When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
I love racists making arguments about racism. It's...kind of recursive. For avoidance of doubt: you are a racist.
John, we've been over this before, gammons don't count as a race.
Nothing wrong with being a gammon. It's just a left wing insult meaning a Conservative.
I mean, yes and no. It doesn't mean moderate conservatives, it means a certain kind of angry elderly right-wing man. The shouty, angry pink ones you find in Question Time audiences, the ones whose entire world view is made up of the unpunctuated rants they leave below the line on Mail Online stories about Muslims.
Tag yourself, which gammon are you? I'm middle-left.
To reply, it could hardly get any more farcical so who cares?
Happily being in a safe seat for the blues means nothing I do will contribute to Corbyn becoming pm at a GE, so phew!
Out of interest...
You going back to the Lib Dems (vote wise)? a minor party? abstain?
My impression is you've pretty much ruled out the Tories and Labour don't interest you.
Corbyn led labour do not. Ed M was ok. Unless there's a decent independent it becomes LD by default but they hardly deserve it. I've never been so tempted to not vote.
And whatever happens with the deal the past few years means the Tories don't deserve consideration.
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
I love racists making arguments about racism. It's...kind of recursive. For avoidance of doubt: you are a racist.
John, we've been over this before, gammons don't count as a race.
Nothing wrong with being a gammon. It's just a left wing insult meaning a Conservative.
Tories need to reclaim the term and wear with pride while subsisting on a diet of Guiness and Beef Wellingtons to assure the correct facial tint.
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
I love racists making arguments about racism. It's...kind of recursive. For avoidance of doubt: you are a racist.
John, we've been over this before, gammons don't count as a race.
Nothing wrong with being a gammon. It's just a left wing insult meaning a Conservative.
Tories need to reclaim the term and wear with pride while subsisting on a diet of Guiness and Beef Wellingtons to assure the correct facial tint.
Javid can say we're ending Freedom of Movement become FoM is entirely a creation of the EU. It is no synonymous with a high level of immigration, or even uncontrolled immigration. It reflects the fact the EU nationals have the prima facie right to enter the UK and all limitations are derogations from that right.
There are no EU nationals because it is not a nation, but there are EU citizens which presently includes UK nationals. We are those people.
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
Using a racist slur while accusing others of racism. Nice.
And people can feel threatened when a different culture that does not integrate starts to become predominant in their towns. It doesn't make them all scum.
I think it's fair to say that parts of London contain different cultures which have become predominant and don't seem to integrate.
That of course would be the London which voted overwhelmingly to Remain.
Eh?
Are you equating voting remain with integrating properly?
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
I love racists making arguments about racism. It's...kind of recursive. For avoidance of doubt: you are a racist.
John, we've been over this before, gammons don't count as a race.
Nothing wrong with being a gammon. It's just a left wing insult meaning a Conservative.
Tories need to reclaim the term and wear with pride while subsisting on a diet of Guiness and Beef Wellingtons to assure the correct facial tint.
I assume the facial tint was mainly caused by the permanent bubbling rage of reading Breitbart daily and remembering that Muslims exist.
To be fair Julian Smith he’s always managed to get the Tory vote out when it matters.
Is there any chance the ultra-remainers within the Tories might go for the nuclear solution. I think those would be the ones I'd keep an eye on as Smith.
Ken Clarke, Dominic Grievr, and Anna Soubry hate Corbyn as PM more than Brexit, so Julian Smith should not worry about them.
Wollaston I’d worry about.
I think she's the weakest link. She has the zeal of the convert.
Wonder if she's thinking of joining the LDs.
Aren't we missing something. This all implies every one turns up. Not a single absence that hasn't been paired (and I think we can forget pairing for this one!).
Surely someone will be ill/family emergency/stuck on eurostar?
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
Using a racist slur while accusing others of racism. Nice.
And people can feel threatened when a different culture that does not integrate starts to become predominant in their towns. It doesn't make them all scum.
I think it's fair to say that parts of London contain different cultures which have become predominant and don't seem to integrate.
That of course would be the London which voted overwhelmingly to Remain.
Eh?
Are you equating voting remain with integrating properly?
No young fella, I am equating being surrounded by furriners with not minding furriners.
John McDonnell at the Guardian event (where he incidentally said he was a Remainer both in the past and any future referendum) suggested that if Corbyn became PM and negotiated a revised deal, it would be appropriate to put that to a referendum.
What about (if there is a GE early 2019) Lab run on a promise to hold an immediate referendum between this deal and remain?
To be fair Julian Smith he’s always managed to get the Tory vote out when it matters.
Is there any chance the ultra-remainers within the Tories might go for the nuclear solution. I think those would be the ones I'd keep an eye on as Smith.
Ken Clarke, Dominic Grievr, and Anna Soubry hate Corbyn as PM more than Brexit, so Julian Smith should not worry about them.
Wollaston I’d worry about.
I think she's the weakest link. She has the zeal of the convert.
Wonder if she's thinking of joining the LDs.
Aren't we missing something. This all implies every one turns up. Not a single absence that hasn't been paired (and I think we can forget pairing for this one!).
Surely someone will be ill/family emergency/stuck on eurostar?
Surely someone will be ill/family emergency/stuck on eurostar?
I don't think pairing applies, not on VONCs. In 1979:
One crucial vote was lost by Labour backbencher Sir Alfred Broughton who was unable to attend the vote due to ill health.[1] Broughton (professionally a doctor) was mortally ill and died a few days after the vote but was determined to come to Westminster if it meant saving the Government, although his own doctor was strongly opposed. Parliamentary procedure would have allowed his vote to be counted even if he remained within an ambulance at Speaker's Court.
However, after a debate over what would happen if Broughton died en route, Callaghan finally decided that he would not risk Broughton's health by asking him to travel, a decision which was to bring down the Government.[2] Broughton died on 2 April 1979.
In the BBC documentary "A Parliamentary Coup" it was revealed that Bernard Weatherill played a critical role in the defeat of the government in the vote of confidence. As the vote loomed, Labour's deputy Chief Whip, Walter Harrison approached Weatherill to enforce the pairing convention that if a sick MP from the Government could not vote, an MP from the Opposition would abstain to compensate.
Weatherill said that pairing had never been intended for votes on Matters of Confidence that meant the life or death of the Government and it would be impossible to find a Conservative MP who would agree to abstain. However, after a moment's reflection, he offered that he himself would abstain, because he felt it would be dishonourable to break his word with Harrison. Harrison was so impressed by Weatherill's offer – which would have effectively ended his political career – that he released Weatherill from his obligation and so the Government fell by one vote on the agreement of gentlemen.[13]
Javid can say we're ending Freedom of Movement become FoM is entirely a creation of the EU. It is no synonymous with a high level of immigration, or even uncontrolled immigration. It reflects the fact the EU nationals have the prima facie right to enter the UK and all limitations are derogations from that right.
There are no EU nationals because it is not a nation, but there are EU citizens which presently includes UK nationals. We are those people.
