How many people would change their voting intention if a political leader failed to do a TV interview? I would suggest zero. How many people would change their voting intention if a political leader did the interview and got torn to pieces, like the hapless Mr Corbyn? Perhaps enough to change the result in quite a few marginal seats.
But why pass up the chance to run rings around Neil with his brio, wit, sincerity, and astonishing grasp of both big picture and detail, thus making that landslide a near certainty?
Am I the only one who's intensely relaxed about Boris ditching Neil? Why risk the possibility of a Chernobyl-level event? And given that Labour's resorting to dirty tricks with their dodgy NHS dossiers, I see no reason why the Tories shouldn't try to shaft Labour in every way imaginable, including this one.
Very much not alone. All people who are more concerned that he wins than they are about his suitability for the thing that is to be won will feel as you do.
Boris would be more suitable than Corbyn for the role of Prime Minister if he spent the next fortnight posting colourful parcels full of dog doo-doo down people's chimneys for a laugh...
Shameful from the Tories who are now attacking EU citizens .
Claiming they take out 4 billion in welfare ignoring the fact they actually pay more in taxes than they take out .
And they sit there saying they want to welcome migrants , when they’re attacking EU nationals in this way . Utterly despicable.
All of them!? There is something completely screwed up with our tax and benefit system if we are paying £4 billion in welfare to them while they are all actually paying more in taxes than they take out. We really need to stop this ludicrous giving with one hand and taking away with another, simplify the tax and benefit system. Or do some of them pay taxes and some of them take benefits so some contribute more than they take and some take more than they contribute? So if we had a points based system we could continue to bring in those contributing more than they take but not bring in those taking more than they contribute?
EU nationals are a net gain for the treasury. Those are the official stats .
Is it wrong to want them to be a bigger gain, by keeping out those who drain resources? Surely we can devise a system that allows net contributors and genuine refugees rather than big issue sellers.
Am I the only one who's intensely relaxed about Boris ditching Neil? Why risk the possibility of a Chernobyl-level event? And given that Labour's resorting to dirty tricks with their dodgy NHS dossiers, I see no reason why the Tories shouldn't try to shaft Labour in every way imaginable, including this one.
All I know is May being chicken cut through to non political types I knew, and I suspect Boris being chicken will as well. If something is tough, as a leader, you're supposed to overcome it, not wet your pants and skip it, trusting that no one is going to care.
Except May didn't do _any_ debates, whereas Boris is doing all the head-to-head ones with Corbyn, and even Corbyn hnimself is ducking out of a couple of extraneous ones, if I remember correctly. The narrative just doesn't work if people see Boris on stage with Corbyn, who is after all his only rival for the premiership.
It won't be exactly the same, so it may not be quite as effective, but it is still a hook to hang on him - because no one seems to be under any pretence that he is not doing other things for any reason other than he is afraid of screwing up so is limiting what he does. As you yourself have put it he does not want to risk it. That is, he is frit. Given he loses if he simply does not win by enough, I think its more of a risk to be a coward - be bold Boris, be brave, be optimistic. Is that not what he is always telling us? Why suddenly walking on eggshells and restricting himself?
If - for example - our schools and hospitals are full to bursting we have the options of:
(i) increasing capex to build more facilities, with the increased overhead and associated running costs; (ii) providing a sub-optimal service by cramming more kids into the classroom; or (iii) reducing the demand
In any event, your calculation above doesn't take into account the limited capacity
It also doesn't take into account opportunity cost. If we are taking in someone unskilled on minimum wage via free movement but are trying to manage numbers [due to capacity etc] then do we take in one fewer highly skilled migrant that could contribute much more?
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Your post is rot since you have no way of knowing how that total of contributions is made up. A large part of it, I suspect, will be a much smaller number of highly paid EU expats working in the UK for high salaries in the professions and in the City of London. Precisely the people that Corbyn will drive away, if he's elected. In a way these are a microcosm of the UK tax-base - a small percentage paying the lion's share of tax. Just the people who you purport to despise.
I don't agree with Nico very often, but it's worth looking at total UK government spending in detail. Total central government spending in 2020 was £848bn. Of this, the largest chunk (by a whisker) is health care at £162bn. Now, EU citizens will use the NHS while they're here. So this is a cost. But the vast bulk of health care spending is on oldies. (My favourite fact is that on average half of all the money spent on your health care will be in thel last six months of your life.) The median age for EU citizens in the UK is really low, like high 20s, so they are highly unlikely (on average) to be big recipients of the health care budget. Next up is pensions at £161bn. Very few EU citizens will be recieving UK pensions, and those that do will almost entirely be Irish. Welfare is £126bn, of which EU citizens take £4bn, so here they do take out - mostly through housing benefit and other in work benefits. (Which I personally do not think they should be eligible for. But it is worth remembering, that they are claiming these at half the rate of the rest of the population - 5.5% of people, 3% of welfare payments.) Education (£91bn) comes next. EU citizens in the UK *do* have children, so they will take out here. But while 5.5% of people in the UK are from the EU (3.6m) only 1.6% of children are from the EU. So EU citizens are taking less of public spending here. Interest payments (£52bn) are next. And if every EU citizen left, we'd still be paying those. Defence (£50bn) is last of the big spenders. And it's not clear we'd save a cent, again, if they left. So, just rough back of the envelope calculations would say that EU citizens don't take up anywhere near 5.5% of total government spendig. I'd reckon, given how small a proportion of the biggest two items they are, and given they are basically zero of items four and five, it's hard to say they are responsible for more than 1.5% of government spending at most. So, they'd need to earn 75% less than Brits on average for them not to be accretive to government finances. (And given more of them are in work, that number probably looks more like 80%.)
And on education spending, if their children stay in the UK, that is great for helping our problematic demographics, so has clear long term economic benefits.
If - for example - our schools and hospitals are full to bursting we have the options of:
(i) increasing capex to build more facilities, with the increased overhead and associated running costs; (ii) providing a sub-optimal service by cramming more kids into the classroom; or (iii) reducing the demand
In any event, your calculation above doesn't take into account the limited capacity
It also doesn't take into account opportunity cost. If we are taking in someone unskilled on minimum wage via free movement but are trying to manage numbers [due to capacity etc] then do we take in one fewer highly skilled migrant that could contribute much more?
Been out all day on the doorsteps. That soft Tory vote is hardening. Fear of Corbyn is bringng them back onboard. The LibDem women of a certain age realise the game is up - and they are not going to get Dr. Sarah re-elected. Apart from the "all Tories are f*cking arseholes" guy, the only venom that has come my way have been from these women. Real face-contorting hate. Not a good look, ladies.... Boris still proving Marmite, but when confronted with Marmite or Corbyn's Cup of Cold Sick, it's Marmite every time. Returning Officer will have a fun write in on the night. Knocked on one door and was told "Och noo, this is an SNP hoos....." I also found a UKIP/Survivalist. Thought we should all have guns to protect ourselves from the upcoming New World Order apocolypse. She'd been reading about it online. A lot. In the absence of a UKIP or Brexit candidate, I secured the vote of her and her husband....
All fine, your Conservative candidate my romp home by 40,000 votes and Stephen Timms in my constituency may also win by 40,000 votes but we both know neither seat is where this election is going to be decided.
Quite. Good to get info, but the areas that will swing it are very different. Will Labour voters return home, that's the key.
If - for example - our schools and hospitals are full to bursting we have the options of:
(i) increasing capex to build more facilities, with the increased overhead and associated running costs; (ii) providing a sub-optimal service by cramming more kids into the classroom; or (iii) reducing the demand
In any event, your calculation above doesn't take into account the limited capacity
My personal view (as expressed below) is that the bulk of the impact that the indigenous population pays for large scale immigration is through paying more for things like rent. Of course, there's another part that we need to do proper analysis on. How many EU citizens are staying rather than coming in their early 20s and then leaving five years later. If there's a fair amount of churn, where people come and work and then leave, then there aren't that many long-term costs. If, on the other hand, they come and stay and grow old, the calculations are very different. And on your speicific points: re 1, while that's true, the numbers for changing capex levels are pretty tiny at the central government level. IIRC, we're still below 2007 levels today, so that doesn't suggest that there's a big impact there. Re 2, that's true, but it's pretty localised and other factors such as changing birth rate have a bigger impact.
