are also culturally closer to the UK than to Asia as we are culturally closer to them than continental Europe
Canzaus exports are roughly the same as our exports to Belgium. Just under 10% of our exports go to all the Commonwealth countries combined. That's not too shabby - Belgium is replaced by France.
However, our national priority is some kind of deal with the continentals.
It's always quite clear Anazina/Jobabob was the last Boy scout, but never spotted that hidden in plain sight letter transposition !
"P.S. I assume you refer to Plato's teaching that only a small proportion of human beings are engaged by reasoned discourse, but that the multitude are attracted by the telling of stories. " from Abnoabzaijnoab yesterday was what got me thinking.
That was obviously written by somebody pretending not to know who Plato the poster was.
The old alternate letter name trick...
Just so, Enwx. (can't be arsed doing Theuniondivvie)
I always assumed HYUFD worked along those lines, but I have not been able to crack the cypher.
If any other politician had made been found to make a similar statement about another minority group they would be finished, immediately.
I had decided that since the Tories were becoming fascism-lite I had no choice but Corbyn, but the recent revelations (or highlighting of past behaviour) has removed that choice too.
There is now no point in voting.
Given the huge ideological differences from the Greens to Corbyn Labour to the LDs to the Tories to UKIP talk of lack of choice is really old hat
Says the Tory party's PB spokesman ...
The Greens are too far left for me, Corbyn's Labour is not something I want to be associated with nor is your bunch any better with their quotient of rabid nationalists. UKIP I regard as little more than disorganised Nazis. Most of the smaller right-wing parties I regard as one step from being the KKK
The Lib Dems....
I want a return to the days when the Tories were the sensible economic safe hands and Labour offered half sensible social reforms.
So basically Cameron v Blair and a cigarette paper between them
More fundamentally, I'd say that in the Blair/Brown years, a lot of problems were stored up for the future. which subsequently resulted in the rise of populism on both right and left.
The huge rise in house prices was between 1996 and 2007 (outside London and parts of the South East, they've hardly moved since then). This, in turn, stoked high levels of borrowing, and a growing trade deficit. Household incomes for the poorest half of the working population began declining in 2003, and continued declining until 2013. Levels of home ownership began to fall in 2003, and kept falling until 2014.
In essence, we've been coping with the hangover after the binge, for the past decade.
If any other politician had made been found to make a similar statement about another minority group they would be finished, immediately.
I had decided that since the Tories were becoming fascism-lite I had no choice but Corbyn, but the recent revelations (or highlighting of past behaviour) has removed that choice too.
There is now no point in voting.
Given the huge ideological differences from the Greens to Corbyn Labour to the LDs to the Tories to UKIP talk of lack of choice is really old hat
Says the Tory party's PB spokesman ...
The Greens are too far left for me, Corbyn's Labour is not something I want to be associated with nor is your bunch any better with their quotient of rabid nationalists. UKIP I regard as little more than disorganised Nazis. Most of the smaller right-wing parties I regard as one step from being the KKK
The Lib Dems....
I want a return to the days when the Tories were the sensible economic safe hands and Labour offered half sensible social reforms.
So basically Cameron v Blair and a cigarette paper between them
More fundamentally, I'd say that in the Blair/Brown years, a lot of problems were stored up for the future. which subsequently resulted in the rise of populism on both right and left.
The huge rise in house prices was between 1996 and 2007 (outside London and parts of the South East, they've hardly moved since then). This, in turn, stoked high levels of borrowing, and a growing trade deficit. Household incomes for the poorest half of the working population began declining in 2003, and continued declining until 2013. Levels of home ownership began to fall in 2003, and kept falling until 2014.
In essence, we've been coping with the hangover after the binge, for the past decade.
Why would Canada treat the UK the same as the EU when our economy is different and they may not get the same benefits of that deal than before? Why would the US? Indeed, the US don't like the terms and want to force the UK to worse terms than when we were in the EU; if our supposed "special relationship" means a worse deal and challenges at the WTO what can we expect from others?
PB mistake #1 - Reason has no place in Brexit.
As long as we have blue passports and can thumb our nose at Johnny Foreigner then everything will be as it should be even if there is an economic disaster. At least any hardship will be self inflicted and that makes it OK because it is not just self-harm, it is British self-harm, the finest kind in the world....
Arguing against a caricature of your opponents most extreme argument will get nobody anywhere
Its what some Remain supporters have been doing for over 2 years....and they wonder why so few, if any, are changing their minds....
Those who are incandescent over the referendum result have been given a glimpse into the world of the poorest in society in a way no social experiment could have achieved. The pressure that a lack of control brings was given an outlet for the latter by the referendum. "Wow this a small taste of how people less fortunate than me have felt for decades" rather than "I want my old life back, racist thicko's" might be a better way to look at things perhaps.
Try to be empathetic, see the best in people rather than assume base motives. Think about the Room 101 chapter in 1984. Winston loves Julia, she is the one chink of light in his life, but when trapped with his worst fears, he behaves as he thought he never could. No one wants to betray a loved one, but can we all say we wouldn't crack in a nightmarish situation? If their lives were free from the rats in the cage - extreme money worries, job stability, access to hospital places, reliance on the state and so on, people may not have been attracted to a campaign considered so distasteful
Very good posts today, Mr Russell.
Since the decisive groups were the old, who have never been as affluent as they are today, and a minority of affluent Eurosceptic obsessives (much overrepresented on here), it’s arrant nonsense.
The poor are being used as a figleaf for the reactionary actions of those groups.
I'll stick with Ashcroft. It was the DE and C2s who had the highest proportion of Leavers (64/36). That's more than the geriatric split (60/40).
Taking a leaf out of OGH's book, I look at the popularity of Brexit similarly to net leader favourability ratings. If we view the poll similarly to asking us if we had a favourable / unfavourable view of Brexit, then the poll would be at -56 for favourability with Labour voters (ignoring don't knows). Now:
Favourability = f1(Like of Policy) + f2(Like of party doing policy) + f3(Like of how policy being done)
I suspect that LibDebs are strongly negative on f1,.
No one much is changing their mind. Dying voters are disproportionately Leave, new voters are disproportionately Remain. By and large everyone else is holding to their point of view for now. There are straws in the wind that suggest that some Leavers are having qualms (there was a poll a while back that showed that Brexit pessimists far outweighed Brexit optimists) but few have so far have had Damascene conversions.
You're probably right that the referendum and its aftermath have solidified views and stopped the trend for people to become more anti as they get older. The gradual shift toward Remain in the polls most likely reflects actuarial wastage of the leave vote.
The actuarial trends may be more complex. In 1975, young people were the most EEC-sceptic, voting Yes by about 60/40% instead of 80/20% for older age groups.
So apparently the age group ~61-80 needs to die off. The few left in the 80-100 age group may be more pro-EU than my generation. Does anyone know?
SNIP
Polls for and against EU membership have swung around wildly over the years.
But, at a basic level, British Social Attitudes have shown an inexorable rise in Euroscepticism over the course of the last 25 years.
In the UK generally or Greater England specifically?
Wales voted Leave too as did a majority of Northern Irish Protestants
I'd included Wales; the clue's in the 'Greater'. Northern Irish Protestants haven't formed their enclave of Prodmania yet, much as they & you would like them to.
I recall one poster – it may even have been HYUFD himself – was proposing an ethnic homeland for protestants in the extreme north-east of the island of Ireland the other day –the six counties becoming the two/three counties.
Less a colony, more a reservation. Hmm, that would go down well.
The Scottish Government published advice on the handling of harassment complaints against former ministers less than two hours after allegations against Alex Salmond were made public.....
.....The Scottish Government guidance, which was agreed in December 2017 and uploaded onto the internal civil service intranet at that time, was published at 11.40pm on Thursday.
Why would Canada treat the UK the same as the EU when our economy is different and they may not get the same benefits of that deal than before? Why would the US? Indeed, the US don't like the terms and want to force the UK to worse terms than when we were in the EU; if our supposed "special relationship" means a worse deal and challenges at the WTO what can we expect from others?
PB mistake #1 - Reason has no place in Brexit.
As long as we have blue passports and can thumb our nose at Johnny Foreigner then everything will be as it should be even if there is an economic disaster. At least any hardship will be self inflicted and that makes it OK because it is not just self-harm, it is British self-harm, the finest kind in the world....
Arguing against a caricature of your opponents most extreme argument will get nobody anywhere
Its what some Remain supporters have been doing for over 2 years....and they wonder why so few, if any, are changing their minds....
Those who are incandescent over the referendum result have been given a glimpse into the world of the poorest in society in a way no social experiment could have achieved. The pressure that a lack of control brings was given an outlet for the latter by the referendum. "Wow this a small taste of how people less fortunate than me have felt for decades" rather than "I want my old life back, racist thicko's" might be a better way to look at things perhaps.
Try to be empathetic, see the best in people rather than assume base motives. Think about the Room 101 chapter in 1984. Winston loves Julia, she is the one chink of light in his life, but when trapped with his worst fears, he behaves as he thought he never could. No one wants to betray a loved one, but can we all say we wouldn't crack in a nightmarish situation? If their lives were free from the rats in the cage - extreme money worries, job stability, access to hospital places, reliance on the state and so on, people may not have been attracted to a campaign considered so distasteful
Very good posts today, Mr Russell.
Since the decisive groups were the old, who have never been as affluent as they are today, and a minority of affluent Eurosceptic obsessives (much overrepresented on here), it’s arrant nonsense.
The poor are being used as a figleaf for the reactionary actions of those groups.
I'll stick with Ashcroft. It was the DE and C2s who had the highest proportion of Leavers (64/36). That's more than the geriatric split (60/40).