EU citizens, I should say. Member state nationals.
Freedom of Movement in the UK does not extend to most UK citizens, who enter the UK by virtue of that status and not of EU citizens. Though of course it is the same Freedoms that UK nationals enjoy when visiting other Member States.
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
I love racists making arguments about racism. It's...kind of recursive. For avoidance of doubt: you are a racist.
John, we've been over this before, gammons don't count as a race.
Nothing wrong with being a gammon. It's just a left wing insult meaning a Conservative.
Tories need to reclaim the term and wear with pride while subsisting on a diet of Guiness and Beef Wellingtons to assure the correct facial tint.
Javid can say we're ending Freedom of Movement become FoM is entirely a creation of the EU. It is no synonymous with a high level of immigration, or even uncontrolled immigration. It reflects the fact the EU nationals have the prima facie right to enter the UK and all limitations are derogations from that right.
There are no EU nationals because it is not a nation, but there are EU citizens which presently includes UK nationals. We are those people.
EU citizens, I should say. Member state nationals.
Freedom of Movement in the UK does not extend to most UK citizens, who enter the UK by virtue of that status and not of EU citizens. Though of course it is the same Freedoms that UK nationals enjoy when visiting other Member States.
The fewer immigrants in an area, the more Brexit it was.
Makes you think.
There was a correlation, but plenty of surprises too.
Barking & Dagenham, Birmingham, Bradford, Wolverhampton, Sandwell, Coventry, Dudley, Sheffield, Nottingham, Luton, Kirklees, Calderdale, all voted Leave, and Harrow and Newham came close. I expect this was because plenty of long-standing immigrants in those boroughs and cities voted Leave.
The fewer immigrants in an area, the more Brexit it was.
Makes you think.
It makes me think that all the "brexit = anti-immigration" stuff is simplistic and wrong, from both sides.
Brexiters in the same breath say how Brexit is not about immigration and then have a conniption fit when it is suggested that we could retain freedom of movement.
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
I love racists making arguments about racism. It's...kind of recursive. For avoidance of doubt: you are a racist.
John, we've been over this before, gammons don't count as a race.
Be fair, despite being some of the most cossetted human beings in history, the aging white right only want their share of the whiny victimhood pie.
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
Using a racist slur while accusing others of racism. Nice.
And people can feel threatened when a different culture that does not integrate starts to become predominant in their towns. It doesn't make them all scum.
I think it's fair to say that parts of London contain different cultures which have become predominant and don't seem to integrate.
That of course would be the London which voted overwhelmingly to Remain.
Eh?
Are you equating voting remain with integrating properly?
No young fella, I am equating being surrounded by furriners with not minding furriners.
But always happy to explain my posts.
But leave means more non-EU immigration, so by your logic it's remain who are the nasty racists who don't like brown people.
Labour win if they pitch it as remain an option but we will seek to renegotiate. The Tories simply cannot stand united promoting this deal, too many standing mps will not do it.
Ok so couple of questions:
1. Does that mean the May cannot lead them into a pre brexit GE? 2. Would the EU grant an incoming Lab govt an article 50 extension?
It's going to be hilarious when the gammons realise that they were bamboozled by Boris into voting for the largest increase in the amount of melanin in the UK since Windrush.
The fewer immigrants in an area, the more Brexit it was.
Makes you think.
It makes me think that all the "brexit = anti-immigration" stuff is simplistic and wrong, from both sides.
No, it's just that it's the people who haven't yet experienced immigration feel most threatened by it.
" areas where residents are most likely to oppose immigration – such as Thanet, where Nigel Farage campaigned for parliament in 2015 – tend also to have the least direct experiences of it"
Mr. Divvie, the weird comfort some have in attacking people for being white (Lammy's comment on the Grenfell judge was unpleasant) or assuming white people can't be victims (which worked just tremendously in Rotherham) is inexplicable to me.
"You can't be a victim of racism, because of your race" is up there with having a Select Committee dedicated to "Women and Equalities". Because nothing says equality like citing one gender.
If people's views are wrong, attacking the views rather than the people makes more sense, and seeking to persuade through presenting a more convincing view is better still.
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
I love racists making arguments about racism. It's...kind of recursive. For avoidance of doubt: you are a racist.
John, we've been over this before, gammons don't count as a race.
Be fair, despite being some of the most cossetted human beings in history, the aging white right only want their share of the whiny victimhood pie.
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
Using a racist slur while accusing others of racism. Nice.
And people can feel threatened when a different culture that does not integrate starts to become predominant in their towns. It doesn't make them all scum.
I think it's fair to say that parts of London contain different cultures which have become predominant and don't seem to integrate.
That of course would be the London which voted overwhelmingly to Remain.
Eh?
Are you equating voting remain with integrating properly?
No young fella, I am equating being surrounded by furriners with not minding furriners.
But always happy to explain my posts.
But leave means more non-EU immigration, so by your logic it's remain who are the nasty racists who don't like brown people.
Nothing if not bold in your logical contortions. I applaud you. Because all of the immigrants in London are fair, pearly-white skinned and yet for some reason London still voted Remain.
So a GE early 2019, Cons under May offering this deal, Lab under Corbyn offering 2nd ref with option to remain, what do we think the most likely outcome of that would be?
Labour win if they pitch it as remain an option but we will seek to renegotiate. The Tories simply cannot stand united promoting this deal, too many standing mps will not do it.
I disagree, as Deltapoll shows more voters back the Deal than either Remain or No Deal head to head
The fewer immigrants in an area, the more Brexit it was.
Makes you think.
It makes me think that all the "brexit = anti-immigration" stuff is simplistic and wrong, from both sides.
No, it's just that it's the people who haven't yet experienced immigration feel most threatened by it.
" areas where residents are most likely to oppose immigration – such as Thanet, where Nigel Farage campaigned for parliament in 2015 – tend also to have the least direct experiences of it"
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
I love racists making arguments about racism. It's...kind of recursive. For avoidance of doubt: you are a racist.
John, we've been over this before, gammons don't count as a race.
Nothing wrong with being a gammon. It's just a left wing insult meaning a Conservative.
Tories need to reclaim the term and wear with pride while subsisting on a diet of Guiness and Beef Wellingtons to assure the correct facial tint.
ie staple mess food, you mean?
I don't think I've ever had anything that could be identified as Beef Wellington by forensic scientists on any of Pusser's War Canoes.
The best shipboard food I ever had was in the Officers' Mess of INS Viraat. Their Sea Harrier drivers (INAS 300) dined like maharajahs and spent their time cruising in a triangle between Mumbai, the Seychelles and the Maldives.
Hammond may get the gig as a caretaker. Not sure I see him winning a contest for the permanent post.
Some markets are just next Con leader, others are next permanent Con leader, not counting temporary/caretaker replacements for May.
Hammond has no chance. He is more unpopular than May and even less charisma. He is just another tax and spend Chancellor who is over promoted. Either the Tories appoint a Leave supporter to replace May or they lay out the welcome mat for Corbyn.