Shameful from the Tories who are now attacking EU citizens . Claiming they take out 4 billion in welfare ignoring the fact they actually pay more in taxes than they take out . And they sit there saying they want to welcome migrants , when they’re attacking EU nationals in this way . Utterly despicable.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Your post is rot since you have no way of knowing how that total of contributions is made up. A large part of it, I suspect, will be a much smaller number of highly paid EU expats working in the UK for high salaries in the professions and in the City of London. Precisely the people that Corbyn will drive away, if he's elected. In a way these are a microcosm of the UK tax-base - a small percentage paying the lion's share of tax. Just the people who you purport to despise.
Well indeed. One wonders how much taxation Virgil van Dijk alone pays? He is an EU national and I imagine he pays an absolute fortune in taxes each year - I also imagine if Corbyn's insane politics put a pay cap in he could be gone in the next transfer window. Considering the large Premier League clubs are profitable global businesses bringing in money from across the world - see how many Liverpool and Man Utd replica shirts there are worldwide - the amount the players get paid seems reasonable with the Exchequer raising a lot of taxation from football.
When I was doing DD on an Italian football club, I found that most of the players had their own companies that were contracted by the club. I don't know if that's the case in the UK, but the footballers there had *very* savvy accountants.
I have no doubt that they do! But even if just via VAT let alone other taxes I'm pretty sure they'd put in a fortune via taxation.
Been out all day on the doorsteps. That soft Tory vote is hardening. Fear of Corbyn is bringng them back onboard. The LibDem women of a certain age realise the game is up - and they are not going to get Dr. Sarah re-elected. Apart from the "all Tories are f*cking arseholes" guy, the only venom that has come my way have been from these women. Real face-contorting hate. Not a good look, ladies.... Boris still proving Marmite, but when confronted with Marmite or Corbyn's Cup of Cold Sick, it's Marmite every time. Returning Officer will have a fun write in on the night. Knocked on one door and was told "Och noo, this is an SNP hoos....." I also found a UKIP/Survivalist. Thought we should all have guns to protect ourselves from the upcoming New World Order apocolypse. She'd been reading about it online. A lot. In the absence of a UKIP or Brexit candidate, I secured the vote of her and her husband....
All fine, your Conservative candidate my romp home by 40,000 votes and Stephen Timms in my constituency may also win by 40,000 votes but we both know neither seat is where this election is going to be decided.
No. But the trends we detect in these seats will decide it.
Am I the only one who's intensely relaxed about Boris ditching Neil? Why risk the possibility of a Chernobyl-level event? And given that Labour's resorting to dirty tricks with their dodgy NHS dossiers, I see no reason why the Tories shouldn't try to shaft Labour in every way imaginable, including this one.
All I know is May being chicken cut through to non political types I knew, and I suspect Boris being chicken will as well. If something is tough, as a leader, you're supposed to overcome it, not wet your pants and skip it, trusting that no one is going to care.
Except May didn't do _any_ debates, whereas Boris is doing all the head-to-head ones with Corbyn, and even Corbyn hnimself is ducking out of a couple of extraneous ones, if I remember correctly. The narrative just doesn't work if people see Boris on stage with Corbyn, who is after all his only rival for the premiership.
It won't be exactly the same, so it may not be quite as effective, but it is still a hook to hang on him - because no one seems to be under any pretence that he is not doing other things for any reason other than he is afraid of screwing up so is limiting what he does. As you yourself have put it he does not one to risk it. That is, he is frit. Given he loses if he simply does not win by enough, I think its more of a risk to be a coward - be bold Boris, be brave, be optimistic. Is that not what he is always telling us? Why suddenly walking on eggshells and restricting himself?
Because contrary to some popular opinion, Boris isn't a buffoon and actually understands tactics, like when to advance, and when to retreat and live to fight another day
If - for example - our schools and hospitals are full to bursting we have the options of:
(i) increasing capex to build more facilities, with the increased overhead and associated running costs; (ii) providing a sub-optimal service by cramming more kids into the classroom; or (iii) reducing the demand
In any event, your calculation above doesn't take into account the limited capacity
It also doesn't take into account opportunity cost. If we are taking in someone unskilled on minimum wage via free movement but are trying to manage numbers [due to capacity etc] then do we take in one fewer highly skilled migrant that could contribute much more?
The migration we need is a mix of low skilled and highly skilled. There are plenty of industries that are highly reliant on low skilled immigration that would collapse without it, especially the care industry. There is no point replacing care workers with rocket scientists.
If - for example - our schools and hospitals are full to bursting we have the options of:
(i) increasing capex to build more facilities, with the increased overhead and associated running costs; (ii) providing a sub-optimal service by cramming more kids into the classroom; or (iii) reducing the demand
In any event, your calculation above doesn't take into account the limited capacity
It also doesn't take into account opportunity cost. If we are taking in someone unskilled on minimum wage via free movement but are trying to manage numbers [due to capacity etc] then do we take in one fewer highly skilled migrant that could contribute much more?
Correct - and of course the jobs taken by non-uk workers instead of UK workers and the knock-on effects this has. There is no way you can get a definitive answer on this. I voted Remain, but I`m surrounded (E Mids) by Leavers and this factor (jobs) was a major factor for them when they voted. Unfortunately such folk are called racist, which is unfair.
Am I the only one who's intensely relaxed about Boris ditching Neil? Why risk the possibility of a Chernobyl-level event? And given that Labour's resorting to dirty tricks with their dodgy NHS dossiers, I see no reason why the Tories shouldn't try to shaft Labour in every way imaginable, including this one.
All I know is May being chicken cut through to non political types I knew, and I suspect Boris being chicken will as well. If something is tough, as a leader, you're supposed to overcome it, not wet your pants and skip it, trusting that no one is going to care.
Except May didn't do _any_ debates, whereas Boris is doing all the head-to-head ones with Corbyn, and even Corbyn hnimself is ducking out of a couple of extraneous ones, if I remember correctly. The narrative just doesn't work if people see Boris on stage with Corbyn, who is after all his only rival for the premiership.
It won't be exactly the same, so it may not be quite as effective, but it is still a hook to hang on him - because no one seems to be under any pretence that he is not doing other things for any reason other than he is afraid of screwing up so is limiting what he does. As you yourself have put it he does not one to risk it. That is, he is frit. Given he loses if he simply does not win by enough, I think its more of a risk to be a coward - be bold Boris, be brave, be optimistic. Is that not what he is always telling us? Why suddenly walking on eggshells and restricting himself?
Because contrary to some popular opinion, Boris isn't a buffoon and actually understands tactics, like when to advance, and when to retreat and live to fight another day
How convenient that running away is a sign of brilliance for him!
As Old Holborn put it, he hasn't thought this through, given things with XR might kick off from Dec 1st.
See also the impending train strikes.
I was going to mention both those things - if they cause chaos in the run-up to Christmas, and Corbyn is put on the spot ... he's actually dense enough to defend them, isn't he? That could be glorious.
If - for example - our schools and hospitals are full to bursting we have the options of:
(i) increasing capex to build more facilities, with the increased overhead and associated running costs; (ii) providing a sub-optimal service by cramming more kids into the classroom; or (iii) reducing the demand
In any event, your calculation above doesn't take into account the limited capacity
It also doesn't take into account opportunity cost. If we are taking in someone unskilled on minimum wage via free movement but are trying to manage numbers [due to capacity etc] then do we take in one fewer highly skilled migrant that could contribute much more?
Have we restricted high skilled non-EU immigrants? Non-EU net migration is currently running at 4x the level of EU net migration, so it doesn't seem like we're taking a disproportionate share of EU immigrants at the moment. As I've always said, I don't think EU immigrants should be eligible for benefis. (Or at least not until some level of NI has been paid at the least.) But I don't see the empirical evidence for your claim.