If any other politician had made been found to make a similar statement about another minority group they would be finished, immediately.
I had decided that since the Tories were becoming fascism-lite I had no choice but Corbyn, but the recent revelations (or highlighting of past behaviour) has removed that choice too.
There is now no point in voting.
Given the huge ideological differences from the Greens to Corbyn Labour to the LDs to the Tories to UKIP talk of lack of choice is really old hat
Says the Tory party's PB spokesman ...
The Greens are too far left for me, Corbyn's Labour is not something I want to be associated with nor is your bunch any better with their quotient of rabid nationalists. UKIP I regard as little more than disorganised Nazis. Most of the smaller right-wing parties I regard as one step from being the KKK
The Lib Dems....
I want a return to the days when the Tories were the sensible economic safe hands and Labour offered half sensible social reforms.
So basically Cameron v Blair and a cigarette paper between them
You prefer what we have now?
Cameron/Blair works when you're in the middle of a property/borrowing bubble. When the bubble bursts you get something else.
If any other politician had made been found to make a similar statement about another minority group they would be finished, immediately.
I had decided that since the Tories were becoming fascism-lite I had no choice but Corbyn, but the recent revelations (or highlighting of past behaviour) has removed that choice too.
There is now no point in voting.
Given the huge ideological differences from the Greens to Corbyn Labour to the LDs to the Tories to UKIP talk of lack of choice is really old hat
Says the Tory party's PB spokesman ...
The Greens are too far left for me, Corbyn's Labour is not something I want to be associated with nor is your bunch any better with their quotient of rabid nationalists. UKIP I regard as little more than disorganised Nazis. Most of the smaller right-wing parties I regard as one step from being the KKK
The Lib Dems....
I want a return to the days when the Tories were the sensible economic safe hands and Labour offered half sensible social reforms.
So basically Cameron v Blair and a cigarette paper between them
You prefer what we have now?
Well on an argument of choice at least voters cannot say "they are all the same'
Would you like to:
a) cut off your own foot; or b) stab yourself in the eye with a pair of scissors?
Why would Canada treat the UK the same as the EU when our economy is different and they may not get the same benefits of that deal than before? Why would the US? Indeed, the US don't like the terms and want to force the UK to worse terms than when we were in the EU; if our supposed "special relationship" means a worse deal and challenges at the WTO what can we expect from others?
PB mistake #1 - Reason has no place in Brexit.
As long as we have blue passports and can thumb our nose at Johnny Foreigner then everything will be as it should be even if there is an economic disaster. At least any hardship will be self inflicted and that makes it OK because it is not just self-harm, it is British self-harm, the finest kind in the world....
Arguing against a caricature of your opponents most extreme argument will get nobody anywhere
Its what some Remain supporters have been doing for over 2 years....and they wonder why so few, if any, are changing their minds....
Those who are incandescent over the referendum result have been given a glimpse into the world of the poorest in society in a way no social experiment could have achieved. The pressure that a lack of control brings was given an outlet for the latter by the referendum. "Wow this a small taste of how people less fortunate than me have felt for decades" rather than "I want my old life back, racist thicko's" might be a better way to look at things perhaps.
Try to be empathetic, see the best in people rather than assume base motives. Think about the Room 101 chapter in 1984. Winston loves Julia, she is the one chink of light in his life, but when trapped with his worst fears, he behaves as he thought he never could. No one wants to betray a loved one, but can we all say we wouldn't crack in a nightmarish situation? If their lives were free from the rats in the cage - extreme money worries, job stability, access to hospital places, reliance on the state and so on, people may not have been attracted to a campaign considered so distasteful
Very good posts today, Mr Russell.
Since the decisive groups were the old, who have never been as affluent as they are today, and a minority of affluent Eurosceptic obsessives (much overrepresented on here), it’s arrant nonsense.
The poor are being used as a figleaf for the reactionary actions of those groups.
Which sectors of society have been more affluent than they are today?
If any other politician had made been found to make a similar statement about another minority group they would be finished, immediately.
I had decided that since the Tories were becoming fascism-lite I had no choice but Corbyn, but the recent revelations (or highlighting of past behaviour) has removed that choice too.
There is now no point in voting.
Given the huge ideological differences from the Greens to Corbyn Labour to the LDs to the Tories to UKIP talk of lack of choice is really old hat
Says the Tory party's PB spokesman ...
The Greens are too far left for me, Corbyn's Labour is not something I want to be associated with nor is your bunch any better with their quotient of rabid nationalists. UKIP I regard as little more than disorganised Nazis. Most of the smaller right-wing parties I regard as one step from being the KKK
The Lib Dems....
I want a return to the days when the Tories were the sensible economic safe hands and Labour offered half sensible social reforms.
So basically Cameron v Blair and a cigarette paper between them
You prefer what we have now?
Cameron/Blair works when you're in the middle of a property/borrowing bubble. When the bubble bursts you get something else.
Blair won Brexit-esque numbers while in the middle of a property and borrowing trough. It was when the boom times returned that his appeal vanished.
If any other politician had made been found to make a similar statement about another minority group they would be finished, immediately.
I had decided that since the Tories were becoming fascism-lite I had no choice but Corbyn, but the recent revelations (or highlighting of past behaviour) has removed that choice too.
There is now no point in voting.
Given the huge ideological differences from the Greens to Corbyn Labour to the LDs to the Tories to UKIP talk of lack of choice is really old hat
Says the Tory party's PB spokesman ...
The Greens are too far left for me, Corbyn's Labour is not something I want to be associated with nor is your bunch any better with their quotient of rabid nationalists. UKIP I regard as little more than disorganised Nazis. Most of the smaller right-wing parties I regard as one step from being the KKK
The Lib Dems....
I want a return to the days when the Tories were the sensible economic safe hands and Labour offered half sensible social reforms.
So basically Cameron v Blair and a cigarette paper between them
You prefer what we have now?
Well on an argument of choice at least voters cannot say "they are all the same'
Would you like to:
a) cut off your own foot; or b) stab yourself in the eye with a pair of scissors?
I take comfort that our prospective PM is only selectively racist.
Betting on when Jacob Rees-Mogg grows a pair? If he really does control or influence 60 or 100 ERG members, then 48 letters to the 1922 should be within his well-tailored reach.
I hope he's been paying attention to what's just gone down in Canberra.....
Do not be absurd. Australia? Far away from England and full of colonists.....
A Conservative Party riven with infighting and right-wingers plotting to bring down the PM, who then shafts their candidate and has his preferred candidate installed.
Nothing to learn there.
Perhaps if they weren't called 'Liberals' some might make the connection....
Turnbull's preferred candidate was Bishop, Morrison was the compromise between Turnbull/Bishop and Abbott/Dutton
The polling said she was the best alternative. Why do you think she fell at the first fence?
Since the decisive groups were the old, who have never been as affluent as they are today, and a minority of affluent Eurosceptic obsessives (much overrepresented on here), it’s arrant nonsense.
The poor are being used as a figleaf for the reactionary actions of those groups.
I'll stick with Ashcroft. It was the DE and C2s who had the highest proportion of Leavers (64/36). That's more than the geriatric split (60/40).
C2DEs voted in similar numbers for Blair after a campaign in which the Conservatives said a vote for Blair was a vote for a federal Europe.
The lesson is that Eurosceptics taking that demographic as a Brexit bloc vote will be in for a rude awakening one of these days.
Hammond is the obvious choice for May's replacement. I'm surprised he is mentioned so rarely.
I think you're going to have to share your working there.
Points in favour of Hammond include: 1) earlier this week pb'ers were asked to applaud the excellent state of the economy under Hammond 2) reality will converge on Hammond's Brexit cautions, making him seem a peerless sage 3) after Brexit, MPs will be looking for a quiet life and safe pair of hands 4) you can get 66/1 from Betfred
He's also incredibly dull, has as bad a tin ear for politics as Theresa May and is an unreconciled Remainer within a party for whom support for Brexit remains a sine qua non.
66/1 is about right.
See point 3. Incredible dullness may seem a virtue after the fireworks of Brexit over the last few years. Hammond could be 2019's John Major.
Major also had a human touch and a sense of humour. I've not seen either with Hammond.
In Theresa's notoriously disastrous conference speech* a year ago, I think that Hammonds kind act and gentle humour came out when he passed her a cough sweet. The act was more remarkeable for it coming from someone she had been briefing against.
* What can she do to top it this year?
If it had been Boris, he'd have passed her a revolver. I don't mind Hammond, despite his general Eeyoreness, but he's not PM material. I think they have to look beyond the usual suspects.
They can't look beyond the usual suspects; that's the trouble. If Theresa May goes before the next election, the new leader will immediately become Prime Minister so cannot be parachuted in from the backbenches. And no-one wants or expects Theresa May to lead the Conservatives in the next election after the 2017 debacle.
So the new leader will be an experienced minister, probably holding one of the great offices of state: Javid, Hunt or Hammond. You can make out a case for another cabinet minister or perhaps even a recently departed one who polls well but not a new face.
Since the decisive groups were the old, who have never been as affluent as they are today, and a minority of affluent Eurosceptic obsessives (much overrepresented on here), it’s arrant nonsense.
The poor are being used as a figleaf for the reactionary actions of those groups.
I'll stick with Ashcroft. It was the DE and C2s who had the highest proportion of Leavers (64/36). That's more than the geriatric split (60/40).
C2DEs voted in similar numbers for Blair after a campaign in which the Conservatives said a vote for Blair was a vote for a federal Europe.
The lesson is that Eurosceptics taking that demographic as a Brexit bloc vote will be in for a rude awakening one of these days.
The rude awakening was two years and two months ago.