If the ERG manage to topple May, which is unlikely, they are not going to allow a coronation for a Deal supporter like Hammond, Javid or Hunt but force a contest with one of their own like Boris or Davis going to the membership on a try for Canada Plus or No Deal platform and that candidate would likely win
We’ll see. I don’t think the ERG have the numbers to topple May. They can’t even force a leadership contest. However a Leave supporting OM is the only way to proceed. I think May d Corbyn will be in Downing St some time next year.
What death wish? While Corbyn leads LAB there a few risks for the Tories
May is electoral poison. She has no charisma and lost a 20% lead in the polls in the last election. She has no policies other than Brexit which no one likes. Both no deal and no Brexit are preferable. She has no domestic policy agenda and Hammond is just another tax and spend Chancellor. Who on earth wants to vote for all that. Raising the fear of a Corbyn Gov didn’t work last time, why on earth should it this time. It’s all she has got and it doesn’t work. Ditching her is the the Tories only hope and they don’t seem to want to save themselves.
That is why she leads Labour by 5 % in the last Year poll I guess.
She led by 20% at the start of the election campaign and lost her majority. 5% without boundary changes is nothing.
May got about the 42% she had at the start of the campaign, just Corbyn squeezed minor parties
Only because of a revival in Scotland. That won’t happen next time whereas Corbyn will make more gains in the South and West Midlands.
No because Corbyn squeezed the LD, Green and UKIP votes, there was little net movement from Tory to Labour in 2017
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
Using a racist slur while accusing others of racism. Nice.
And people can feel threatened when a different culture that does not integrate starts to become predominant in their towns. It doesn't make them all scum.
I think it's fair to say that parts of London contain different cultures which have become predominant and don't seem to integrate.
That of course would be the London which voted overwhelmingly to Remain.
Eh?
Are you equating voting remain with integrating properly?
No young fella, I am equating being surrounded by furriners with not minding furriners.
But always happy to explain my posts.
But leave means more non-EU immigration, so by your logic it's remain who are the nasty racists who don't like brown people.
It does not have to mean more non-EU immigration , the whole idea was so they could implement decent immigration rules and only take who they need for skills shortages rather than current system where everyone and their dog can just waltz in and never be chucked out. It is impossible for this overcrowded island to continue taking in 300K people every year, something has to give.
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
Using a racist slur while accusing others of racism. Nice.
And people can feel threatened when a different culture that does not integrate starts to become predominant in their towns. It doesn't make them all scum.
I think it's fair to say that parts of London contain different cultures which have become predominant and don't seem to integrate.
That of course would be the London which voted overwhelmingly to Remain.
Eh?
Are you equating voting remain with integrating properly?
No young fella, I am equating being surrounded by furriners with not minding furriners.
But always happy to explain my posts.
But leave means more non-EU immigration, so by your logic it's remain who are the nasty racists who don't like brown people.
Nothing if not bold in your logical contortions. I applaud you. Because all of the immigrants in London are fair, pearly-white skinned and yet for some reason London still voted Remain.
London voted for less non-EU immigration and more from the EU.
Hammond may get the gig as a caretaker. Not sure I see him winning a contest for the permanent post.
Some markets are just next Con leader, others are next permanent Con leader, not counting temporary/caretaker replacements for May.
Hammond has no chance. He is more unpopular than May and even less charisma. He is just another tax and spend Chancellor who is over promoted. Either the Tories appoint a Leave supporter to replace May or they lay out the welcome mat for Corbyn.
If the ERG manage to topple May, which is unlikely, they are not going to allow a coronation for a Deal supporter like Hammond, Javid or Hunt but force a contest with one of their own like Boris or Davis going to the membership on a try for Canada Plus or No Deal platform and that candidate would likely win
We’ll see. I don’t think the ERG have the numbers to topple May. They can’t even force a leadership contest. However a Leave supporting OM is the only way to proceed. I think May will lose her deal by a big margin, having been found in contempt of parliament for not publishing her legal advice, face a no confidence vote but survive thanks to the Remainers in the Tory Party who have a death wish. The DUP will help Labour bring her down and Corbyn will be in Downing St some time next year.
Given no alternative leader polls any better than May and most poll worse and the Deal is the only offer on the table from the EU if the ERG force May out and end up with Corbyn as PM and permanent Customs Union and maybe permanent Single Market too then that is up to them
The name recognition of being party leader is always important. May is a proven failure and loser. I doubt Westminister will tolerate No Deal but it is May’s negligence and gross dereliction in failing to prepare for it which will be responsible for any initial chaos if we do get No Deal. If we end up with no Brexit,which includes staying in the Customs Union and Single Market, then it doesn’t matter who the Tories appoint to replace her. They will lose the next election big time.
It could be PM Corbyn pushing through permanent Customs Union and Single Market if the Deal goes down
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
Using a racist slur while accusing others of racism. Nice.
And people can feel threatened when a different culture that does not integrate starts to become predominant in their towns. It doesn't make them all scum.
I think it's fair to say that parts of London contain different cultures which have become predominant and don't seem to integrate.
That of course would be the London which voted overwhelmingly to Remain.
Eh?
Are you equating voting remain with integrating properly?
No young fella, I am equating being surrounded by furriners with not minding furriners.
But always happy to explain my posts.
But leave means more non-EU immigration, so by your logic it's remain who are the nasty racists who don't like brown people.
Nothing if not bold in your logical contortions. I applaud you. Because all of the immigrants in London are fair, pearly-white skinned and yet for some reason London still voted Remain.
London voted for less non-EU immigration and more from the EU.
The 12 Inner London boroughs (plus Haringey) have a very distinctive political culture.
The Outer London boroughs are much closer to the rest of the England than to Inner London in their political outlook.
The fewer immigrants in an area, the more Brexit it was.
Makes you think.
It makes me think that all the "brexit = anti-immigration" stuff is simplistic and wrong, from both sides.
Brexiters in the same breath say how Brexit is not about immigration and then have a conniption fit when it is suggested that we could retain freedom of movement.
Brexiteers do not understand that FoM is not a synonym for immigration and the same government now proclaiming it will end FoM did nothing to curb immigration even from non-EU countries. The government has tied itself and Brexit in knots over its wholly symbolic need to end FoM.
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
Using a racist slur while accusing others of racism. Nice.
And people can feel threatened when a different culture that does not integrate starts to become predominant in their towns. It doesn't make them all scum.
I think it's fair to say that parts of London contain different cultures which have become predominant and don't seem to integrate.
That of course would be the London which voted overwhelmingly to Remain.
Eh?
Are you equating voting remain with integrating properly?
No young fella, I am equating being surrounded by furriners with not minding furriners.
But always happy to explain my posts.
But leave means more non-EU immigration, so by your logic it's remain who are the nasty racists who don't like brown people.