Am I the only one who's intensely relaxed about Boris ditching Neil? Why risk the possibility of a Chernobyl-level event? And given that Labour's resorting to dirty tricks with their dodgy NHS dossiers, I see no reason why the Tories shouldn't try to shaft Labour in every way imaginable, including this one.
All I know is May being chicken cut through to non political types I knew, and I suspect Boris being chicken will as well. If something is tough, as a leader, you're supposed to overcome it, not wet your pants and skip it, trusting that no one is going to care.
Except May didn't do _any_ debates, whereas Boris is doing all the head-to-head ones with Corbyn, and even Corbyn hnimself is ducking out of a couple of extraneous ones, if I remember correctly. The narrative just doesn't work if people see Boris on stage with Corbyn, who is after all his only rival for the premiership.
It won't be exactly the same, so it may not be quite as effective, but it is still a hook to hang on him - because no one seems to be under any pretence that he is not doing other things for any reason other than he is afraid of screwing up so is limiting what he does. As you yourself have put it he does not one to risk it. That is, he is frit. Given he loses if he simply does not win by enough, I think its more of a risk to be a coward - be bold Boris, be brave, be optimistic. Is that not what he is always telling us? Why suddenly walking on eggshells and restricting himself?
Because contrary to some popular opinion, Boris isn't a buffoon and actually understands tactics, like when to advance, and when to retreat and live to fight another day
How convenient that running away is a sign of brilliance for him!
His brillance is that he has developed a fan club who think his shit is gold.
I think two things are true. Boris is running away, but it will do him no harm. Not doing debates, like May, can get traction. Not doing one particular interview will only be meaningful to the politically committed that care.
How many people would change their voting intention if a political leader failed to do a TV interview? I would suggest zero. How many people would change their voting intention if a political leader did the interview and got torn to pieces, like the hapless Mr Corbyn? Perhaps enough to change the result in quite a few marginal seats.
But why pass up the chance to run rings around Neil with his brio, wit, sincerity, and astonishing grasp of both big picture and detail, thus making that landslide a near certainty?
...on the other hand, why bother at all when you're averaging 10 points ahead in the polls? Tony Blair would never have agreed to do an interview like that, he had far too much nouse.
Mrs T would have done it, but as we all know, and as you keep saying, she was in a different league to our current crop of political savants.
In your heart you know I'm right on this, kinabalu, but you're pissed off because your man, Mr Corbyn, got there first and it backfired spectacularly. Just think if Boris had gone first and the result had been the same. I'm sure you would be screaming your lungs out begging for Mr Corbyn to do the interview afterwards....right? Right.
Been out all day on the doorsteps. That soft Tory vote is hardening. Fear of Corbyn is bringng them back onboard. The LibDem women of a certain age realise the game is up - and they are not going to get Dr. Sarah re-elected. Apart from the "all Tories are f*cking arseholes" guy, the only venom that has come my way have been from these women. Real face-contorting hate. Not a good look, ladies.... Boris still proving Marmite, but when confronted with Marmite or Corbyn's Cup of Cold Sick, it's Marmite every time. Returning Officer will have a fun write in on the night. Knocked on one door and was told "Och noo, this is an SNP hoos....." I also found a UKIP/Survivalist. Thought we should all have guns to protect ourselves from the upcoming New World Order apocolypse. She'd been reading about it online. A lot. In the absence of a UKIP or Brexit candidate, I secured the vote of her and her husband....
Am I the only one who's intensely relaxed about Boris ditching Neil? Why risk the possibility of a Chernobyl-level event? And given that Labour's resorting to dirty tricks with their dodgy NHS dossiers, I see no reason why the Tories shouldn't try to shaft Labour in every way imaginable, including this one.
Very much not alone. All people who are more concerned that he wins than they are about his suitability for the thing that is to be won will feel as you do.
Boris would be more suitable than Corbyn for the role of Prime Minister if he spent the next fortnight posting colourful parcels full of dog doo-doo down people's chimneys for a laugh...
There are approximately 65.64 million people in the UK who would be more suitable than Corbyn. The sad fact for the country is that being slightly less shit than Corbyn is not a great prospectus for the Tory party for the longer term.
If - for example - our schools and hospitals are full to bursting we have the options of:
(i) increasing capex to build more facilities, with the increased overhead and associated running costs; (ii) providing a sub-optimal service by cramming more kids into the classroom; or (iii) reducing the demand
In any event, your calculation above doesn't take into account the limited capacity
It also doesn't take into account opportunity cost. If we are taking in someone unskilled on minimum wage via free movement but are trying to manage numbers [due to capacity etc] then do we take in one fewer highly skilled migrant that could contribute much more?
The migration we need is a mix of low skilled and highly skilled. There are plenty of industries that are highly reliant on low skilled immigration that would collapse without it, especially the care industry. There is no point replacing care workers with rocket scientists.
What we have plenty of is mid skilled.
90% of care workers are domestic. 5% are from the EU. 5% are from outside the EU (so didn't come in via free movement). Why would the care industry collapse? We already recruit worldwide for care and can continue to do so. That is how migration works worldwide, if you need migrants for a sector you prioritise it. Simple!
Am I the only one who's intensely relaxed about Boris ditching Neil? Why risk the possibility of a Chernobyl-level event? And given that Labour's resorting to dirty tricks with their dodgy NHS dossiers, I see no reason why the Tories shouldn't try to shaft Labour in every way imaginable, including this one.
All I know is May being chicken cut through to non political types I knew, and I suspect Boris being chicken will as well. If something is tough, as a leader, you're supposed to overcome it, not wet your pants and skip it, trusting that no one is going to care.
Except May didn't do _any_ debates, whereas Boris is doing all the head-to-head ones with Corbyn, and even Corbyn hnimself is ducking out of a couple of extraneous ones, if I remember correctly. The narrative just doesn't work if people see Boris on stage with Corbyn, who is after all his only rival for the premiership.
It won't be exactly the same, so it may not be quite as effective, but it is still a hook to hang on him - because no one seems to be under any pretence that he is not doing other things for any reason other than he is afraid of screwing up so is limiting what he does. As you yourself have put it he does not one to risk it. That is, he is frit. Given he loses if he simply does not win by enough, I think its more of a risk to be a coward - be bold Boris, be brave, be optimistic. Is that not what he is always telling us? Why suddenly walking on eggshells and restricting himself?
Because contrary to some popular opinion, Boris isn't a buffoon and actually understands tactics, like when to advance, and when to retreat and live to fight another day
How convenient that running away is a sign of brilliance for him!
His brillance is that he has developed a fan club who think his shit is gold.
One thing Boris and Corbyn are both great at, to be fair.
If - for example - our schools and hospitals are full to bursting we have the options of:
(i) increasing capex to build more facilities, with the increased overhead and associated running costs; (ii) providing a sub-optimal service by cramming more kids into the classroom; or (iii) reducing the demand
In any event, your calculation above doesn't take into account the limited capacity
It also doesn't take into account opportunity cost. If we are taking in someone unskilled on minimum wage via free movement but are trying to manage numbers [due to capacity etc] then do we take in one fewer highly skilled migrant that could contribute much more?
The migration we need is a mix of low skilled and highly skilled. There are plenty of industries that are highly reliant on low skilled immigration that would collapse without it, especially the care industry. There is no point replacing care workers with rocket scientists.
What we have plenty of is mid skilled.
90% of care workers are domestic. 5% are from the EU. 5% are from outside the EU (so didn't come in via free movement). Why would the care industry collapse? We already recruit worldwide for care and can continue to do so. That is how migration works worldwide, if you need migrants for a sector you prioritise it. Simple!
Simple is the right term for your twisted and naive logic
If - for example - our schools and hospitals are full to bursting we have the options of:
(i) increasing capex to build more facilities, with the increased overhead and associated running costs; (ii) providing a sub-optimal service by cramming more kids into the classroom; or (iii) reducing the demand
In any event, your calculation above doesn't take into account the limited capacity
It also doesn't take into account opportunity cost. If we are taking in someone unskilled on minimum wage via free movement but are trying to manage numbers [due to capacity etc] then do we take in one fewer highly skilled migrant that could contribute much more?