Hammond is the obvious choice for May's replacement. I'm surprised he is mentioned so rarely.
I think you're going to have to share your working there.
Points in favour of Hammond include: 1) earlier this week pb'ers were asked to applaud the excellent state of the economy under Hammond 2) reality will converge on Hammond's Brexit cautions, making him seem a peerless sage 3) after Brexit, MPs will be looking for a quiet life and safe pair of hands 4) you can get 66/1 from Betfred
He's also incredibly dull, has as bad a tin ear for politics as Theresa May and is an unreconciled Remainer within a party for whom support for Brexit remains a sine qua non.
66/1 is about right.
See point 3. Incredible dullness may seem a virtue after the fireworks of Brexit over the last few years. Hammond could be 2019's John Major.
Major also had a human touch and a sense of humour. I've not seen either with Hammond.
In Theresa's notoriously disastrous conference speech* a year ago, I think that Hammonds kind act and gentle humour came out when he passed her a cough sweet. The act was more remarkeable for it coming from someone she had been briefing against.
* What can she do to top it this year?
If it had been Boris, he'd have passed her a revolver. I don't mind Hammond, despite his general Eeyoreness, but he's not PM material. I think they have to look beyond the usual suspects.
They can't look beyond the usual suspects; that's the trouble. If Theresa May goes before the next election, the new leader will immediately become Prime Minister so cannot be parachuted in from the backbenches. And no-one wants or expects Theresa May to lead the Conservatives in the next election after the 2017 debacle.
So the new leader will be an experienced minister, probably holding one of the great offices of state: Javid, Hunt or Hammond. You can make out a case for another cabinet minister or perhaps even a recently departed one who polls well but not a new face.
Why would Canada treat the UK the same as the EU when our economy is different and they may not get the same benefits of that deal than before? Why would the US? Indeed, the US don't like the terms and want to force the UK to worse terms than when we were in the EU; if our supposed "special relationship" means a worse deal and challenges at the WTO what can we expect from others?
PB mistake #1 - Reason has no place in Brexit.
As long as we have blue passports and can thumb our nose at Johnny Foreigner then everything will be as it should be even if there is an economic disaster. At least any hardship will be self inflicted and that makes it OK because it is not just self-harm, it is British self-harm, the finest kind in the world....
Arguing against a caricature of your opponents most extreme argument will get nobody anywhere
Its what some Remain supporters have been doing for over 2 years....and they wonder why so few, if any, are changing their minds....
Those who are incandescent over the referendum result have been given a glimpse into the world of the poorest in society in a way no social experiment could have achieved. The pressure that a lack of control brings was given an outlet for the latter by the referendum. "Wow this a small taste of how people less fortunate than me have felt for decades" rather than "I want my old life back, racist thicko's" might be a better way to look at things perhaps.
Try to be empathetic, see the best in people rather than assume base motives. Think about the Room 101 chapter in 1984. Winston loves Julia, she is the one chink of light in his life, but when trapped with his worst fears, he behaves as he thought he never could. No one wants to betray a loved one, but can we all say we wouldn't crack in a nightmarish situation? If their lives were free from the rats in the cage - extreme money worries, job stability, access to hospital places, reliance on the state and so on, people may not have been attracted to a campaign considered so distasteful
Very good posts today, Mr Russell.
Since the decisive groups were the old, who have never been as affluent as they are today, and a minority of affluent Eurosceptic obsessives (much overrepresented on here), it’s arrant nonsense.
The poor are being used as a figleaf for the reactionary actions of those groups.
Which sectors of society have been more affluent than they are today?
So not a nightmarish situation after all? No further questions.
Since the decisive groups were the old, who have never been as affluent as they are today, and a minority of affluent Eurosceptic obsessives (much overrepresented on here), it’s arrant nonsense.
The poor are being used as a figleaf for the reactionary actions of those groups.
I'll stick with Ashcroft. It was the DE and C2s who had the highest proportion of Leavers (64/36). That's more than the geriatric split (60/40).
C2DEs voted in similar numbers for Blair after a campaign in which the Conservatives said a vote for Blair was a vote for a federal Europe.
The lesson is that Eurosceptics taking that demographic as a Brexit bloc vote will be in for a rude awakening one of these days.
Nothing is a certainty in politics, that's why I find it so fascinating. Look at Labour in Scotland.
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
Why would Canada treat the UK the same as the EU when our economy is different and they may not get the same benefits of that deal than before? Why would the US? Indeed, the US don't like the terms and want to force the UK to worse terms than when we were in the EU; if our supposed "special relationship" means a worse deal and challenges at the WTO what can we expect from others?
PB mistake #1 - Reason has no place in Brexit.
As long as we have blue passports and can thumb our nose at Johnny Foreigner then everything will be as it should be even if there is an economic disaster. At least any hardship will be self inflicted and that makes it OK because it is not just self-harm, it is British self-harm, the finest kind in the world....
Arguing against a caricature of your opponents most extreme argument will get nobody anywhere
Its what some Remain supporters have been doing for over 2 years....and they wonder why so few, if any, are changing their minds....
Very good posts today, Mr Russell.
Since the decisive groups were the old, who have never been as affluent as they are today, and a minority of affluent Eurosceptic obsessives (much overrepresented on here), it’s arrant nonsense.
The poor are being used as a figleaf for the reactionary actions of those groups.
I'll stick with Ashcroft. It was the DE and C2s who had the highest proportion of Leavers (64/36). That's more than the geriatric split (60/40).
The richest 10% of constituencies voted heavily Remain., These were essentially centres of government, the West End, parts of the London Stockbroker Belt, and some university seats.
The remaining 90% voted quite steadily Leave, without varying much by levels of affluence. Some very affluent places voted Leave, and some very poor places voted Remain.
As long as we have blue passports and can thumb our nose at Johnny Foreigner then everything will be as it should be even if there is an economic disaster. At least any hardship will be self inflicted and that makes it OK because it is not just self-harm, it is British self-harm, the finest kind in the world....
Arguing against a caricature of your opponents most extreme argument will get nobody anywhere
Its what some Remain supporters have been doing for over 2 years....and they wonder why so few, if any, are changing their minds....
Those who are incandescent over the referendum result have been given a glimpse into the world of the poorest in society in a way no social experiment could have achieved. The pressure that a lack of control brings was given an outlet for the latter by the referendum. "Wow this a small taste of how people less fortunate than me have felt for decades" rather than "I want my old life back, racist thicko's" might be a better way to look at things perhaps.
Try to be empathetic, see the best in people rather than assume base motives. Think about the Room 101 chapter in 1984. Winston loves Julia, she is the one chink of light in his life, but when trapped with his worst fears, he behaves as he thought he never could. No one wants to betray a loved one, but can we all say we wouldn't crack in a nightmarish situation? If their lives were free from the rats in the cage - extreme money worries, job stability, access to hospital places, reliance on the state and so on, people may not have been attracted to a campaign considered so distasteful
Very good posts today, Mr Russell.
Since the decisive groups were the old, who have never been as affluent as they are today, and a minority of affluent Eurosceptic obsessives (much overrepresented on here), it’s arrant nonsense.
The poor are being used as a figleaf for the reactionary actions of those groups.
Which sectors of society have been more affluent than they are today?
So not a nightmarish situation after all? No further questions.
Where were the original questions?
The poorest in UK aren't starving like the poorest in Bangladesh or even the poorest in the UK 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean they aren't in a nightmarish situation. that they felt the need to escape from
Since the decisive groups were the old, who have never been as affluent as they are today, and a minority of affluent Eurosceptic obsessives (much overrepresented on here), it’s arrant nonsense.
The poor are being used as a figleaf for the reactionary actions of those groups.
I'll stick with Ashcroft. It was the DE and C2s who had the highest proportion of Leavers (64/36). That's more than the geriatric split (60/40).
C2DEs voted in similar numbers for Blair after a campaign in which the Conservatives said a vote for Blair was a vote for a federal Europe.
The lesson is that Eurosceptics taking that demographic as a Brexit bloc vote will be in for a rude awakening one of these days.
The rude awakening was two years and two months ago.
I think Dominic Raab's rude awakening came some time after that. He's been transformed from the confident man who couldn't understand how Brexit could lead to increases in bureaucracy in 2016, to the anxious and sweaty figure who yesterday announced he was hiring 9000 new bureaucrats to cope with the workload.
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
I believe that politics aficionados underestimate TM's appeal to a good swaith of the electorate. Dogged, awkward, limited oratorial gifts but not flashy (except for shoes), an adult presence, serious (poor attempts at humour help). In fractious and troubling times....
A May vs. Corbyn rematch can't be called at the moment as there are so many unknowns even apart from state of Brexit. If forced to bet now I think May would win.
Arguing against a caricature of your opponents most extreme argument will get nobody anywhere
Its what some Remain supporters have been doing for over 2 years....and they wonder why so few, if any, are changing their minds....
Those who are incandescent over the referendum result have been given a glimpse into the world of the poorest in society in a way no social experiment could have achieved. The pressure that a lack of control brings was given an outlet for the latter by the referendum. "Wow this a small taste of how people less fortunate than me have felt for decades" rather than "I want my old life back, racist thicko's" might be a better way to look at things perhaps.
Try to be empathetic, see the best in people rather than assume base motives. Think about the Room 101 chapter in 1984. Winston loves Julia, she is the one chink of light in his life, but when trapped with his worst fears, he behaves as he thought he never could. No one wants to betray a loved one, but can we all say we wouldn't crack in a nightmarish situation? If their lives were free from the rats in the cage - extreme money worries, job stability, access to hospital places, reliance on the state and so on, people may not have been attracted to a campaign considered so distasteful
Very good posts today, Mr Russell.