Nothing if not bold in your logical contortions. I applaud you. Because all of the immigrants in London are fair, pearly-white skinned and yet for some reason London still voted Remain.
London voted for less non-EU immigration and more from the EU.
Yes sorry I meant to apologise for being out when you came round with your questionnaire.
"No, it's just that it's the people who haven't yet experienced immigration feel most threatened by it."
Now, lets see … the people most threatened by immigration reside in Vilnius central (aka Boston - 76% Leave). I assume you've never been there. Or being as it's white immigration, it doesn't count?
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
Using a racist slur while accusing others of racism. Nice.
And people can feel threatened when a different culture that does not integrate starts to become predominant in their towns. It doesn't make them all scum.
I think it's fair to say that parts of London contain different cultures which have become predominant and don't seem to integrate.
That of course would be the London which voted overwhelmingly to Remain.
Eh?
Are you equating voting remain with integrating properly?
No young fella, I am equating being surrounded by furriners with not minding furriners.
But always happy to explain my posts.
But leave means more non-EU immigration, so by your logic it's remain who are the nasty racists who don't like brown people.
Nothing if not bold in your logical contortions. I applaud you. Because all of the immigrants in London are fair, pearly-white skinned and yet for some reason London still voted Remain.
London voted for less non-EU immigration and more from the EU.
Yes sorry I meant to apologise for being out when you came round with your questionnaire.
Are you this smarmy in real life? I can't imagine going through life being this unbearably smug.
Mr. Divvie, the weird comfort some have in attacking people for being white (Lammy's comment on the Grenfell judge was unpleasant) or assuming white people can't be victims (which worked just tremendously in Rotherham) is inexplicable to me.
Nobody gave a fuck about the Rotherham (and other) victims because of their social class not their race. If middle class girls from Berkshire had been abused the perpetrators would have been locked up immediately.
You need an intersectionalist analysis to understand Rotherham and similar cases. Read "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics", by Kimberlé Crenshaw for an introduction.
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
I love racists making arguments about racism. It's...kind of recursive. For avoidance of doubt: you are a racist.
John, we've been over this before, gammons don't count as a race.
Nothing wrong with being a gammon. It's just a left wing insult meaning a Conservative.
Tories need to reclaim the term and wear with pride while subsisting on a diet of Guiness and Beef Wellingtons to assure the correct facial tint.
ie staple mess food, you mean?
I don't think I've ever had anything that could be identified as Beef Wellington by forensic scientists on any of Pusser's War Canoes.
The best shipboard food I ever had was in the Officers' Mess of INS Viraat. Their Sea Harrier drivers (INAS 300) dined like maharajahs and spent their time cruising in a triangle between Mumbai, the Seychelles and the Maldives.
Totally O/t but on service food my late father-in-law was in bomb disposal late in WWII. Part of his duties was to go and make safe bombs which had fallen on American airfields, and after he'd finished the grateful Yanks would offer him a steak dinner. However, he was vegetarian, so always refused. They'd then offer him beer, and he was a teetotaller. He ended up with ice cream, which of course was unavalable in civilian UK.
Mr. Divvie, the weird comfort some have in attacking people for being white (Lammy's comment on the Grenfell judge was unpleasant) or assuming white people can't be victims (which worked just tremendously in Rotherham) is inexplicable to me.
You need an intersectionalist analysis to understand Rotherham and similar cases. Read "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics", by Kimberlé Crenshaw for an introduction.
I think I'd rather stick weasels down my trousers.
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
Using a racist slur while accusing others of racism. Nice.
And people can feel threatened when a different culture that does not integrate starts to become predominant in their towns. It doesn't make them all scum.
I think it's fair to say that parts of London contain different cultures which have become predominant and don't seem to integrate.
That of course would be the London which voted overwhelmingly to Remain.
Eh?
Are you equating voting remain with integrating properly?
No young fella, I am equating being surrounded by furriners with not minding furriners.
But always happy to explain my posts.
But leave means more non-EU immigration, so by your logic it's remain who are the nasty racists who don't like brown people.
Nothing if not bold in your logical contortions. I applaud you. Because all of the immigrants in London are fair, pearly-white skinned and yet for some reason London still voted Remain.
London voted for less non-EU immigration and more from the EU.
Yes sorry I meant to apologise for being out when you came round with your questionnaire.
Are you this smarmy in real life? I can't imagine going through life being this unbearably smug.
Mr. Divvie, the weird comfort some have in attacking people for being white (Lammy's comment on the Grenfell judge was unpleasant) or assuming white people can't be victims (which worked just tremendously in Rotherham) is inexplicable to me.
Nobody gave a fuck about the Rotherham (and other) victims because of their social class not their race. If middle class girls from Berkshire had been abused the perpetrators would have been locked up immediately.
You need an intersectionalist analysis to understand Rotherham and similar cases. Read "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics", by Kimberlé Crenshaw for an introduction.
Wasn't it a bit of both, TBH? Not something of which we can be proud.
You need an intersectionalist analysis to understand Rotherham and similar cases. Read "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics", by Kimberlé Crenshaw for an introduction.
If that's an introduction, what would you recommend for advanced studies?
Labour win if they pitch it as remain an option but we will seek to renegotiate. The Tories simply cannot stand united promoting this deal, too many standing mps will not do it.
Ok so couple of questions:
1. Does that mean the May cannot lead them into a pre brexit GE? 2. Would the EU grant an incoming Lab govt an article 50 extension?
No idea to both, Though I cannot see why the EU would offer an extension, even if it is within their power, on an uncertain outcome which might result in another impasse. Also I do not see how may could lead the Tories into a GE but equally an interim leader would not have a policy supported by all to take to a GE so I'm flummoxed
Mr. Divvie, the weird comfort some have in attacking people for being white (Lammy's comment on the Grenfell judge was unpleasant) or assuming white people can't be victims (which worked just tremendously in Rotherham) is inexplicable to me.
(Snip)
It's some time since I read the Jay report, but did it really say that assumptions were made that white people cannot be victims?
Mr. Divvie, the weird comfort some have in attacking people for being white (Lammy's comment on the Grenfell judge was unpleasant) or assuming white people can't be victims (which worked just tremendously in Rotherham) is inexplicable to me.
Nobody gave a fuck about the Rotherham (and other) victims because of their social class not their race. If middle class girls from Berkshire had been abused the perpetrators would have been locked up immediately.
You need an intersectionalist analysis to understand Rotherham and similar cases. Read "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics", by Kimberlé Crenshaw for an introduction.
Seconded. Crenshaw talks a lot of sense. Takes as much aim at the "traditional Left", in particular the comfortable middle class feminism which is prevalent in certain professional circles, as at more typical targets.
So a GE early 2019, Cons under May offering this deal, Lab under Corbyn offering 2nd ref with option to remain, what do we think the most likely outcome of that would be?
Labour win if they pitch it as remain an option but we will seek to renegotiate. The Tories simply cannot stand united promoting this deal, too many standing mps will not do it.