The migration we need is a mix of low skilled and highly skilled. There are plenty of industries that are highly reliant on low skilled immigration that would collapse without it, especially the care industry. There is no point replacing care workers with rocket scientists.
What we have plenty of is mid skilled.
That's one of those things that's probably true and rather unremarked upon.
I think two things are true. Boris is running away, but it will do him no harm. Not doing debates, like May, can get traction. Not doing one particular interview will only be meaningful to the politically committed that care.
Do you not think politicians being held to account has a benefit to the country? He dodged as many PMQs as he could, didnt want to debate Tory colleagues for the leadership or Sturgeon or Swinson either.
I think the Tories will win regardless but having their policies properly scrutinised and challenged has a real benefit to the country. The public is being denied that.
Also, Jezza's performance is now the stuff of legend. I suspect even the people who didn't even see it have the famed awfulness of it etched upon their psyche, and those who did see it now remember it as being far worse than it actually was. So Boris doesn't have to do that well to be better than the folklore.
I actually did watch it again and, yes, it was much better than the first time. I suspect it might be rather like one of those "difficult" albums that your favourite artist sometimes releases where they drop the hits and do something more challenging. First listen, oh dear. Second and third, mmm, ok. By the tenth, you know what, this is right up there. It's actually a great piece of work. Examples? OK Computer? The White Album? Some of Dylan's gospel stuff?
Been out all day on the doorsteps. That soft Tory vote is hardening. Fear of Corbyn is bringng them back onboard. The LibDem women of a certain age realise the game is up - and they are not going to get Dr. Sarah re-elected. Apart from the "all Tories are f*cking arseholes" guy, the only venom that has come my way have been from these women. Real face-contorting hate. Not a good look, ladies.... Boris still proving Marmite, but when confronted with Marmite or Corbyn's Cup of Cold Sick, it's Marmite every time. Returning Officer will have a fun write in on the night. Knocked on one door and was told "Och noo, this is an SNP hoos....." I also found a UKIP/Survivalist. Thought we should all have guns to protect ourselves from the upcoming New World Order apocolypse. She'd been reading about it online. A lot. In the absence of a UKIP or Brexit candidate, I secured the vote of her and her husband....
All fine, your Conservative candidate my romp home by 40,000 votes and Stephen Timms in my constituency may also win by 40,000 votes but we both know neither seat is where this election is going to be decided.
No. But the trends we detect in these seats will decide it.
You're in Totnes right? Not sure that's a very typical seat - it maybe indicative of the Lib Dems' failure to make inroads but not of the sort of seats in the North, Midlands and Wales that the Tories need for a comfortable majority.
Am I the only one who's intensely relaxed about Boris ditching Neil? Why risk the possibility of a Chernobyl-level event? And given that Labour's resorting to dirty tricks with their dodgy NHS dossiers, I see no reason why the Tories shouldn't try to shaft Labour in every way imaginable, including this one.
Very much not alone. All people who are more concerned that he wins than they are about his suitability for the thing that is to be won will feel as you do.
Boris would be more suitable than Corbyn for the role of Prime Minister if he spent the next fortnight posting colourful parcels full of dog doo-doo down people's chimneys for a laugh...
There are approximately 65.64 million people in the UK who would be more suitable than Corbyn. The sad fact for the country is that being slightly less shit than Corbyn is not a great prospectus for the Tory party for the longer term.
The one aspect, which again the Tories really aren't playing to (and something Blair used to argue), is who has the stronger team. The Labour shadow front bench is utter utter shit, except McDonnell. Now the Tories aren't great, but the likes of Javid isn't a bloody terrorist supporting Marxist and comes across as a decent sensible chap.
No. But the trends we detect in these seats will decide it.
I'm not convinced what you see in Totnes or what I see in East Ham can be so easily extrapolated. There may be a regional impact though I'd argue London is so complex it narrows down even further. If you are in a Conservative seat surrounded by Conservative seats (as you are, excluding Exeter and parts of Plymouth), I don't know you can read the election nationally any more than I can in East London where I'm surrounded by Labour seats.
SNP candidate for Kirkcaldy dropped over anti-Semitism.
For goodness' sake, where do the parties manage to find these morons?
And can they not do proper background checks on people? So far none of this stuff for all parties is that they caught somebody on hidden camera making remarks in a private meeting type stuff, it is all things that have been posted on twitter and facebook.
I think two things are true. Boris is running away, but it will do him no harm. Not doing debates, like May, can get traction. Not doing one particular interview will only be meaningful to the politically committed that care.
Do you not think politicians being held to account has a benefit to the country? He dodged as many PMQs as he could, didnt want to debate Tory colleagues for the leadership or Sturgeon or Swinson either.
I think the Tories will win regardless but having their policies properly scrutinised and challenged has a real benefit to the country. The public is being denied that.
Yes I do. But I’m not commenting on what I’d like to see. I’m commenting on what I think the impact will be. This is a betting site.
I think two things are true. Boris is running away, but it will do him no harm. Not doing debates, like May, can get traction. Not doing one particular interview will only be meaningful to the politically committed that care.
I think that's probably true, but he's also skipping the Climate Debate tonight. You never know where the tipping point is for it to become a story with momentum.
If - for example - our schools and hospitals are full to bursting we have the options of:
(i) increasing capex to build more facilities, with the increased overhead and associated running costs; (ii) providing a sub-optimal service by cramming more kids into the classroom; or (iii) reducing the demand
In any event, your calculation above doesn't take into account the limited capacity
It also doesn't take into account opportunity cost. If we are taking in someone unskilled on minimum wage via free movement but are trying to manage numbers [due to capacity etc] then do we take in one fewer highly skilled migrant that could contribute much more?
Correct - and of course the jobs taken by non-uk workers instead of UK workers and the knock-on effects this has. There is no way you can get a definitive answer on this. I voted Remain, but I`m surrounded (E Mids) by Leavers and this factor (jobs) was a major factor for them when they voted. Unfortunately such folk are called racist, which is unfair.
Whether it is unfair depends on the individual. I think it is a fair summation to say that a lot of Leave voters are either overtly racist or closet racist but there are about 2 or 3 that are neither. Have a good evening everyone!
If - for example - our schools and hospitals are full to bursting we have the options of:
(i) increasing capex to build more facilities, with the increased overhead and associated running costs; (ii) providing a sub-optimal service by cramming more kids into the classroom; or (iii) reducing the demand
In any event, your calculation above doesn't take into account the limited capacity
It also doesn't take into account opportunity cost. If we are taking in someone unskilled on minimum wage via free movement but are trying to manage numbers [due to capacity etc] then do we take in one fewer highly skilled migrant that could contribute much more?
The migration we need is a mix of low skilled and highly skilled. There are plenty of industries that are highly reliant on low skilled immigration that would collapse without it, especially the care industry. There is no point replacing care workers with rocket scientists.
What we have plenty of is mid skilled.
90% of care workers are domestic. 5% are from the EU. 5% are from outside the EU (so didn't come in via free movement). Why would the care industry collapse? We already recruit worldwide for care and can continue to do so. That is how migration works worldwide, if you need migrants for a sector you prioritise it. Simple!
So if the Tories are supporting low skilled immigration from outside the EU, let them say so, rather than pretend we are just going to have rocket scientists and footballers paying loadsa tax.
I think two things are true. Boris is running away, but it will do him no harm. Not doing debates, like May, can get traction. Not doing one particular interview will only be meaningful to the politically committed that care.
I think that's probably true, but he's also skipping the Climate Debate tonight. You never know where the tipping point is for it to become a story with momentum.
I thought the climate one was an odd choice because it’s the reverse. The audience is starting off as anti-Tory as can be, so all you can really do is win votes.