Since the decisive groups were the old, who have never been as affluent as they are today, and a minority of affluent Eurosceptic obsessives (much overrepresented on here), it’s arrant nonsense.
The poor are being used as a figleaf for the reactionary actions of those groups.
Which sectors of society have been more affluent than they are today?
So not a nightmarish situation after all? No further questions.
Where were the original questions?
The poorest in UK aren't starving like the poorest in Bangladesh or even the poorest in the UK 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean they aren't in a nightmarish situation. that they felt the need to escape from
So they’re both more affluent and in a nightmarish situation? Come back to me when you aren’t hopelessly confused in what you’re trying to say. Right now it reads like a poor attempt at self-justification for supporting a campaign built on xenophobic lies.
The poorest in UK aren't starving like the poorest in Bangladesh or even the poorest in the UK 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean they aren't in a nightmarish situation. that they felt the need to escape from
You are Jacob Rees-Mogg, man of the people, and I claim my £5.
Q. Why are the leading Brexiteers generally extremely wealthy? A. They can afford the luxury of their ideology.
This has nothing to do with the poorest. Brexit will hit the poor hardest.
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
Arguing against a caricature of your opponents most extreme argument will get nobody anywhere
Its what some Remain supporters have been doing for over 2 years....and they wonder why so few, if any, are changing their minds....
Those who are incandescent over the referendum result have been given a glimpse into the world of the poorest in society in a way no social experiment could have achieved. The pressure that a lack of control brings was given an outlet for the latter by the referendum. "Wow this a small taste of how people less fortunate than me have felt for decades" rather than "I want my old life back, racist thicko's" might be a better way to look at things perhaps.
Try to be empathetic, see the best in people rather than assume base motives. Think about the Room 101 chapter in 1984. Winston loves Julia, she is the one chink of light in his life, but when trapped with his worst fears, he behaves as he thought he never could. No one wants to betray a loved one, but can we all say we wouldn't crack in a nightmarish situation? If their lives were free from the rats in the cage - extreme money worries, job stability, access to hospital places, reliance on the state and so on, people may not have been attracted to a campaign considered so distasteful
Very good posts today, Mr Russell.
Since the decisive groups were the old, who have never been as affluent as they are today, and a minority of affluent Eurosceptic obsessives (much overrepresented on here), it’s arrant nonsense.
The poor are being used as a figleaf for the reactionary actions of those groups.
Which sectors of society have been more affluent than they are today?
So not a nightmarish situation after all? No further questions.
Where were the original questions?
The poorest in UK aren't starving like the poorest in Bangladesh or even the poorest in the UK 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean they aren't in a nightmarish situation. that they felt the need to escape from
So they’re both more affluent and in a nightmarish situation? Come back to me when you aren’t hopelessly confused in what you’re trying to say. Right now it reads like a poor attempt at self-justification for supporting a campaign built on xenophobic lies.
If someone goes from having one grain of rice to two grains of rice to eat per day they are both more affluent and in a nightmarish situation.
The poorest in UK aren't starving like the poorest in Bangladesh or even the poorest in the UK 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean they aren't in a nightmarish situation. that they felt the need to escape from
You are Jacob Rees-Mogg, man of the people, and I claim my £5.
Q. Why are the leading Brexiteers generally extremely wealthy? A. They can afford the luxury of their ideology.
This has nothing to do with the poorest. Brexit will hit the poor hardest.
I would say the answer to your question is that all politicians are generally extremely wealthy. The leading Remain politicians were David Cameron and George Osborne.
The poorest in UK aren't starving like the poorest in Bangladesh or even the poorest in the UK 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean they aren't in a nightmarish situation. that they felt the need to escape from
You are Jacob Rees-Mogg, man of the people, and I claim my £5.
Q. Why are the leading Brexiteers generally extremely wealthy? A. They can afford the luxury of their ideology.
This has nothing to do with the poorest. Brexit will hit the poor hardest.
Most political leaders are wealthy. That's why they're political leaders.
I'd say that in general, Brexit supporters were either traditional Conservatives or traditional Socialists, people whose level of affluence varied, but who were not in tune with the political consensus that prevailed from the early nineties to the early 2010's.
The poorest in UK aren't starving like the poorest in Bangladesh or even the poorest in the UK 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean they aren't in a nightmarish situation. that they felt the need to escape from
You are Jacob Rees-Mogg, man of the people, and I claim my £5.
Q. Why are the leading Brexiteers generally extremely wealthy? A. They can afford the luxury of their ideology.
This has nothing to do with the poorest. Brexit will hit the poor hardest.
I would say the answer to your question is that all politicians are generally extremely wealthy. The leading Remain politicians were David Cameron and George Osborne.
That's pretty weak. This has nothing to do with the poor.
Why would Canada treat the UK the same as the EU when our economy is different and they may not get the same benefits of that deal than before? Why would the US? Indeed, the US don't like the terms and want to force the UK to worse terms than when we were in the EU; if our supposed "special relationship" means a worse deal and challenges at the WTO what can we expect from others?
PB mistake #1 - Reason has no place in Brexit.
As long as we have blue passports and can thumb our nose at Johnny Foreigner then everything will be as it should be even if there is an economic disaster. At least any hardship will be self inflicted and that makes it OK because it is not just self-harm, it is British self-harm, the finest kind in the world....
Arguing against a caricature of your opponents most extreme argument will get nobody anywhere
Its what some Remain supporters have been doing for over 2 years....and they wonder why so few, if any, are changing their minds....
Those who are incandescent over the referendum result have been given a glimpse into the world of the poorest in society in a way no social experiment could have achieved. The pressure that a lack of control brings was given an outlet for the latter by the referendum. "Wow this a small taste of how people less fortunate than me have felt for decades" rather than "I want my old life back, racist thicko's" might be a better way to look at things perhaps.
Try to be empathetic, see the best in people rather than assume base motives. Think about the Room 101 chapter in 1984. Winston loves Julia, she is the one chink of light in his life, but when trapped with his worst fears, he behaves as he thought he never could. No one wants to betray a loved one, but can we all say we wouldn't crack in a nightmarish situation? If their lives were free from the rats in the cage - extreme money worries, job stability, access to hospital places, reliance on the state and so on, people may not have been attracted to a campaign considered so distasteful
Very good posts today, Mr Russell.
Since the decisive groups were the old, who have never been as affluent as they are today, and a minority of affluent Eurosceptic obsessives (much overrepresented on here), it’s arrant nonsense.
The poor are being used as a figleaf for the reactionary actions of those groups.
The poorest in UK aren't starving like the poorest in Bangladesh or even the poorest in the UK 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean they aren't in a nightmarish situation. that they felt the need to escape from
You are Jacob Rees-Mogg, man of the people, and I claim my £5.
Q. Why are the leading Brexiteers generally extremely wealthy? A. They can afford the luxury of their ideology.
This has nothing to do with the poorest. Brexit will hit the poor hardest.
I would say the answer to your question is that all politicians are generally extremely wealthy. The leading Remain politicians were David Cameron and George Osborne.
That's pretty weak. This has nothing to do with the poor.
You asked a question and I answered it.
Whether Brexit is a failure or a success isn't really the point of my argument. I don't know either way. The point is that instead of mocking and vilifying those who voted for it, more good would come of trying to empathise.
If any other politician had made been found to make a similar statement about another minority group they would be finished, immediately.
I had decided that since the Tories were becoming fascism-lite I had no choice but Corbyn, but the recent revelations (or highlighting of past behaviour) has removed that choice too.
There is now no point in voting.
Given the huge ideological differences from the Greens to Corbyn Labour to the LDs to the Tories to UKIP talk of lack of choice is really old hat
Says the Tory party's PB spokesman ...
The Greens are too far left for me, Corbyn's Labour is not something I want to be associated with nor is your bunch any better with their quotient of rabid nationalists. UKIP I regard as little more than disorganised Nazis. Most of the smaller right-wing parties I regard as one step from being the KKK
The Lib Dems....
I want a return to the days when the Tories were the sensible economic safe hands and Labour offered half sensible social reforms.
So basically Cameron v Blair and a cigarette paper between them
You prefer what we have now?
His party is in power and "My party right or wrong" seems to be his motto...
The poorest in UK aren't starving like the poorest in Bangladesh or even the poorest in the UK 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean they aren't in a nightmarish situation. that they felt the need to escape from
You are Jacob Rees-Mogg, man of the people, and I claim my £5.
Q. Why are the leading Brexiteers generally extremely wealthy? A. They can afford the luxury of their ideology.
This has nothing to do with the poorest. Brexit will hit the poor hardest.
I would say the answer to your question is that all politicians are generally extremely wealthy. The leading Remain politicians were David Cameron and George Osborne.
That's pretty weak. This has nothing to do with the poor.
You asked a question and I answered it.
Whether Brexit is a failure or a success isn't really the point of my argument. I don't know either way. The point is that instead of mocking and vilifying those who voted for it, more good would come of trying to empathise.
How on Earth do you empathise with Jacob Rees Mogg?
I'd say that in general, Brexit supporters were either traditional Conservatives or traditional Socialists, people whose level of affluence varied, but who were not in tune with the political consensus that prevailed from the early nineties to the early 2010's.
But on the EU the political consensus since the early 90s was Eurosceptic. Even Blair at the peak of his powers stepped back from trying to pull us back to the European mainstream by joining the Euro.
I think Eurosceptics have been guilty of massive hubris in pushing for Brexit for reasons of cultural grievance and they will live to regret it bitterly.
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
I agree, but surely you would agree that such a reaction is not a formula for success?