I disagree, as Deltapoll shows more voters back the Deal than either Remain or No Deal head to head
But the Tories will not universally back the deal in a GE. They're bringing down the government over it already.
Most people aren't libertarians. If they were, we'd have a borderless world, with a flat tax rate of 10%.
You don't have to be a Libertarian to appreciate the benefits of free movement
You do have to be a racist to think that free movement should apply to [predominantly white] Europeans and not other nations.
I think a lot of us missed that subtle anti racism message behind brexit in between the scare mongering about Turks and Syrians.
Yes I think you did. Why is it ethically and economically beneficially to apply free movement to the French, Germany, Italians, Poles and Romanians but not Australians, Candians, Americans, Singaporeans and Indians?
Most people aren't libertarians. If they were, we'd have a borderless world, with a flat tax rate of 10%.
You don't have to be a Libertarian to appreciate the benefits of free movement
You do have to be a racist to think that free movement should apply to [predominantly white] Europeans and not other nations.
I think a lot of us missed that subtle anti racism message behind brexit in between the scare mongering about Turks and Syrians.
Yes I think you did. Why is it ethically and economically beneficially to apply free movement to the French, Germany, Italians, Poles and Romanians but not Australians, Candians, Americans, Singaporeans and Indians?
Because it’s reciprocal and because they are part of our domestic economic market.
Labour win if they pitch it as remain an option but we will seek to renegotiate. The Tories simply cannot stand united promoting this deal, too many standing mps will not do it.
Ok so couple of questions:
1. Does that mean the May cannot lead them into a pre brexit GE? 2. Would the EU grant an incoming Lab govt an article 50 extension?
No idea to both, Though I cannot see why the EU would offer an extension, even if it is within their power, on an uncertain outcome which might result in another impasse. Also I do not see how may could lead the Tories into a GE but equally an interim leader would not have a policy supported by all to take to a GE so I'm flummoxed
If it looks like it'll result in a better deal for their members, sure they'd offer an extension.
The current thing is heavily constrained by TMay's red lines, which don't fit together on normal geometry, hence its uncanny angles that appear loathsomely non-Euclidean, a hideous monolith whose gaze leads the observer to question both their sanity and reality.
However, Corbyn may also fight an election on similar contradictions, so you'd expect him to at least come up with something coherent, potentially immediately dropping whatever bullshit he'd fought the election on, if he wanted the rest of the EU to answer the call.
It was Freedom of Movement and the ending of it that won the referendum, hardly chilling
Yes it was, that's the chilling bit.
Blatant Xenophobia won the referendum. Only the idiots are cheering.
Free migration has never been popular among the voters.
I think we've learned the hard way that attempting to placate extremism doesn't work and can backfire spectacularly.
I think what has never been adequately addressed is the reason why the UK's benefits, housing and healthcare systems are so unduly strained by what should be a reasonably sustainable level of immigration, especially as compared to other EU nations.
I think there's been a real public policy failure here. Blaming immigration allowed politicians to ignore serious structural problems in our services for decades, and here we are.
300,000 a year is reasonably sustainable?
I mean, other EU nations seem to be able to cope with proportionate levels of immigration. We cannot- and I don't think UK politicians have ever seriously engaged with why.
Name the other EU nations with our population density and out net migration rate.
Not directly responding to you, but for those interested, here's a useful link:
Fascinating. By my reading of the graph the only EU nation with comparable migration rates to us are Luxembourg (micronation, not really a comparison for anything) and Sweden. No other nation I can see have had our sustained rates of migration.
Second part of my question was population density. UK 395 people per square kilometre. Sweden 22 people per square kilometre.
So doesn't look like, despite grabcocque's claims to the contrary, that any other is comparable to us.
Labour win if they pitch it as remain an option but we will seek to renegotiate. The Tories simply cannot stand united promoting this deal, too many standing mps will not do it.
Ok so couple of questions:
1. Does that mean the May cannot lead them into a pre brexit GE? 2. Would the EU grant an incoming Lab govt an article 50 extension?
No idea to both, Though I cannot see why the EU would offer an extension, even if it is within their power, on an uncertain outcome which might result in another impasse. Also I do not see how may could lead the Tories into a GE but equally an interim leader would not have a policy supported by all to take to a GE so I'm flummoxed
I believe the EU have already said that they would only offer an A50 extension for a GE or a referendum (so implicitly agreeing to do so for either one). Their logic was that in the absence of a significant political change, there would be no substantive change in the situation and therefore no justification for an A50 extension. So if there was one of those, it would indicate the possibility of a substantive change and it would therefore be wrong to deny us the time we'd need afterwards.
Labour win if they pitch it as remain an option but we will seek to renegotiate. The Tories simply cannot stand united promoting this deal, too many standing mps will not do it.
Ok so couple of questions:
1. Does that mean the May cannot lead them into a pre brexit GE? 2. Would the EU grant an incoming Lab govt an article 50 extension?
No idea to both, Though I cannot see why the EU would offer an extension, even if it is within their power, on an uncertain outcome which might result in another impasse. Also I do not see how may could lead the Tories into a GE but equally an interim leader would not have a policy supported by all to take to a GE so I'm flummoxed
If it looks like it'll result in a better deal for their members, sure they'd offer an extension.
The current thing is heavily constrained by TMay's red lines, which don't fit together on normal geometry, hence its uncanny angles that appear loathsomely non-Euclidean, a hideous monolith whose gaze leads the observer to question both their sanity and reality.
However, Corbyn may also fight an election on similar contradictions, so you'd expect him to at least come up with something coherent, potentially immediately dropping whatever bullshit he'd fought the election on, if he wanted the rest of the EU to answer the call.
I think labour would be more flexible but as you point out he might need to fight an election on contradictory promises. The EU could not be sure a delay would be worth it for them.
So a GE early 2019, Cons under May offering this deal, Lab under Corbyn offering 2nd ref with option to remain, what do we think the most likely outcome of that would be?
Labour win if they pitch it as remain an option but we will seek to renegotiate. The Tories simply cannot stand united promoting this deal, too many standing mps will not do it.
I disagree, as Deltapoll shows more voters back the Deal than either Remain or No Deal head to head
But the Tories will not universally back the deal in a GE. They're bringing down the government over it already.
No but most Tory voters if not MPs and members back the Deal in the polls along with a significant number of working class Labour voters as John Mann has found out. It is really diehard Remain voters, UKIP voters and Hannanites who.oppose the Deal
One of the problems in Boston is the immigration is mass immigration and unlike some other Europeans, most don't speak much English. Usually their second language is Russian - a language they often use to converse together. It makes integration much more difficult.
Having said that, I'd prefer that to having masses of Londoners flocking in.
One of my younger nephews in Boston voted Remain, but we assume he'll grow out of it.
Most people aren't libertarians. If they were, we'd have a borderless world, with a flat tax rate of 10%.
You don't have to be a Libertarian to appreciate the benefits of free movement
You do have to be a racist to think that free movement should apply to [predominantly white] Europeans and not other nations.