If - for example - our schools and hospitals are full to bursting we have the options of:
(i) increasing capex to build more facilities, with the increased overhead and associated running costs; (ii) providing a sub-optimal service by cramming more kids into the classroom; or (iii) reducing the demand
In any event, your calculation above doesn't take into account the limited capacity
It also doesn't take into account opportunity cost. If we are taking in someone unskilled on minimum wage via free movement but are trying to manage numbers [due to capacity etc] then do we take in one fewer highly skilled migrant that could contribute much more?
The migration we need is a mix of low skilled and highly skilled. There are plenty of industries that are highly reliant on low skilled immigration that would collapse without it, especially the care industry. There is no point replacing care workers with rocket scientists.
What we have plenty of is mid skilled.
90% of care workers are domestic. 5% are from the EU. 5% are from outside the EU (so didn't come in via free movement). Why would the care industry collapse? We already recruit worldwide for care and can continue to do so. That is how migration works worldwide, if you need migrants for a sector you prioritise it. Simple!
Am I the only one who's intensely relaxed about Boris ditching Neil? Why risk the possibility of a Chernobyl-level event? And given that Labour's resorting to dirty tricks with their dodgy NHS dossiers, I see no reason why the Tories shouldn't try to shaft Labour in every way imaginable, including this one.
All I know is May being chicken cut through to non political types I knew, and I suspect Boris being chicken will as well. If something is tough, as a leader, you're supposed to overcome it, not wet your pants and skip it, trusting that no one is going to care.
Except May didn't do _any_ debates, whereas Boris is doing all the head-to-head ones with Corbyn, and even Corbyn hnimself is ducking out of a couple of extraneous ones, if I remember correctly. The narrative just doesn't work if people see Boris on stage with Corbyn, who is after all his only rival for the premiership.
It won't be exactly the same, so it may not be quite as effective, but it is still a hook to hang on him - because no one seems to be under any pretence that he is not doing other things for any reason other than he is afraid of screwing up so is limiting what he does. As you yourself have put it he does not want to risk it. That is, he is frit. Given he loses if he simply does not win by enough, I think its more of a risk to be a coward - be bold Boris, be brave, be optimistic. Is that not what he is always telling us? Why suddenly walking on eggshells and restricting himself?
kle4, you are not a Boris supporter, and the fact that you want him to do the interview proves that you believe there is much more for him to lose than to gain. Why the pretence? You're smart enough to know it won't make any difference to the election result, but it most certainly would be if he got skewered like Corbyn did. Everything's a political calculation, and two weeks from a general election, Boris would be quite mad if he agreed to be interviewed by Andrew Neill.
"Even if you're earning just £15,000/year, then (so long as you don't end up retiring here), then you're probably contributing." That sentence means that more than 50% of people on £15,000 are contributing. You can't then point to an example of a single parent* on £12,000 + £10k housing benefit** + UC*** and say "Ha! You're wrong." * Single parents are way less than 50% of the population ** £10k housing benefit! You're going to have to (a) live in one of the more expensive parts of the UK, and (b) have multiple kids to qualify for that *** The cross over point where national insurance exceeds UC is surprisingly low. You also need to add all the VAT and other indirect taxes said single mother in the South pays
You did say "Anyone in work is a net gain to the treasury" Single parent in this example is my girlfriend when I met her. She didn't get housing benefit, 10k was her rent (not at all expensive for a 2 bed in Winchester). She got UC, which took into account some of her rent. Her varying UC total (she's a self-employed cleaner so her income varies) was way in excess of her contributions to the Treasury.
If - for example - our schools and hospitals are full to bursting we have the options of:
(i) increasing capex to build more facilities, with the increased overhead and associated running costs; (ii) providing a sub-optimal service by cramming more kids into the classroom; or (iii) reducing the demand
In any event, your calculation above doesn't take into account the limited capacity
It also doesn't take into account opportunity cost. If we are taking in someone unskilled on minimum wage via free movement but are trying to manage numbers [due to capacity etc] then do we take in one fewer highly skilled migrant that could contribute much more?
Have we restricted high skilled non-EU immigrants? Non-EU net migration is currently running at 4x the level of EU net migration, so it doesn't seem like we're taking a disproportionate share of EU immigrants at the moment. As I've always said, I don't think EU immigrants should be eligible for benefis. (Or at least not until some level of NI has been paid at the least.) But I don't see the empirical evidence for your claim.
7% of global population is EU, 93% are non-EU. So if we were to not be biased in favour of the EU then non-EU migration should be running ~12x EU migration not 4x. Its worth noting that the non-EU at 4x is an unusually high ratio for non-EU too.
Asking for a friend....when is the Tory campaign / taking the fight to Labour going to start. It is feeling a lot like 2017 in that respect, where the Tories only deployed the troops with about 3 days to go.
Shameful from the Tories who are now attacking EU citizens .
Claiming they take out 4 billion in welfare ignoring the fact they actually pay more in taxes than they take out .
And they sit there saying they want to welcome migrants , when they’re attacking EU nationals in this way . Utterly despicable.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Your post is rot since you have no way of knowing how that total of contributions is made up. A large part of it, I suspect, will be a much smaller number of highly paid EU expats working in the UK for high salaries in the professions and in the City of London. Precisely the people that Corbyn will drive away, if he's elected. In a way these are a microcosm of the UK tax-base - a small percentage paying the lion's share of tax. Just the people who you purport to despise.
You post is desperate spin to avoid the fact that the Tories are engaging in disgusting scapegoating of EU nationals .
The facts are the facts EU nationals are a net gain for the treasury ! Do you approve of the Tories using those figures in their campaign literature .
Are you happy for the Tories to mislead the public into thinking EU nationals are somehow benefit scroungers.
A large number of EU nationals pay a lot less in tax than they receive in services. Why should the local taxpayers who in effect support them not have a say in who enters the country and on what terms? You've utterly failed to understand the brexit dynamic which is why, pleasingly, you are about to lose. And post hoc confected outrage such as your post cuts no ice. If youre really concerned about discrimination why is it i see so little from you on anti-semitism?
Been out all day on the doorsteps. That soft Tory vote is hardening. Fear of Corbyn is bringng them back onboard. The LibDem women of a certain age realise the game is up - and they are not going to get Dr. Sarah re-elected. Apart from the "all Tories are f*cking arseholes" guy, the only venom that has come my way have been from these women. Real face-contorting hate. Not a good look, ladies.... Boris still proving Marmite, but when confronted with Marmite or Corbyn's Cup of Cold Sick, it's Marmite every time. Returning Officer will have a fun write in on the night. Knocked on one door and was told "Och noo, this is an SNP hoos....." I also found a UKIP/Survivalist. Thought we should all have guns to protect ourselves from the upcoming New World Order apocolypse. She'd been reading about it online. A lot. In the absence of a UKIP or Brexit candidate, I secured the vote of her and her husband....
All fine, your Conservative candidate my romp home by 40,000 votes and Stephen Timms in my constituency may also win by 40,000 votes but we both know neither seat is where this election is going to be decided.
No. But the trends we detect in these seats will decide it.
You're in Totnes right? Not sure that's a very typical seat - it maybe indicative of the Lib Dems' failure to make inroads but not of the sort of seats in the North, Midlands and Wales that the Tories need for a comfortable majority.
The thing to note is the confused Remainer Tories are coming home. Along with Labour Leavers. Went to a council estate (not "social housing" - this is a full-on old-school 20's-30's council estate). The sort of place that Tory canvassers shy away from. Normally. But we got a great reception. (Kept looking at each other, going "this can't be right....") Boris reaches the parts other politicians can't.
Am I the only one who's intensely relaxed about Boris ditching Neil? Why risk the possibility of a Chernobyl-level event? And given that Labour's resorting to dirty tricks with their dodgy NHS dossiers, I see no reason why the Tories shouldn't try to shaft Labour in every way imaginable, including this one.
All I know is May being chicken cut through to non political types I knew, and I suspect Boris being chicken will as well. If something is tough, as a leader, you're supposed to overcome it, not wet your pants and skip it, trusting that no one is going to care.