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
We sometimes forget that mass immigration is very novel. People bang on about the Hugenots and whatnot, but they were a few tens of thousands of people who immigrated over several years. Until the very late 90s, the UK had flat net migration (and I grew up in an era of net emigration, the famous 'brain drain').
We've had mass immigration for around 14 years, with no particular benefit to our GDP/capita.
Empirically, old people and poor people (in particular) aren't keen on having ~4 million extra folk in the country in less than 15 years, hence Brexit.
Where they're wrong is in thinking that we're going to have less immigration in the future. All that changes is the mix. Where that leads, who knows?
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
Exactly. No one is doubting that there are people who have been left behind in society.
The problem is that they chose the wrong target in the EU. Like the dog that gets kicked when someone comes home after a bad day at work, the Referendum meant that the EU was closest to hand.
The poorest in UK aren't starving like the poorest in Bangladesh or even the poorest in the UK 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean they aren't in a nightmarish situation. that they felt the need to escape from
You are Jacob Rees-Mogg, man of the people, and I claim my £5.
Q. Why are the leading Brexiteers generally extremely wealthy? A. They can afford the luxury of their ideology.
This has nothing to do with the poorest. Brexit will hit the poor hardest.
I would say the answer to your question is that all politicians are generally extremely wealthy. The leading Remain politicians were David Cameron and George Osborne.
That's pretty weak. This has nothing to do with the poor.
You asked a question and I answered it.
Whether Brexit is a failure or a success isn't really the point of my argument. I don't know either way. The point is that instead of mocking and vilifying those who voted for it, more good would come of trying to empathise.
How on Earth do you empathise with Jacob Rees Mogg?
Everyone is a product of their background, I don't think it's that difficult to empathise with anyone.
But I am talking about voters, not politicians (albeit they are voters too)
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
I agree, but surely you would agree that such a reaction is not a formula for success?
Wholeheartedly, but it is as prevalent in articulate, but upset, Remainers as it is with angry, less well educated, Leave voters
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
We sometimes forget that mass immigration is very novel. People bang on about the Hugenots and whatnot, but they were a few tens of thousands of people who immigrated over several years. Until the very late 90s, the UK had flat net migration (and I grew up in an era of net emigration, the famous 'brain drain').
We've had mass immigration for around 14 years, with no particular benefit to our GDP/capita.
Empirically, old people and poor people (in particular) aren't keen on having ~4 million extra folk in the country in less than 15 years, hence Brexit.
Where they're wrong is in thinking that we're going to have less immigration in the future. All that changes is the mix. Where that leads, who knows?
Though, I do not think that explains similar populist reactions in other countries, particularly in countries like the USA or Australia, built on mass immigration.
Mass movements of people have actually occurred a lot in history, the novelty of the post war period is that it was a movement into Europe in a way that hadn't been seen in historic memory, the exception being perhaps the mass movements of Eastern European Jews out of the old Pale of Settlement. We all know where that led.
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
We sometimes forget that mass immigration is very novel. People bang on about the Hugenots and whatnot, but they were a few tens of thousands of people who immigrated over several years. Until the very late 90s, the UK had flat net migration (and I grew up in an era of net emigration, the famous 'brain drain').
We've had mass immigration for around 14 years, with no particular benefit to our GDP/capita.
Empirically, old people and poor people (in particular) aren't keen on having ~4 million extra folk in the country in less than 15 years, hence Brexit.
Where they're wrong is in thinking that we're going to have less immigration in the future. All that changes is the mix. Where that leads, who knows?
One thing I've never been quite sure on is why businesses should have become quite so reliant on a continual stream of migration.. I get that farms need fruit pickers and so forth but if a farm needed 20 bods to do the work last year then they'll probably need 20 or so bods this year. That's net migration of 0 after year 1. And yes some firms will go bust, whilst others will thrive but overall... why is there always seemingly a need for more and more..
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
Exactly. No one is doubting that there are people who have been left behind in society.
The problem is that they chose the wrong target in the EU. Like the dog that gets kicked when someone comes home after a bad day at work, the Referendum meant that the EU was closest to hand.
What other option did they have to let the powers that be know they wanted change? People vent their pent up frustration by doing drastic, sometimes unwise, things.
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
We sometimes forget that mass immigration is very novel. People bang on about the Hugenots and whatnot, but they were a few tens of thousands of people who immigrated over several years. Until the very late 90s, the UK had flat net migration (and I grew up in an era of net emigration, the famous 'brain drain').
We've had mass immigration for around 14 years, with no particular benefit to our GDP/capita.
Empirically, old people and poor people (in particular) aren't keen on having ~4 million extra folk in the country in less than 15 years, hence Brexit.
Where they're wrong is in thinking that we're going to have less immigration in the future. All that changes is the mix. Where that leads, who knows?
One thing I've never been quite sure on is why businesses should have become quite so reliant on a continual stream of migration.. I get that farms need fruit pickers and so forth but if a farm needed 20 bods to do the work last year then they'll probably need 20 or so bods this year. That's net migration of 0 after year 1. And yes some firms will go bust, whilst others will thrive but overall... why is there always seemingly a need for more and more..
I suppose that in the case of fruit-picking, it's a job that hardly anyone wants to do at the wages on offer. So, foreign workers either look for something better in the UK, or go home to something better.
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
We sometimes forget that mass immigration is very novel. People bang on about the Hugenots and whatnot, but they were a few tens of thousands of people who immigrated over several years. Until the very late 90s, the UK had flat net migration (and I grew up in an era of net emigration, the famous 'brain drain').
We've had mass immigration for around 14 years, with no particular benefit to our GDP/capita.
Empirically, old people and poor people (in particular) aren't keen on having ~4 million extra folk in the country in less than 15 years, hence Brexit.
Where they're wrong is in thinking that we're going to have less immigration in the future. All that changes is the mix. Where that leads, who knows?
Indeed, from yesterdays ONS release, it does look like a flattish number of total migrants despite all of the governments feeble efforts, only we now import from Africa and Asia.
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
We sometimes forget that mass immigration is very novel. People bang on about the Hugenots and whatnot, but they were a few tens of thousands of people who immigrated over several years. Until the very late 90s, the UK had flat net migration (and I grew up in an era of net emigration, the famous 'brain drain').
We've had mass immigration for around 14 years, with no particular benefit to our GDP/capita.
Empirically, old people and poor people (in particular) aren't keen on having ~4 million extra folk in the country in less than 15 years, hence Brexit.
Where they're wrong is in thinking that we're going to have less immigration in the future. All that changes is the mix. Where that leads, who knows?
Though, I do not think that explains similar populist reactions in other countries, particularly in countries like the USA or Australia, built on mass immigration.
Mass movements of people have actually occurred a lot in history, the novelty of the post war period is that it was a movement into Europe in a way that hadn't been seen in historic memory, the exception being perhaps the mass movements of Eastern European Jews out of the old Pale of Settlement. We all know where that led.
I'm not trying to explain the US or Australians or Canadians etc. I'm not even sure I'm explaining the British situation; merely pointing out that HMG decided that the UK needed to become more multicultural and/or the economy needed more workers, that the rate of change was very rapid, historically unprecedented and that we've now discovered that a tranche of the population have reacted badly to that decision.
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
We sometimes forget that mass immigration is very novel. People bang on about the Hugenots and whatnot, but they were a few tens of thousands of people who immigrated over several years. Until the very late 90s, the UK had flat net migration (and I grew up in an era of net emigration, the famous 'brain drain').
We've had mass immigration for around 14 years, with no particular benefit to our GDP/capita.
Empirically, old people and poor people (in particular) aren't keen on having ~4 million extra folk in the country in less than 15 years, hence Brexit.
Where they're wrong is in thinking that we're going to have less immigration in the future. All that changes is the mix. Where that leads, who knows?
Though, I do not think that explains similar populist reactions in other countries, particularly in countries like the USA or Australia, built on mass immigration.
Mass movements of people have actually occurred a lot in history, the novelty of the post war period is that it was a movement into Europe in a way that hadn't been seen in historic memory, the exception being perhaps the mass movements of Eastern European Jews out of the old Pale of Settlement. We all know where that led.
"Though, I do not think that explains similar populist reactions in other countries, particularly in countries like the USA or Australia, built on mass immigration."
Built on exploitation (to put it mildly) of the natives by immigrants I would say!
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
We've had mass immigration for around 14 years, with no particular benefit to our GDP/capita.
Between 1991 and 1995, the annual average level of net migration... had been just 37,000. Between 2012 and 2016 it averaged 256,000.... between 1997 and 2007, the percentage of people that ranked immigration as one of the top issues facing Britain rocketed from 4 to 46 percent. By the time of the 2016 referendum, the issue had dominated the list of people’s priorities for more than a decade. Nearly eight in ten people wanted to see immigration reduced.
The poorest in UK aren't starving like the poorest in Bangladesh or even the poorest in the UK 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean they aren't in a nightmarish situation. that they felt the need to escape from
You are Jacob Rees-Mogg, man of the people, and I claim my £5.
Q. Why are the leading Brexiteers generally extremely wealthy? A. They can afford the luxury of their ideology.
No. it's because the wealthy dominate political debate. The leading Remainers were also generally extremely wealthy (certainly by the standards of the ordinary man or woman in the street).
I think Eurosceptics have been guilty of massive hubris in pushing for Brexit for reasons of cultural grievance and they will live to regret it bitterly.
It is sickening to these soi disant patriots celebrating the achievement of one of Russia's most treasured foreign policy goals and the diminution of their own country,
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
Exactly. No one is doubting that there are people who have been left behind in society.
The problem is that they chose the wrong target in the EU. Like the dog that gets kicked when someone comes home after a bad day at work, the Referendum meant that the EU was closest to hand.