I think a lot of us missed that subtle anti racism message behind brexit in between the scare mongering about Turks and Syrians.
Yes I think you did. Why is it ethically and economically beneficially to apply free movement to the French, Germany, Italians, Poles and Romanians but not Australians, Candians, Americans, Singaporeans and Indians?
Because it’s reciprocal and because they are part of our domestic economic market.
Our domestic nation is the UK. We have free trade with their domestic markets.
So you'd have no ethical or economic concerns about free movement with Australia, Canada, United States, Singapore or India then? So long as we could agree a single market with them it would be xenophobic not to agree to it right?
Same for Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Ethiopia?
The 12 Inner London boroughs (plus Haringey) have a very distinctive political culture.
The Outer London boroughs are much closer to the rest of the England than to Inner London in their political outlook.
Even that is a big oversimplifcation. Havering is not like Richmond upon Thames, in fact their Brexit vote is the mirror image of one another.
Talking about what London thinks (Greater London to be precise) is like lumping Scotland and Wales together, and it usually results in a misleading statement.
The 12 Inner London boroughs (plus Haringey) have a very distinctive political culture.
The Outer London boroughs are much closer to the rest of the England than to Inner London in their political outlook.
Even that is a big oversimplifcation. Havering is not like Richmond upon Thames, in fact their Brexit vote is the mirror image of one another.
Talking about what London thinks (Greater London to be precise) is like lumping Scotland and Wales together, and it usually results in a misleading statement.
Yes, but Havering looks out to the east of London and Richmond to the southwest. And in that regards they are more like their neighbours outside London than their neighbours in Central London.
The 12 Inner London boroughs (plus Haringey) have a very distinctive political culture.
The Outer London boroughs are much closer to the rest of the England than to Inner London in their political outlook.
Even that is a big oversimplifcation. Havering is not like Richmond upon Thames, in fact their Brexit vote is the mirror image of one another.
Talking about what London thinks (Greater London to be precise) is like lumping Scotland and Wales together, and it usually results in a misleading statement.
It is an oversimplification. London is a series of towns and villages that have grown into each other, and which have their own political cultures.
Mr. Divvie, the weird comfort some have in attacking people for being white (Lammy's comment on the Grenfell judge was unpleasant) or assuming white people can't be victims (which worked just tremendously in Rotherham) is inexplicable to me.
Nobody gave a fuck about the Rotherham (and other) victims because of their social class not their race. If middle class girls from Berkshire had been abused the perpetrators would have been locked up immediately.
You need an intersectionalist analysis to understand Rotherham and similar cases. Read "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics", by Kimberlé Crenshaw for an introduction.
In fact middle class girls and boys from Berkshire were being abused by music teachers. This is the tip of the iceberg.
So a GE early 2019, Cons under May offering this deal, Lab under Corbyn offering 2nd ref with option to remain, what do we think the most likely outcome of that would be?
Labour win if they pitch it as remain an option but we will seek to renegotiate. The Tories simply cannot stand united promoting this deal, too many standing mps will not do it.
I disagree, as Deltapoll shows more voters back the Deal than either Remain or No Deal head to head
But the Tories will not universally back the deal in a GE. They're bringing down the government over it already.
No but most Tory voters if not MPs and members back the Deal in the polls along with a significant number of working class Labour voters as John Mann has found out. It is really diehard Remain voters, UKIP voters and Hannanites who.oppose the Deal
You are being disingenuous. Most people including those in government dislike the deal. Mrs May has run the clock down so the option is take it or leave it.
"No, it's just that it's the people who haven't yet experienced immigration feel most threatened by it."
Now, lets see … the people most threatened by immigration reside in Vilnius central (aka Boston - 76% Leave). I assume you've never been there. Or being as it's white immigration, it doesn't count?
Don't worry, I dare say you will remain comfortable in your prejudice and bigotry as few Londoners are likely to target Boston as their new home.
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
Using a racist slur while accusing others of racism. Nice.
And people can feel threatened when a different culture that does not integrate starts to become predominant in their towns. It doesn't make them all scum.
I think it's fair to say that parts of London contain different cultures which have become predominant and don't seem to integrate.
That of course would be the London which voted overwhelmingly to Remain.
Eh?
Are you equating voting remain with integrating properly?
No young fella, I am equating being surrounded by furriners with not minding furriners.
But always happy to explain my posts.
But leave means more non-EU immigration, so by your logic it's remain who are the nasty racists who don't like brown people.
Nothing if not bold in your logical contortions. I applaud you. Because all of the immigrants in London are fair, pearly-white skinned and yet for some reason London still voted Remain.
London voted for less non-EU immigration and more from the EU.
The 12 Inner London boroughs (plus Haringey) have a very distinctive political culture.
The Outer London boroughs are much closer to the rest of the England than to Inner London in their political outlook.
That's at least 50% garbage. Waltham Forest is an outer London borough yet is a fully fledged part of the capital. Ditto Richmond (in a different way). The fact that older Haveringites refuse to accept the 1965 boundary changes and still think they are part of Essex goes only a tiny way to making your point.
Mr. Divvie, the weird comfort some have in attacking people for being white (Lammy's comment on the Grenfell judge was unpleasant) or assuming white people can't be victims (which worked just tremendously in Rotherham) is inexplicable to me.
You need an intersectionalist analysis to understand Rotherham and similar cases. Read "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics", by Kimberlé Crenshaw for an introduction.
I think I'd rather stick weasels down my trousers.
Well they do say that a trait of rightwingers is luxuriating in their own ignorance.
So a GE early 2019, Cons under May offering this deal, Lab under Corbyn offering 2nd ref with option to remain, what do we think the most likely outcome of that would be?
Labour win if they pitch it as remain an option but we will seek to renegotiate. The Tories simply cannot stand united promoting this deal, too many standing mps will not do it.
I disagree, as Deltapoll shows more voters back the Deal than either Remain or No Deal head to head
But the Tories will not universally back the deal in a GE. They're bringing down the government over it already.
No but most Tory voters if not MPs and members back the Deal in the polls along with a significant number of working class Labour voters as John Mann has found out. It is really diehard Remain voters, UKIP voters and Hannanites who.oppose the Deal
You are being disingenuous. Most people including those in government dislike the deal. Mrs May has run the clock down so the option is take it or leave it.
Wrong, as Deltapoll proved the Deal beats Remain and No Deal head to head with voters
Yes, but Havering looks out to the east of London and Richmond to the southwest. And in that regards they are more like their neighbours outside London than their neighbours in Central London.
I agree with that, but it still doesn't make much sense to talk about "Outer London" as a uniform block, when as you point out their politics probably has more to do with say the counties from which Outer London is composed.
It is an oversimplification. London is a series of towns and villages that have grown into each other, and which have their own political cultures.
Yes, but you wouldn't know that from listening to the commentariat which talks as though London has one settled view on any issue. It's way more diverse than that, and you can see huge changes in places and people mere minutes apart, and in the same town nevermind the same Borough.