Except May didn't do _any_ debates, whereas Boris is doing all the head-to-head ones with Corbyn, and even Corbyn hnimself is ducking out of a couple of extraneous ones, if I remember correctly. The narrative just doesn't work if people see Boris on stage with Corbyn, who is after all his only rival for the premiership.
It won't be exactly the same, so it may not be quite as effective, but it is still a hook to hang on him - because no one seems to be under any pretence that he is not doing other things for any reason other than he is afraid of screwing up so is limiting what he does. As you yourself have put it he does not want to risk it. That is, he is frit. Given he loses if he simply does not win by enough, I think its more of a risk to be a coward - be bold Boris, be brave, be optimistic. Is that not what he is always telling us? Why suddenly walking on eggshells and restricting himself?
kle4, you are not a Boris supporter, and the fact that you want him to do the interview proves that you believe there is much more for him to lose than to gain. Why the pretence? You're smart enough to know it won't make any difference to the election result, but it most certainly would be if he got skewered like Corbyn did. Everything's a political calculation, and two weeks from a general election, Boris would be quite mad if he agreed to be interviewed by Andrew Neill.
Why risk blowing a 10 point lead?
I doubt it is 10 points at the moment, I think it is definitely sub 10 now.
You did say "Anyone in work is a net gain to the treasury" Single parent in this example is my girlfriend when I met her. She didn't get housing benefit, 10k was her rent (not at all expensive for a 2 bed in Winchester). She got UC, which took into account some of her rent. Her varying UC total (she's a self-employed cleaner so her income varies) was way in excess of her contributions to the Treasury.
You are correct, and I apologise. I should have said "almost anyone". I did go on to say "even someone earning £15,000 is probably", so I should remove the first part of my post.
Picking up on an earlier point, Neil vs. Thatcher or Blair would have been excellent tv. Neither would have yielded an inch, and both would have made their case.
If - for example - our schools and hospitals are full to bursting we have the options of:
(i) increasing capex to build more facilities, with the increased overhead and associated running costs; (ii) providing a sub-optimal service by cramming more kids into the classroom; or (iii) reducing the demand
In any event, your calculation above doesn't take into account the limited capacity
It also doesn't take into account opportunity cost. If we are taking in someone unskilled on minimum wage via free movement but are trying to manage numbers [due to capacity etc] then do we take in one fewer highly skilled migrant that could contribute much more?
The migration we need is a mix of low skilled and highly skilled. There are plenty of industries that are highly reliant on low skilled immigration that would collapse without it, especially the care industry. There is no point replacing care workers with rocket scientists.
What we have plenty of is mid skilled.
90% of care workers are domestic. 5% are from the EU. 5% are from outside the EU (so didn't come in via free movement). Why would the care industry collapse? We already recruit worldwide for care and can continue to do so. That is how migration works worldwide, if you need migrants for a sector you prioritise it. Simple!
Simple is the right term for your twisted and naive logic
So naive you are incapable of replying with anything other than shooting the messenger instead of tackling the message. 95% of care workers are domestic or non-EU already - and we are not talking about zero migration from the EU we have said we will continue to have net immigration.
Been out all day on the doorsteps. That soft Tory vote is hardening. Fear of Corbyn is bringng them back onboard. The LibDem women of a certain age realise the game is up - and they are not going to get Dr. Sarah re-elected. Apart from the "all Tories are f*cking arseholes" guy, the only venom that has come my way have been from these women. Real face-contorting hate. Not a good look, ladies.... Boris still proving Marmite, but when confronted with Marmite or Corbyn's Cup of Cold Sick, it's Marmite every time. Returning Officer will have a fun write in on the night. Knocked on one door and was told "Och noo, this is an SNP hoos....." I also found a UKIP/Survivalist. Thought we should all have guns to protect ourselves from the upcoming New World Order apocolypse. She'd been reading about it online. A lot. In the absence of a UKIP or Brexit candidate, I secured the vote of her and her husband....
All fine, your Conservative candidate my romp home by 40,000 votes and Stephen Timms in my constituency may also win by 40,000 votes but we both know neither seat is where this election is going to be decided.
No. But the trends we detect in these seats will decide it.
You're in Totnes right? Not sure that's a very typical seat - it maybe indicative of the Lib Dems' failure to make inroads but not of the sort of seats in the North, Midlands and Wales that the Tories need for a comfortable majority.
The thing to note is the confused Remainer Tories are coming home. Along with Labour Leavers. Went to a council estate (not "social housing" - this is a full-on old-school 20's-30's council estate). The sort of place that Tory canvassers shy away from. Normally. But we got a great reception. (Kept looking at each other, going "this can't be right....") Boris reaches the parts other politicians can't.
Picking up on an earlier point, Neil vs. Thatcher or Blair would have been excellent tv. Neither would have yielded an inch, and both would have made their case.
I actually think leader / chancellor and their shadows should do a Neil interview every year. It would be of great public services.
Asking for a friend....when is the Tory campaign / taking the fight to Labour going to start. It is feeling a lot like 2017 in that respect, where the Tories only deployed the troops with about 3 days to go.
I've been saying this every day so far. It just hasn't got into gear at all. Some in the know were reporting they were were backloading everything to the final fortnight of the campaign, which we are now entering.
Picking up on an earlier point, Neil vs. Thatcher or Blair would have been excellent tv. Neither would have yielded an inch, and both would have made their case.
I actually think leader / chancellor and their shadows should do a Neil interview every year. It would be of great public services.
Once a week instead of PMQs would be a true public service.
I think two things are true. Boris is running away, but it will do him no harm. Not doing debates, like May, can get traction. Not doing one particular interview will only be meaningful to the politically committed that care.
Do you not think politicians being held to account has a benefit to the country? He dodged as many PMQs as he could, didnt want to debate Tory colleagues for the leadership or Sturgeon or Swinson either.
I think the Tories will win regardless but having their policies properly scrutinised and challenged has a real benefit to the country. The public is being denied that.
Yes I do. But I’m not commenting on what I’d like to see. I’m commenting on what I think the impact will be. This is a betting site.
Apologies, I misread "will do him no harm" as "will do no harm".
Shameful from the Tories who are now attacking EU citizens .
Claiming they take out 4 billion in welfare ignoring the fact they actually pay more in taxes than they take out .
And they sit there saying they want to welcome migrants , when they’re attacking EU nationals in this way . Utterly despicable.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Your post is rot since you have no way of knowing how that total of contributions is made up. A large part of it, I suspect, will be a much smaller number of highly paid EU expats working in the UK for high salaries in the professions and in the City of London. Precisely the people that Corbyn will drive away, if he's elected. In a way these are a microcosm of the UK tax-base - a small percentage paying the lion's share of tax. Just the people who you purport to despise.
You post is desperate spin to avoid the fact that the Tories are engaging in disgusting scapegoating of EU nationals .
The facts are the facts EU nationals are a net gain for the treasury ! Do you approve of the Tories using those figures in their campaign literature .
Are you happy for the Tories to mislead the public into thinking EU nationals are somehow benefit scroungers.
A large number of EU nationals pay a lot less in tax than they receive in services. Why should the local taxpayers who in effect support them not have a say in who enters the country and on what terms? You've utterly failed to understand the brexit dynamic which is why, pleasingly, you are about to lose. And post hoc confected outrage such as your post cuts no ice. If youre really concerned about discrimination why is it i see so little from you on anti-semitism?
Asking for a friend....when is the Tory campaign / taking the fight to Labour going to start. It is feeling a lot like 2017 in that respect, where the Tories only deployed the troops with about 3 days to go.
I've been saying this every day so far. It just hasn't got into gear at all. Some in the know were reporting they were were backloading everything to the final fortnight of the campaign, which we are now entering.
They said that last time....and when it came it was way way too late. Have they learned nothing from 2010 / 2015, where they got out in front of everything. From the day they got in government, they effectively kept campaigning by destroying new Labour policy ideas.