What other option did they have to let the powers that be know they wanted change? People vent their pent up frustration by doing drastic, sometimes unwise, things.
Stop blaming "the powers that be", stop scapegoating people different to you and rather than breaking things to get attention, work together to find constructive solutions that actually address the real problems in a imperfect world.
Others, in much worse situations than us, have done that successfully in the past.
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
Exactly. No one is doubting that there are people who have been left behind in society.
The problem is that they chose the wrong target in the EU. Like the dog that gets kicked when someone comes home after a bad day at work, the Referendum meant that the EU was closest to hand.
What other option did they have to let the powers that be know they wanted change? People vent their pent up frustration by doing drastic, sometimes unwise, things.
Stop blaming "the powers that be", stop scapegoating people different to you and rather than breaking things to get attention, work together to find constructive solutions that actually address the real problems in a imperfect world.
Others, in much worse situations than us, have done that successfully in the past.
It puts the lotion in the basket or it gets the hose again
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
Exactly. No one is doubting that there are people who have been left behind in society.
The problem is that they chose the wrong target in the EU. Like the dog that gets kicked when someone comes home after a bad day at work, the Referendum meant that the EU was closest to hand.
What other option did they have to let the powers that be know they wanted change? People vent their pent up frustration by doing drastic, sometimes unwise, things.
Stop blaming "the powers that be", stop scapegoating people different to you and rather than breaking things to get attention, work together to find constructive solutions that actually address the real problems in a imperfect world.
Others, in much worse situations than us, have done that successfully in the past.
"Stop scapegoating people different from you", words to live by
I think Eurosceptics have been guilty of massive hubris in pushing for Brexit for reasons of cultural grievance and they will live to regret it bitterly.
It is sickening to these soi disant patriots celebrating the achievement of one of Russia's most treasured foreign policy goals and the diminution of their own country,
The poorest in UK aren't starving like the poorest in Bangladesh or even the poorest in the UK 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean they aren't in a nightmarish situation. that they felt the need to escape from
You are Jacob Rees-Mogg, man of the people, and I claim my £5.
Q. Why are the leading Brexiteers generally extremely wealthy? A. They can afford the luxury of their ideology.
No. it's because the wealthy dominate political debate. The leading Remainers were also generally extremely wealthy (certainly by the standards of the ordinary man or woman in the street).
Just because Cameron and Osborne were also spoilt by the bank of mum and dad, does not mean that wealth is not a critical factor in enabling leading Brexiteers to take more extreme ideological positions than you might otherwise do if you have to pay a mortgage and have job at stake.
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
We sometimes forget that mass immigration is very novel. People bang on about the Hugenots and whatnot, but they were a few tens of thousands of people who immigrated over several years. Until the very late 90s, the UK had flat net migration (and I grew up in an era of net emigration, the famous 'brain drain').
We've had mass immigration for around 14 years, with no particular benefit to our GDP/capita.
Empirically, old people and poor people (in particular) aren't keen on having ~4 million extra folk in the country in less than 15 years, hence Brexit.
Where they're wrong is in thinking that we're going to have less immigration in the future. All that changes is the mix. Where that leads, who knows?
Indeed, from yesterdays ONS release, it does look like a flattish number of total migrants despite all of the governments feeble efforts, only we now import from Africa and Asia.
The really significant drop is in people coming here from the EU to look for work, as opposed to coming here to take up job offers.
England and Wales are probably 10-15 years away from births to White Brits being a minority, vs 95%+ 50 years ago. It’s been remarkably peaceful by the historical standards of other nations/regions that have experienced such significant demographic change.
Since the decisive groups were the old, who have never been as affluent as they are today, and a minority of affluent Eurosceptic obsessives (much overrepresented on here), it’s arrant nonsense.
The poor are being used as a figleaf for the reactionary actions of those groups.
I'll stick with Ashcroft. It was the DE and C2s who had the highest proportion of Leavers (64/36). That's more than the geriatric split (60/40).
C2DEs voted in similar numbers for Blair after a campaign in which the Conservatives said a vote for Blair was a vote for a federal Europe.
The lesson is that Eurosceptics taking that demographic as a Brexit bloc vote will be in for a rude awakening one of these days.
Blair kept us out of the Euro, it was when he started pushing uncontrolled immigration that C2DE voters shifted to the Tories and UKIP in 2005 and 2010
The poorest in UK aren't starving like the poorest in Bangladesh or even the poorest in the UK 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean they aren't in a nightmarish situation. that they felt the need to escape from
You are Jacob Rees-Mogg, man of the people, and I claim my £5.
Q. Why are the leading Brexiteers generally extremely wealthy? A. They can afford the luxury of their ideology.
No. it's because the wealthy dominate political debate. The leading Remainers were also generally extremely wealthy (certainly by the standards of the ordinary man or woman in the street).
In that case wealthy Remainers were pretty crap at dominating that particular debate.
Betting on when Jacob Rees-Mogg grows a pair? If he really does control or influence 60 or 100 ERG members, then 48 letters to the 1922 should be within his well-tailored reach.
I hope he's been paying attention to what's just gone down in Canberra.....
Do not be absurd. Australia? Far away from England and full of colonists.....
A Conservative Party riven with infighting and right-wingers plotting to bring down the PM, who then shafts their candidate and has his preferred candidate installed.
Nothing to learn there.
Perhaps if they weren't called 'Liberals' some might make the connection....
Turnbull's preferred candidate was Bishop, Morrison was the compromise between Turnbull/Bishop and Abbott/Dutton
The polling said she was the best alternative. Why do you think she fell at the first fence?
Is representing WA an issue?
As she was Turnbull2, Morrison was more conservative than Turnbull while still loyal enough to Turnbull to maintain unity
Where they're wrong is in thinking that we're going to have less immigration in the future. All that changes is the mix. Where that leads, who knows?
There are signs immigration is going to be the next big Faultline within and across parties and those looking at the Party Conferences/Rallies this September and October might want to see how that is playing out.
"Taking Control of Our Borders" is all very well and good but that means we need to come up with some coherent ideas as to our immigration policy in the 2020s and beyond (and that includes how we would wish British people residing and working in other countries to be treated and the economic relationship those individuals might wish to continue to have with the UK in terms of tax, pensions and other areas).
Given the number of ex-pats who seem to post on here at what seems like ungodly hours to me (though obviously not to them) it's an area for rational debate and concern.
In terms of traditional immigration, moving from the two extremes of the "open door" to the "brick up the Channel Tunnel and deport all the EU citizens currently here", I'm starting from four main principles:
1) If we are short of individuals with particular skills and can obtain those skills from the citizens of other countries, our migration policy ought to be aimed at attracting those skills here.
2) As a place of learning, we should be offering British education and training to help those from other countries develop key skills. Learn them here and then go back home and implement them.
3) Britain should continue to act as a place of refuge for those in genuine need through persecution, war or natural disaster and should do so as part of the international community in a co-ordinated way.
4) The immigration process needs to be transparent and fair and treat all citizens from all parts of the world, as far as possible, equally whether some form of points-based process or otherwise.
Since the decisive groups were the old, who have never been as affluent as they are today, and a minority of affluent Eurosceptic obsessives (much overrepresented on here), it’s arrant nonsense.
The poor are being used as a figleaf for the reactionary actions of those groups.
I'll stick with Ashcroft. It was the DE and C2s who had the highest proportion of Leavers (64/36). That's more than the geriatric split (60/40).
C2DEs voted in similar numbers for Blair after a campaign in which the Conservatives said a vote for Blair was a vote for a federal Europe.
The lesson is that Eurosceptics taking that demographic as a Brexit bloc vote will be in for a rude awakening one of these days.
Blair kept us out of the Euro, it was when he started pushing uncontrolled immigration that C2DE voters shifted to the Tories and UKIP in 2005 and 2010
Immigration spiked from 1997. Why did the Tories do so badly in 2001?
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
We sometimes forget that mass immigration is very novel. People bang on about the Hugenots and whatnot, but they were a few tens of thousands of people who immigrated over several years. Until the very late 90s, the UK had flat net migration (and I grew up in an era of net emigration, the famous 'brain drain').
We've had mass immigration for around 14 years, with no particular benefit to our GDP/capita.
Empirically, old people and poor people (in particular) aren't keen on having ~4 million extra folk in the country in less than 15 years, hence Brexit.
Where they're wrong is in thinking that we're going to have less immigration in the future. All that changes is the mix. Where that leads, who knows?
Global net migration fell by almost 30 000 this year from 2015
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
Exactly. No one is doubting that there are people who have been left behind in society.
The problem is that they chose the wrong target in the EU. Like the dog that gets kicked when someone comes home after a bad day at work, the Referendum meant that the EU was closest to hand.
What other option did they have to let the powers that be know they wanted change? People vent their pent up frustration by doing drastic, sometimes unwise, things.
Yep they actually shot the dog, which happened to be sitting on their foot.
The poorest in UK aren't starving like the poorest in Bangladesh or even the poorest in the UK 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean they aren't in a nightmarish situation. that they felt the need to escape from
You are Jacob Rees-Mogg, man of the people, and I claim my £5.
Q. Why are the leading Brexiteers generally extremely wealthy? A. They can afford the luxury of their ideology.
No. it's because the wealthy dominate political debate. The leading Remainers were also generally extremely wealthy (certainly by the standards of the ordinary man or woman in the street).
In that case wealthy Remainers were pretty crap at dominating that particular debate.
Again, from Shipman, one of the issues was that wealthy Remainers couldn't envisage that anyone would see the world differently to them; as far as they were concerned the EU and FoM was an unalloyed good. Therefore, they really didn't engage with the debate, other than to crack the financial whip courtesy of Osborne & the Treasury.