Mr. Divvie, the weird comfort some have in attacking people for being white (Lammy's comment on the Grenfell judge was unpleasant) or assuming white people can't be victims (which worked just tremendously in Rotherham) is inexplicable to me.
You need an intersectionalist analysis to understand Rotherham and similar cases. Read "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics", by Kimberlé Crenshaw for an introduction.
I think I'd rather stick weasels down my trousers.
Well they do say that a trait of rightwingers is luxuriating in their own ignorance.
John McDonnell at the Guardian event (where he incidentally said he was a Remainer both in the past and any future referendum) suggested that if Corbyn became PM and negotiated a revised deal, it would be appropriate to put that to a referendum.
What about (if there is a GE early 2019) Lab run on a promise to hold an immediate referendum between this deal and remain?
Is that totally out of the question?
Nothing is impossible, as we've repeatedly seen this year, but I think that's unlikely - Corbyn will want to have a shot at getting a deal more tailored to what Labour wants (e.g. fewer restrictions on state aid) by dropping something which Mrs May regarded as a red line (not having as permanent customs union). But if there is an election Labour will need to be pretty specific about it.
John McDonnell at the Guardian event (where he incidentally said he was a Remainer both in the past and any future referendum) suggested that if Corbyn became PM and negotiated a revised deal, it would be appropriate to put that to a referendum.
What about (if there is a GE early 2019) Lab run on a promise to hold an immediate referendum between this deal and remain?
Is that totally out of the question?
Nothing is impossible, as we've repeatedly seen this year, but I think that's unlikely - Corbyn will want to have a shot at getting a deal more tailored to what Labour wants (e.g. fewer restrictions on state aid) by dropping something which Mrs May regarded as a red line (not having as permanent customs union). But if there is an election Labour will need to be pretty specific about it.
State aid rules (the open competition on a market wide basis) are as passionate to the EU project as free movement of labour. The EU give on that they'll be hell to pay in France etc.
Yes, but Havering looks out to the east of London and Richmond to the southwest. And in that regards they are more like their neighbours outside London than their neighbours in Central London.
I agree with that, but it still doesn't make much sense to talk about "Outer London" as a uniform block, when as you point out their politics probably has more to do with say the counties from which Outer London is composed.
It is an oversimplification. London is a series of towns and villages that have grown into each other, and which have their own political cultures.
Yes, but you wouldn't know that from listening to the commentariat which talks as though London has one settled view on any issue. It's way more diverse than that, and you can see huge changes in places and people mere minutes apart, and in the same town nevermind the same Borough.
Taking a taxi South of the river after dark ..........
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
T
Using a racist slur while accusing others of racism. Nice.
And people can feel threatened when a different culture that does not integrate starts to become predominant in their towns. It doesn't make them all scum.
I think it's fair to say that parts of London contain different cultures which have become predominant and don't seem to integrate.
That of course would be the London which voted overwhelmingly to Remain.
Eh?
Are you equating voting remain with integrating properly?
No young fella, I am equating being surrounded by furriners with not minding furriners.
But always happy to explain my posts.
But leave means more non-EU immigration, so by your logic it's remain who are the nasty racists who don't like brown people.
Nothing if not bold in your logical contortions. I applaud you. Because all of the immigrants in London are fair, pearly-white skinned and yet for some reason London still voted Remain.
London voted for less non-EU immigration and more from the EU.
The 12 Inner London boroughs (plus Haringey) have a very distinctive political culture.
The Outer London boroughs are much closer to the rest of the England than to Inner London in their political outlook.
That's at least 50% garbage. Waltham Forest is an outer London borough yet is a fully fledged part of the capital. Ditto Richmond (in a different way). The fact that older Haveringites refuse to accept the 1965 boundary changes and still think they are part of Essex goes only a tiny way to making your point.
Exactly. Havering, and to some extent Barking, are the last vestiges of white working class London, which upon a time used to cover much of east and south London. Large parts of Redbridge were similar when I moved there in the 1980s, but Redbridge is now a multi-ethnic Borough with politics closer to those of Waltham Forest.
The big difference in London is that the educated middle classes are more liberal than their counterparts in much of the Home Counties. So Boroughs like Richmond were more Remain than Surrey, Bromley more Remain than Kent, etc. Havering has less of an educated middle class and hence there wasn't much difference between it and Essex.
Most people aren't libertarians. If they were, we'd have a borderless world, with a flat tax rate of 10%.
You don't have to be a Libertarian to appreciate the benefits of free movement
You do have to be a racist to think that free movement should apply to [predominantly white] Europeans and not other nations.
I think a lot of us missed that subtle anti racism message behind brexit in between the scare mongering about Turks and Syrians.
Yes I think you did. Why is it ethically and economically beneficially to apply free movement to the French, Germany, Italians, Poles and Romanians but not Australians, Candians, Americans, Singaporeans and Indians?
Because it’s reciprocal and because they are part of our domestic economic market.
Our domestic nation is the UK.
You support immigration controls on the Irish border then?
John McDonnell at the Guardian event (where he incidentally said he was a Remainer both in the past and any future referendum) suggested that if Corbyn became PM and negotiated a revised deal, it would be appropriate to put that to a referendum.
What about (if there is a GE early 2019) Lab run on a promise to hold an immediate referendum between this deal and remain?
Is that totally out of the question?
Nothing is impossible, as we've repeatedly seen this year, but I think that's unlikely - Corbyn will want to have a shot at getting a deal more tailored to what Labour wants (e.g. fewer restrictions on state aid) by dropping something which Mrs May regarded as a red line (not having as permanent customs union). But if there is an election Labour will need to be pretty specific about it.
Also I don’t see how Labour can campaign on a referendum between an option they’ve rejected and remain - too easy to portray that as an anti-Brexit stance, and it doesn’t make clear what Labour are bringing to the table. By saying they will negotiate for a better deal and then give the people a say they can still sell a positive vision of magical Brexit to leavers while getting the support of remainders who see a party offering a referendum as the only way there’s a chance of stopping the process.
Considering child poverty is lower now than when they took office, that the changes to personal allowances and national living wage means those earning at the bottom have seen their wages rise quicker, oh and there's absolutely *ZERO* evidence to suggest that there's been any increase in undernourishment rates amongst children.
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
T
Using a racist slur while accusing others of racism. Nice.
And people can feel threatened when a different culture that does not integrate starts to become predominant in their towns. It doesn't make them all scum.
I think it's fair to say that parts of London contain different cultures which have become predominant and don't seem to integrate.
That of course would be the London which voted overwhelmingly to Remain.
Eh?
Are you equating voting remain with integrating properly?
No young fella, I am equating being surrounded by furriners with not minding furriners.
But always happy to explain my posts.
But leave means more non-EU immigration, so by your logic it's remain who are the nasty racists who don't like brown people.