If - for example - our schools and hospitals are full to bursting we have the options of:
(i) increasing capex to build more facilities, with the increased overhead and associated running costs; (ii) providing a sub-optimal service by cramming more kids into the classroom; or (iii) reducing the demand
In any event, your calculation above doesn't take into account the limited capacity
It also doesn't take into account opportunity cost. If we are taking in someone unskilled on minimum wage via free movement but are trying to manage numbers [due to capacity etc] then do we take in one fewer highly skilled migrant that could contribute much more?
Correct - and of course the jobs taken by non-uk workers instead of UK workers and the knock-on effects this has. There is no way you can get a definitive answer on this. I voted Remain, but I`m surrounded (E Mids) by Leavers and this factor (jobs) was a major factor for them when they voted. Unfortunately such folk are called racist, which is unfair.
Whether it is unfair depends on the individual. I think it is a fair summation to say that a lot of Leave voters are either overtly racist or closet racist but there are about 2 or 3 that are neither. Have a good evening everyone!
You sound like a passage in a recent Stewart Lee sketch, where he says: "The Brexiters, the Leavers ......... they`re not all racist are they. No, not all racist. No, not all of them ..... (pause) Some of them are cunts aren`t they."
I think two things are true. Boris is running away, but it will do him no harm. Not doing debates, like May, can get traction. Not doing one particular interview will only be meaningful to the politically committed that care.
Do you not think politicians being held to account has a benefit to the country? He dodged as many PMQs as he could, didnt want to debate Tory colleagues for the leadership or Sturgeon or Swinson either.
I think the Tories will win regardless but having their policies properly scrutinised and challenged has a real benefit to the country. The public is being denied that.
Yes I do. But I’m not commenting on what I’d like to see. I’m commenting on what I think the impact will be. This is a betting site.
Apologies, I misread "will do him no harm" as "will do no harm".
No worries, it’s so easy to misinterpret when you’re conversing only in writing.
Am I the only one who's intensely relaxed about Boris ditching Neil? Why risk the possibility of a Chernobyl-level event? And given that Labour's resorting to dirty tricks with their dodgy NHS dossiers, I see no reason why the Tories shouldn't try to shaft Labour in every way imaginable, including this one.
All I know is May being chicken cut through to non political types I knew, and I suspect Boris being chicken will as well. If something is tough, as a leader, you're supposed to overcome it, not wet your pants and skip it, trusting that no one is going to care.
Except May didn't do _any_ debates, whereas Boris is doing all the head-to-head ones with Corbyn, and even Corbyn hnimself is ducking out of a couple of extraneous ones, if I remember correctly. The narrative just doesn't work if people see Boris on stage with Corbyn, who is after all his only rival for the premiership.
It won't be exactly the same, so it may not be quite as effective, but it is still a hook to hang on him - because no one seems to be under any pretence that he is not doing other things for any reason other than he is afraid of screwing up so is limiting what he does. As you yourself have put it he does not want to risk it. That is, he is frit. Given he loses if he simply does not win by enough, I think its more of a risk to be a coward - be bold Boris, be brave, be optimistic. Is that not what he is always telling us? Why suddenly walking on eggshells and restricting himself?
kle4, you are not a Boris supporter, and the fact that you want him to do the interview proves that you believe there is much more for him to lose than to gain. Why the pretence? You're smart enough to know it won't make any difference to the election result, but it most certainly would be if he got skewered like Corbyn did. Everything's a political calculation, and two weeks from a general election, Boris would be quite mad if he agreed to be interviewed by Andrew Neill.
Why risk blowing a 10 point lead?
I doubt it is 10 points at the moment, I think it is definitely sub 10 now.
You think that the Corbyn interview and the ensuing headlines will make the polls narrow even more? Well if that does turn out to be true after the worst two days in Corbyn's leadership.......
Been out all day on the doorsteps. That soft Tory vote is hardening. Fear of Corbyn is bringng them back onboard. The LibDem women of a certain age realise the game is up - and they are not going to get Dr. Sarah re-elected. Apart from the "all Tories are f*cking arseholes" guy, the only venom that has come my way have been from these women. Real face-contorting hate. Not a good look, ladies.... Boris still proving Marmite, but when confronted with Marmite or Corbyn's Cup of Cold Sick, it's Marmite every time. Returning Officer will have a fun write in on the night. Knocked on one door and was told "Och noo, this is an SNP hoos....." I also found a UKIP/Survivalist. Thought we should all have guns to protect ourselves from the upcoming New World Order apocolypse. She'd been reading about it online. A lot. In the absence of a UKIP or Brexit candidate, I secured the vote of her and her husband....
All fine, your Conservative candidate my romp home by 40,000 votes and Stephen Timms in my constituency may also win by 40,000 votes but we both know neither seat is where this election is going to be decided.
No. But the trends we detect in these seats will decide it.
You're in Totnes right? Not sure that's a very typical seat - it maybe indicative of the Lib Dems' failure to make inroads but not of the sort of seats in the North, Midlands and Wales that the Tories need for a comfortable majority.
The thing to note is the confused Remainer Tories are coming home. Along with Labour Leavers. Went to a council estate (not "social housing" - this is a full-on old-school 20's-30's council estate). The sort of place that Tory canvassers shy away from. Normally. But we got a great reception. (Kept looking at each other, going "this can't be right....") Boris reaches the parts other politicians can't.
The Vote Leave sort?
Yes. But also the "what's the point in voting, none of them ever listen" crowd. Those who voted in the Referendum, but not at general elections. Normally. We keep finding people who don't normally vote. But they will for Boris.
Am I the only one who's intensely relaxed about Boris ditching Neil? Why risk the possibility of a Chernobyl-level event? And given that Labour's resorting to dirty tricks with their dodgy NHS dossiers, I see no reason why the Tories shouldn't try to shaft Labour in every way imaginable, including this one.
All I know is May being chicken cut through to non political types I knew, and I suspect Boris being chicken will as well. If something is tough, as a leader, you're supposed to overcome it, not wet your pants and skip it, trusting that no one is going to care.
Except May didn't do _any_ debates, whereas Boris is doing all the head-to-head ones with Corbyn, and even Corbyn hnimself is ducking out of a couple of extraneous ones, if I remember correctly. The narrative just doesn't work if people see Boris on stage with Corbyn, who is after all his only rival for the premiership.
It won't be exactly the same, so it may not be quite as effective, but it is still a hook to hang on him - because no one seems to be under any pretence that he is not doing other things for any reason other than he is afraid of screwing up so is limiting what he does. As you yourself have put it he does not want to risk it. That is, he is frit. Given he loses if he simply does not win by enough, I think its more of a risk to be a coward - be bold Boris, be brave, be optimistic. Is that not what he is always telling us? Why suddenly walking on eggshells and restricting himself?
kle4, you are not a Boris supporter, and the fact that you want him to do the interview proves that you believe there is much more for him to lose than to gain. Why the pretence? You're smart enough to know it won't make any difference to the election result, but it most certainly would be if he got skewered like Corbyn did. Everything's a political calculation, and two weeks from a general election, Boris would be quite mad if he agreed to be interviewed by Andrew Neill.
Why risk blowing a 10 point lead?
I doubt it is 10 points at the moment, I think it is definitely sub 10 now.
I think your right , its about 9c here at the moment.
Been out all day on the doorsteps. That soft Tory vote is hardening. Fear of Corbyn is bringng them back onboard. The LibDem women of a certain age realise the game is up - and they are not going to get Dr. Sarah re-elected. Apart from the "all Tories are f*cking arseholes" guy, the only venom that has come my way have been from these women. Real face-contorting hate. Not a good look, ladies.... Boris still proving Marmite, but when confronted with Marmite or Corbyn's Cup of Cold Sick, it's Marmite every time. Returning Officer will have a fun write in on the night. Knocked on one door and was told "Och noo, this is an SNP hoos....." I also found a UKIP/Survivalist. Thought we should all have guns to protect ourselves from the upcoming New World Order apocolypse. She'd been reading about it online. A lot. In the absence of a UKIP or Brexit candidate, I secured the vote of her and her husband....