Since the decisive groups were the old, who have never been as affluent as they are today, and a minority of affluent Eurosceptic obsessives (much overrepresented on here), it’s arrant nonsense.
The poor are being used as a figleaf for the reactionary actions of those groups.
I'll stick with Ashcroft. It was the DE and C2s who had the highest proportion of Leavers (64/36). That's more than the geriatric split (60/40).
C2DEs voted in similar numbers for Blair after a campaign in which the Conservatives said a vote for Blair was a vote for a federal Europe.
The lesson is that Eurosceptics taking that demographic as a Brexit bloc vote will be in for a rude awakening one of these days.
Blair kept us out of the Euro, it was when he started pushing uncontrolled immigration that C2DE voters shifted to the Tories and UKIP in 2005 and 2010
Immigration spiked from 1997. Why did the Tories do so badly in 2001?
No it did not. The Tories kept immigration under control for 18 years, in less than 4 years there was little change, the surge into the 100s of 000s came from 2004
England and Wales are probably 10-15 years away from births to White Brits being a minority, vs 95%+ 50 years ago. It’s been remarkably peaceful by the historical standards of other nations/regions that have experienced such significant demographic change.
Since the decisive groups were the old, who have never been as affluent as they are today, and a minority of affluent Eurosceptic obsessives (much overrepresented on here), it’s arrant nonsense.
The poor are being used as a figleaf for the reactionary actions of those groups.
I'll stick with Ashcroft. It was the DE and C2s who had the highest proportion of Leavers (64/36). That's more than the geriatric split (60/40).
C2DEs voted in similar numbers for Blair after a campaign in which the Conservatives said a vote for Blair was a vote for a federal Europe.
The lesson is that Eurosceptics taking that demographic as a Brexit bloc vote will be in for a rude awakening one of these days.
Blair kept us out of the Euro, it was when he started pushing uncontrolled immigration that C2DE voters shifted to the Tories and UKIP in 2005 and 2010
Immigration spiked from 1997. Why did the Tories do so badly in 2001?
The economy had performed very well from 1997 to 2001, and people still thought Blair walked on water.
Since the decisive groups were the old, who have never been as affluent as they are today, and a minority of affluent Eurosceptic obsessives (much overrepresented on here), it’s arrant nonsense.
The poor are being used as a figleaf for the reactionary actions of those groups.
I'll stick with Ashcroft. It was the DE and C2s who had the highest proportion of Leavers (64/36). That's more than the geriatric split (60/40).
C2DEs voted in similar numbers for Blair after a campaign in which the Conservatives said a vote for Blair was a vote for a federal Europe.
The lesson is that Eurosceptics taking that demographic as a Brexit bloc vote will be in for a rude awakening one of these days.
Blair kept us out of the Euro, it was when he started pushing uncontrolled immigration that C2DE voters shifted to the Tories and UKIP in 2005 and 2010
Immigration spiked from 1997. Why did the Tories do so badly in 2001?
No it did not. The Tories kept immigration under control for 18 years, in less than 4 years there was little change, the surge into the 100s of 000s came from 2004
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
We sometimes forget that mass immigration is very novel. People bang on about the Hugenots and whatnot, but they were a few tens of thousands of people who immigrated over several years. Until the very late 90s, the UK had flat net migration (and I grew up in an era of net emigration, the famous 'brain drain').
We've had mass immigration for around 14 years, with no particular benefit to our GDP/capita.
Empirically, old people and poor people (in particular) aren't keen on having ~4 million extra folk in the country in less than 15 years, hence Brexit.
Where they're wrong is in thinking that we're going to have less immigration in the future. All that changes is the mix. Where that leads, who knows?
Though, I do not think that explains similar populist reactions in other countries, particularly in countries like the USA or Australia, built on mass immigration.
Mass movements of people have actually occurred a lot in history, the novelty of the post war period is that it was a movement into Europe in a way that hadn't been seen in historic memory, the exception being perhaps the mass movements of Eastern European Jews out of the old Pale of Settlement. We all know where that led.
"Though, I do not think that explains similar populist reactions in other countries, particularly in countries like the USA or Australia, built on mass immigration."
Built on exploitation (to put it mildly) of the natives by immigrants I would say!
I was thinking mostly of early waves of migrants going all nativist on subsequent ones.
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
We sometimes forget that mass immigration is very novel. People bang on about the Hugenots and whatnot, but they were a few tens of thousands of people who immigrated over several years. Until the very late 90s, the UK had flat net migration (and I grew up in an era of net emigration, the famous 'brain drain').
We've had mass immigration for around 14 years, with no particular benefit to our GDP/capita.
Empirically, old people and poor people (in particular) aren't keen on having ~4 million extra folk in the country in less than 15 years, hence Brexit.
Where they're wrong is in thinking that we're going to have less immigration in the future. All that changes is the mix. Where that leads, who knows?
Global net migration fell by almost 30 000 this year from 2015
We've just normalised huge influxes. 270k is the population of Derby. I don't mind, but we haven't really adapted any of our institutions to cope with rapid population change - look how long it's taken us to not expand our major airport and so forth. Nor are we thinking particularly hard about what happens if there is ever an actual Brexodus. The trouble with economic migration is that it's volatile.
The Tories have been waving the 100k target around for years and missing every time. It makes them look stupid, and frankly, mad. As @Stodge points out, if we needed (say) to import 200k doctors, then our immigration system should allow us to do so. We need the immigrants we need, if that makes sense.
Since the decisive groups were the old, who have never been as affluent as they are today, and a minority of affluent Eurosceptic obsessives (much overrepresented on here), it’s arrant nonsense.
The poor are being used as a figleaf for the reactionary actions of those groups.
I'll stick with Ashcroft. It was the DE and C2s who had the highest proportion of Leavers (64/36). That's more than the geriatric split (60/40).
C2DEs voted in similar numbers for Blair after a campaign in which the Conservatives said a vote for Blair was a vote for a federal Europe.
The lesson is that Eurosceptics taking that demographic as a Brexit bloc vote will be in for a rude awakening one of these days.
Blair kept us out of the Euro, it was when he started pushing uncontrolled immigration that C2DE voters shifted to the Tories and UKIP in 2005 and 2010
Immigration spiked from 1997. Why did the Tories do so badly in 2001?
The economy had performed very well from 1997 to 2001, and people still thought Blair walked on water.
An alternative explanation is that the right in opposition, finding ways to climb their way out of their '97 abyss, exploited the issue and poured fuel on it.
When the left are in opposition, they focus on other areas.
Where they're wrong is in thinking that we're going to have less immigration in the future. All that changes is the mix. Where that leads, who knows?
There are signs immigration is going to be the next big Faultline within and across parties and those looking at the Party Conferences/Rallies this September and October might want to see how that is playing out.
"Taking Control of Our Borders" is all very well and good but that means we need to come up with some coherent ideas as to our immigration policy in the 2020s and beyond (and that includes how we would wish British people residing and working in other countries to be treated and the economic relationship those individuals might wish to continue to have with the UK in terms of tax, pensions and other areas).
Given the number of ex-pats who seem to post on here at what seems like ungodly hours to me (though obviously not to them) it's an area for rational debate and concern.
In terms of traditional immigration, moving from the two extremes of the "open door" to the "brick up the Channel Tunnel and deport all the EU citizens currently here", I'm starting from four main principles:
1) If we are short of individuals with particular skills and can obtain those skills from the citizens of other countries, our migration policy ought to be aimed at attracting those skills here.
2) As a place of learning, we should be offering British education and training to help those from other countries develop key skills. Learn them here and then go back home and implement them.
3) Britain should continue to act as a place of refuge for those in genuine need through persecution, war or natural disaster and should do so as part of the international community in a co-ordinated way.
4) The immigration process needs to be transparent and fair and treat all citizens from all parts of the world, as far as possible, equally whether some form of points-based process or otherwise.
I am with you for 2) and 4) only. If we lack people with certain skills, it’s more sustainable for the State to either provide training itself, or incentivise the private sector to do so. We are the only European country which trains only 70% of required medical staff; I don’t think this is worthy of imitation. Ultra-high paid or net worth individuals are a different matter.
As for 3), this principle was fine in the immediate post-war period. It is not in an age of cheap flights when it is difficult to separate those who are migrating for the reasons you describe from those who migrate for economic reasons. Cameron was 100% right to point out that Britain did far more for Syrian refugees by funding camps in the region than Germany did with its Darwinian open-border free-for-all.
No it did not. The Tories kept immigration under control for 18 years, in less than 4 years there was little change, the surge into the 100s of 000s came from 2004
That's just absurd. There was the small matter of the Berlin Wall which was up for the first decade of the Conservative administration. Poland didn't join the EU until 1May 2004.
Yes, as you've repeated ad infinitum and ad nauseam, Blair didn't introduce transition controls for migration - whether that was because the Government genuinely believed there wouldn't be a large-scale flow of people from Poland and elsewhere or whether it was a recognition that the importation of cheap labour was required to maintain economic growth I don't know.
We also don't know how a Conservative Government at the time would have acted under similar circumstances and based on similar advice from the Civil Service.
It's all irrelevant - you just use it as a stick with which to beat Labour.
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
We sometimes forget that mass immigration is very novel. People bang on about the Hugenots and whatnot, but they were a few tens of thousands of people who immigrated over several years. Until the very late 90s, the UK had flat net migration (and I grew up in an era of net emigration, the famous 'brain drain').
We've had mass immigration for around 14 years, with no particular benefit to our GDP/capita.