Nothing if not bold in your logical contortions. I applaud you. Because all of the immigrants in London are fair, pearly-white skinned and yet for some reason London still voted Remain.
London voted for less non-EU immigration and more from the EU.
The 12 Inner London boroughs (plus Haringey) have a very distinctive political culture.
The Outer London boroughs are much closer to the rest of the England than to Inner London in their political outlook.
That's at least 50% garbage. Waltham Forest is an outer London borough yet is a fully fledged part of the capital. Ditto Richmond (in a different way). The fact that older Haveringites refuse to accept the 1965 boundary changes and still think they are part of Essex goes only a tiny way to making your point.
Exactly. Havering, and to some extent Barking, are the last vestiges of white working class London, which upon a time used to cover much of east and south London. Large parts of Redbridge were similar when I moved there in the 1980s, but Redbridge is now a multi-ethnic Borough with politics closer to those of Waltham Forest.
The big difference in London is that the educated middle classes are more liberal than their counterparts in much of the Home Counties. So Boroughs like Richmond were more Remain than Surrey, Bromley more Remain than Kent, etc. Havering has less of an educated middle class and hence there wasn't much difference between it and Essex.
Comments
Tag yourself, which gammon are you? I'm middle-left.
And whatever happens with the deal the past few years means the Tories don't deserve consideration.
Makes you think.
Are you equating voting remain with integrating properly?
Surely someone will be ill/family emergency/stuck on eurostar?
But always happy to explain my posts.
Is that totally out of the question?
One crucial vote was lost by Labour backbencher Sir Alfred Broughton who was unable to attend the vote due to ill health.[1] Broughton (professionally a doctor) was mortally ill and died a few days after the vote but was determined to come to Westminster if it meant saving the Government, although his own doctor was strongly opposed. Parliamentary procedure would have allowed his vote to be counted even if he remained within an ambulance at Speaker's Court.
However, after a debate over what would happen if Broughton died en route, Callaghan finally decided that he would not risk Broughton's health by asking him to travel, a decision which was to bring down the Government.[2] Broughton died on 2 April 1979.
In the BBC documentary "A Parliamentary Coup" it was revealed that Bernard Weatherill played a critical role in the defeat of the government in the vote of confidence. As the vote loomed, Labour's deputy Chief Whip, Walter Harrison approached Weatherill to enforce the pairing convention that if a sick MP from the Government could not vote, an MP from the Opposition would abstain to compensate.
Weatherill said that pairing had never been intended for votes on Matters of Confidence that meant the life or death of the Government and it would be impossible to find a Conservative MP who would agree to abstain. However, after a moment's reflection, he offered that he himself would abstain, because he felt it would be dishonourable to break his word with Harrison. Harrison was so impressed by Weatherill's offer – which would have effectively ended his political career – that he released Weatherill from his obligation and so the Government fell by one vote on the agreement of gentlemen.[13]
Freedom of Movement in the UK does not extend to most UK citizens, who enter the UK by virtue of that status and not of EU citizens. Though of course it is the same Freedoms that UK nationals enjoy when visiting other Member States.
Barking & Dagenham, Birmingham, Bradford, Wolverhampton, Sandwell, Coventry, Dudley, Sheffield, Nottingham, Luton, Kirklees, Calderdale, all voted Leave, and Harrow and Newham came close. I expect this was because plenty of long-standing immigrants in those boroughs and cities voted Leave.
1. Does that mean the May cannot lead them into a pre brexit GE?
2. Would the EU grant an incoming Lab govt an article 50 extension?
" areas where residents are most likely to oppose immigration – such as Thanet, where Nigel Farage campaigned for parliament in 2015 – tend also to have the least direct experiences of it"
http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-areas-with-low-immigration-voted-mainly-for-brexit-62138
"You can't be a victim of racism, because of your race" is up there with having a Select Committee dedicated to "Women and Equalities". Because nothing says equality like citing one gender.
If people's views are wrong, attacking the views rather than the people makes more sense, and seeking to persuade through presenting a more convincing view is better still.
The best shipboard food I ever had was in the Officers' Mess of INS Viraat. Their Sea Harrier drivers (INAS 300) dined like maharajahs and spent their time cruising in a triangle between Mumbai, the Seychelles and the Maldives.
The Outer London boroughs are much closer to the rest of the England than to Inner London in their political outlook.
"No, it's just that it's the people who haven't yet experienced immigration feel most threatened by it."
Now, lets see … the people most threatened by immigration reside in Vilnius central (aka Boston - 76% Leave). I assume you've never been there. Or being as it's white immigration, it doesn't count?
She backed Leave
You need an intersectionalist analysis to understand Rotherham and similar cases. Read "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics", by Kimberlé Crenshaw for an introduction.
https://twitter.com/marcus_buist/status/593398636198895616
He ended up with ice cream, which of course was unavalable in civilian UK.
I think I'd rather stick weasels down my trousers.
https://twitter.com/JohnMannMP/status/1069321971685568515
How do I get to see the (Betfair) chart showing the percentage breakdown, UK to leave the EU (Yes/No)? Wondering if we have had crossover yet?
https://twitter.com/ali_harper/status/1069287917359648770
The current thing is heavily constrained by TMay's red lines, which don't fit together on normal geometry, hence its uncanny angles that appear loathsomely non-Euclidean, a hideous monolith whose gaze leads the observer to question both their sanity and reality.
However, Corbyn may also fight an election on similar contradictions, so you'd expect him to at least come up with something coherent, potentially immediately dropping whatever bullshit he'd fought the election on, if he wanted the rest of the EU to answer the call.
Second part of my question was population density.
UK 395 people per square kilometre.
Sweden 22 people per square kilometre.
So doesn't look like, despite grabcocque's claims to the contrary, that any other is comparable to us.
Their logic was that in the absence of a significant political change, there would be no substantive change in the situation and therefore no justification for an A50 extension.
So if there was one of those, it would indicate the possibility of a substantive change and it would therefore be wrong to deny us the time we'd need afterwards.
Having said that, I'd prefer that to having masses of Londoners flocking in.
One of my younger nephews in Boston voted Remain, but we assume he'll grow out of it.
So you'd have no ethical or economic concerns about free movement with Australia, Canada, United States, Singapore or India then? So long as we could agree a single market with them it would be xenophobic not to agree to it right?
Same for Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Ethiopia?
Talking about what London thinks (Greater London to be precise) is like lumping Scotland and Wales together, and it usually results in a misleading statement.
https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1069575928471347200
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4277808/Head-Music-Wellington-College-suspended.html
I daresay police were afraid to intervene for fear of appearing tone deaf.
https://mobile.twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1069544236310241280
May PM
These two hold the other two great offices of state.
https://twitter.com/UpTheWorkers/status/1069366748363845632
The big difference in London is that the educated middle classes are more liberal than their counterparts in much of the Home Counties. So Boroughs like Richmond were more Remain than Surrey, Bromley more Remain than Kent, etc. Havering has less of an educated middle class and hence there wasn't much difference between it and Essex.