Empirically, old people and poor people (in particular) aren't keen on having ~4 million extra folk in the country in less than 15 years, hence Brexit.
Where they're wrong is in thinking that we're going to have less immigration in the future. All that changes is the mix. Where that leads, who knows?
Though, I do not think that explains similar populist reactions in other countries, particularly in countries like the USA or Australia, built on mass immigration.
Mass movements of people have actually occurred a lot in history, the novelty of the post war period is that it was a movement into Europe in a way that hadn't been seen in historic memory, the exception being perhaps the mass movements of Eastern European Jews out of the old Pale of Settlement. We all know where that led.
"Though, I do not think that explains similar populist reactions in other countries, particularly in countries like the USA or Australia, built on mass immigration."
Built on exploitation (to put it mildly) of the natives by immigrants I would say!
I was thinking mostly of early waves of migrants going all nativist on subsequent ones.
People in charge don't like the boat rocked is my guess.
England and Wales are probably 10-15 years away from births to White Brits being a minority, vs 95%+ 50 years ago. It’s been remarkably peaceful by the historical standards of other nations/regions that have experienced such significant demographic change.
London maybe not England and Wales as a whole
I think that probably true. At present I think 25% of births have one parent born overseas, but of course a lot of those are white. Different in London and Leicester, but also London in particular has great exchange of population with the rest of the UK, sucking in students and graduates, who then move out when having families, thereby distorting the birth figures for London.
England and Wales are probably 10-15 years away from births to White Brits being a minority, vs 95%+ 50 years ago. It’s been remarkably peaceful by the historical standards of other nations/regions that have experienced such significant demographic change.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
We sometimes forget that mass immigration is very novel. People bang on about the Hugenots and whatnot, but they were a few tens of thousands of people who immigrated over several years. Until the very late 90s, the UK had flat net migration (and I grew up in an era of net emigration, the famous 'brain drain').
We've had mass immigration for around 14 years, with no particular benefit to our GDP/capita.
Empirically, old people and poor people (in particular) aren't keen on having ~4 million extra folk in the country in less than 15 years, hence Brexit.
Where they're wrong is in thinking that we're going to have less immigration in the future. All that changes is the mix. Where that leads, who knows?
Global net migration fell by almost 30 000 this year from 2015
We've just normalised huge influxes. 270k is the population of Derby. I don't mind, but we haven't really adapted any of our institutions to cope with rapid population change - look how long it's taken us to not expand our major airport and so forth. Nor are we thinking particularly hard about what happens if there is ever an actual Brexodus. The trouble with economic migration is that it's volatile.
The Tories have been waving the 100k target around for years and missing every time. It makes them look stupid, and frankly, mad. As @Stodge points out, if we needed (say) to import 200k doctors, then our immigration system should allow us to do so. We need the immigrants we need, if that makes sense.
Whilst I agree with your latter point it only works if we comply with your former.
So if we have somehow concluded that we "need" an extra 250-300k people a year (a pretty remarkable conclusion, but there we are,) we also need 100k extra houses, up to 100 extra schools, probably a dozen or so extra hospitals, maybe 1000 extra doctors, more public transport and infrastructure etc etc. It was the failure of our political class to address these needs in the face of Nimbyism that resulted in the referendum decision in my view.
Comments
Australia, New Zealand and Canada are also culturally closer to the UK than to Asia as we are culturally closer to them than continental Europe
Northern Irish Protestants haven't formed their enclave of Prodmania yet, much as they & you would like them to.
The poor are being used as a figleaf for the reactionary actions of those groups.
However, our national priority is some kind of deal with the continentals.
The huge rise in house prices was between 1996 and 2007 (outside London and parts of the South East, they've hardly moved since then). This, in turn, stoked high levels of borrowing, and a growing trade deficit. Household incomes for the poorest half of the working population began declining in 2003, and continued declining until 2013. Levels of home ownership began to fall in 2003, and kept falling until 2014.
In essence, we've been coping with the hangover after the binge, for the past decade.
.....The Scottish Government guidance, which was agreed in December 2017 and uploaded onto the internal civil service intranet at that time, was published at 11.40pm on Thursday.
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/scotland/711930/scottish-government-publishes-harassment-guidance-involving-former-ministers-hours-after-alex-salmond-allegations-made-public/
a) cut off your own foot; or
b) stab yourself in the eye with a pair of scissors?
Is representing WA an issue?
The lesson is that Eurosceptics taking that demographic as a Brexit bloc vote will be in for a rude awakening one of these days.
So the new leader will be an experienced minister, probably holding one of the great offices of state: Javid, Hunt or Hammond. You can make out a case for another cabinet minister or perhaps even a recently departed one who polls well but not a new face.
The remaining 90% voted quite steadily Leave, without varying much by levels of affluence. Some very affluent places voted Leave, and some very poor places voted Remain.
The poorest in UK aren't starving like the poorest in Bangladesh or even the poorest in the UK 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean they aren't in a nightmarish situation. that they felt the need to escape from
A May vs. Corbyn rematch can't be called at the moment as there are so many unknowns even apart from state of Brexit. If forced to bet now I think May would win.
Q. Why are the leading Brexiteers generally extremely wealthy?
A. They can afford the luxury of their ideology.
This has nothing to do with the poorest. Brexit will hit the poor hardest.
I'd say that in general, Brexit supporters were either traditional Conservatives or traditional Socialists, people whose level of affluence varied, but who were not in tune with the political consensus that prevailed from the early nineties to the early 2010's.
Whether Brexit is a failure or a success isn't really the point of my argument. I don't know either way. The point is that instead of mocking and vilifying those who voted for it, more good would come of trying to empathise.
I think Eurosceptics have been guilty of massive hubris in pushing for Brexit for reasons of cultural grievance and they will live to regret it bitterly.
We've had mass immigration for around 14 years, with no particular benefit to our GDP/capita.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihxw/pn2
Empirically, old people and poor people (in particular) aren't keen on having ~4 million extra folk in the country in less than 15 years, hence Brexit.
Where they're wrong is in thinking that we're going to have less immigration in the future. All that changes is the mix. Where that leads, who knows?
The problem is that they chose the wrong target in the EU. Like the dog that gets kicked when someone comes home after a bad day at work, the Referendum meant that the EU was closest to hand.
But I am talking about voters, not politicians (albeit they are voters too)
Mass movements of people have actually occurred a lot in history, the novelty of the post war period is that it was a movement into Europe in a way that hadn't been seen in historic memory, the exception being perhaps the mass movements of Eastern European Jews out of the old Pale of Settlement. We all know where that led.
I get that farms need fruit pickers and so forth but if a farm needed 20 bods to do the work last year then they'll probably need 20 or so bods this year. That's net migration of 0 after year 1.
And yes some firms will go bust, whilst others will thrive but overall... why is there always seemingly a need for more and more..
Built on exploitation (to put it mildly) of the natives by immigrants I would say!
https://quillette.com/2018/08/03/britains-populist-revolt/
So not just OAPs then.....
Others, in much worse situations than us, have done that successfully in the past.
"Taking Control of Our Borders" is all very well and good but that means we need to come up with some coherent ideas as to our immigration policy in the 2020s and beyond (and that includes how we would wish British people residing and working in other countries to be treated and the economic relationship those individuals might wish to continue to have with the UK in terms of tax, pensions and other areas).
Given the number of ex-pats who seem to post on here at what seems like ungodly hours to me (though obviously not to them) it's an area for rational debate and concern.
In terms of traditional immigration, moving from the two extremes of the "open door" to the "brick up the Channel Tunnel and deport all the EU citizens currently here", I'm starting from four main principles:
1) If we are short of individuals with particular skills and can obtain those skills from the citizens of other countries, our migration policy ought to be aimed at attracting those skills here.
2) As a place of learning, we should be offering British education and training to help those from other countries develop key skills. Learn them here and then go back home and implement them.
3) Britain should continue to act as a place of refuge for those in genuine need through persecution, war or natural disaster and should do so as part of the international community in a co-ordinated way.
4) The immigration process needs to be transparent and fair and treat all citizens from all parts of the world, as far as possible, equally whether some form of points-based process or otherwise.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-migration-falls-to-lowest-level-since-2012-fxx0sgdv6
The Tories have been waving the 100k target around for years and missing every time. It makes them look stupid, and frankly, mad. As @Stodge points out, if we needed (say) to import 200k doctors, then our immigration system should allow us to do so. We need the immigrants we need, if that makes sense.
When the left are in opposition, they focus on other areas.
As for 3), this principle was fine in the immediate post-war period. It is not in an age of cheap flights when it is difficult to separate those who are migrating for the reasons you describe from those who migrate for economic reasons. Cameron was 100% right to point out that Britain did far more for Syrian refugees by funding camps in the region than Germany did with its Darwinian open-border free-for-all.
Yes, as you've repeated ad infinitum and ad nauseam, Blair didn't introduce transition controls for migration - whether that was because the Government genuinely believed there wouldn't be a large-scale flow of people from Poland and elsewhere or whether it was a recognition that the importation of cheap labour was required to maintain economic growth I don't know.
We also don't know how a Conservative Government at the time would have acted under similar circumstances and based on similar advice from the Civil Service.
It's all irrelevant - you just use it as a stick with which to beat Labour.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthcharacteristicsinenglandandwales/2016
In London it’s probably 20% or less.
So if we have somehow concluded that we "need" an extra 250-300k people a year (a pretty remarkable conclusion, but there we are,) we also need 100k extra houses, up to 100 extra schools, probably a dozen or so extra hospitals, maybe 1000 extra doctors, more public transport and infrastructure etc etc. It was the failure of our political class to address these needs in the face of Nimbyism that resulted in the referendum decision in my view.