All fine, your Conservative candidate my romp home by 40,000 votes and Stephen Timms in my constituency may also win by 40,000 votes but we both know neither seat is where this election is going to be decided.
No. But the trends we detect in these seats will decide it.
You're in Totnes right? Not sure that's a very typical seat - it maybe indicative of the Lib Dems' failure to make inroads but not of the sort of seats in the North, Midlands and Wales that the Tories need for a comfortable majority.
The thing to note is the confused Remainer Tories are coming home. Along with Labour Leavers. Went to a council estate (not "social housing" - this is a full-on old-school 20's-30's council estate). The sort of place that Tory canvassers shy away from. Normally. But we got a great reception. (Kept looking at each other, going "this can't be right....") Boris reaches the parts other politicians can't.
The Vote Leave sort?
Yes. But also the "what's the point in voting, none of them ever listen" crowd. Those who voted in the Referendum, but not at general elections. Normally. We keep finding people who don't normally vote. But they will for Boris.
If - for example - our schools and hospitals are full to bursting we have the options of:
(i) increasing capex to build more facilities, with the increased overhead and associated running costs; (ii) providing a sub-optimal service by cramming more kids into the classroom; or (iii) reducing the demand
In any event, your calculation above doesn't take into account the limited capacity
It also doesn't take into account opportunity cost. If we are taking in someone unskilled on minimum wage via free movement but are trying to manage numbers [due to capacity etc] then do we take in one fewer highly skilled migrant that could contribute much more?
The migration we need is a mix of low skilled and highly skilled. There are plenty of industries that are highly reliant on low skilled immigration that would collapse without it, especially the care industry. There is no point replacing care workers with rocket scientists.
What we have plenty of is mid skilled.
90% of care workers are domestic. 5% are from the EU. 5% are from outside the EU (so didn't come in via free movement). Why would the care industry collapse? We already recruit worldwide for care and can continue to do so. That is how migration works worldwide, if you need migrants for a sector you prioritise it. Simple!
Edit to add: apologoies. It's not as big a difference as I said. EU citizens are a greater proportion of the workforce than the population.
The numbers I saw which I quoted came from the LSE so were real numbers. They might be out of date now but came up on the first page of a Google search.
Using your numbers my point still stands. 92% of workers British or non-EU and more non-EU than EU, remembering that non-EU don't come in via free movement they're still filling more vacancies than EU are. We will continue to get EU migrants in post-Brexit even if Freedom of Movement is reformed or ends. Personally I suspect we'll get something very close to Freedom of Movement but without the benefits which is a reasonable compromise.
Am I the only one who's intensely relaxed about Boris ditching Neil? Why risk the possibility of a Chernobyl-level event? And given that Labour's resorting to dirty tricks with their dodgy NHS dossiers, I see no reason why the Tories shouldn't try to shaft Labour in every way imaginable, including this one.
All I know is May being chicken cut through to non political types I knew, and I suspect Boris being chicken will as well. If something is tough, as a leader, you're supposed to overcome it, not wet your pants and skip it, trusting that no one is going to care.
Except May didn't do _any_ debates, whereas Boris is doing all the head-to-head ones with Corbyn, and even Corbyn hnimself is ducking out of a couple of extraneous ones, if I remember correctly. The narrative just doesn't work if people see Boris on stage with Corbyn, who is after all his only rival for the premiership.
It won't be exactly the same, so it may not be quite as effective, but it is still a hook to hang on him - because no one seems to be under any pretence that he is not doing other things for any reason other than he is afraid of screwing up so is limiting what he does. As you yourself have put it he does not want to risk it. That is, he is frit. Given he loses if he simply does not win by enough, I think its more of a risk to be a coward - be bold Boris, be brave, be optimistic. Is that not what he is always telling us? Why suddenly walking on eggshells and restricting himself?
kle4, you are not a Boris supporter, and the fact that you want him to do the interview proves that you believe there is much more for him to lose than to gain. Why the pretence? You're smart enough to know it won't make any difference to the election result, but it most certainly would be if he got skewered like Corbyn did. Everything's a political calculation, and two weeks from a general election, Boris would be quite mad if he agreed to be interviewed by Andrew Neill.
Why risk blowing a 10 point lead?
I doubt it is 10 points at the moment, I think it is definitely sub 10 now.
You think that the Corbyn interview and the ensuing headlines will make the polls narrow even more? Well if that does turn out to be true after the worst two days in Corbyn's leadership.......
Labour managed to knock that out of the news cycle with their dodgy dossier.
Comrade! Is this a test?! I am with you in the struggle!!
In all seriousness you should think about joining Labour (once Corbyn has gone). It's a broad enough church to accommodate a wokeish ex Con whose party has left him disillusioned and wondering where on earth it all went wrong for the moderate pragmatic centre ground of politics.
If - for example - our schools and hospitals are full to bursting we have the options of:
(i) increasing capex to build more facilities, with the increased overhead and associated running costs; (ii) providing a sub-optimal service by cramming more kids into the classroom; or (iii) reducing the demand
In any event, your calculation above doesn't take into account the limited capacity
It also doesn't take into account opportunity cost. If we are taking in someone unskilled on minimum wage via free movement but are trying to manage numbers [due to capacity etc] then do we take in one fewer highly skilled migrant that could contribute much more?
Correct - and of course the jobs taken by non-uk workers instead of UK workers and the knock-on effects this has. There is no way you can get a definitive answer on this. I voted Remain, but I`m surrounded (E Mids) by Leavers and this factor (jobs) was a major factor for them when they voted. Unfortunately such folk are called racist, which is unfair.
Whether it is unfair depends on the individual. I think it is a fair summation to say that a lot of Leave voters are either overtly racist or closet racist but there are about 2 or 3 that are neither. Have a good evening everyone!
You sound like a passage in a recent Stewart Lee sketch, where he says: "The Brexiters, the Leavers ......... they`re not all racist are they. No, not all racist. No, not all of them ..... (pause) Some of them are cunts aren`t they."
I look forward to his tour of working men's clubs in Stoke, Mansfield, Hartlepool.
I look forward to his tour of working men's clubs in Stoke, Mansfield, Hartlepool.
No ordinary people go to working mens clubs. Even in Stoke, Mansfield, and Hartlepool. How out of touch are you?
Erm. They really do. Just not too many young people. Shame really - the beer is always cheap and you can giggle at the Phoenix Nights overtones when the “turn” starts.
Labour managed to knock that out of the news cycle with their dodgy dossier.
The dodgy dossier which has comprehensively unravelled. I don't think voters will forget that Corbyn interview, and I'm pretty certain the Tories won't let them either. Gosh, Francis, you really are a jellyfish. If the Tories were polling 50% and Corbyn did an interview stating he hated Jews, you'd still find reasons to be worried.
I look forward to his tour of working men's clubs in Stoke, Mansfield, Hartlepool.
No ordinary people go to working mens clubs. Even in Stoke, Mansfield, and Hartlepool. How out of touch are you?
Erm. They really do. Just not too many young people. Shame really - the beer is always cheap and you can giggle at the Phoenix Nights overtones when the “turn” starts.
Exactly. Ordinary people don’t. Just xenophobic boomers.
Comments
Marmite vs Vegemite....Marmite every time.
Given he loses if he simply does not win by enough, I think its more of a risk to be a coward - be bold Boris, be brave, be optimistic. Is that not what he is always telling us? Why suddenly walking on eggshells and restricting himself?
Of course, there's another part that we need to do proper analysis on. How many EU citizens are staying rather than coming in their early 20s and then leaving five years later. If there's a fair amount of churn, where people come and work and then leave, then there aren't that many long-term costs. If, on the other hand, they come and stay and grow old, the calculations are very different.
And on your speicific points: re 1, while that's true, the numbers for changing capex levels are pretty tiny at the central government level. IIRC, we're still below 2007 levels today, so that doesn't suggest that there's a big impact there. Re 2, that's true, but it's pretty localised and other factors such as changing birth rate have a bigger impact.
I don't have a subscription so can't get through paywall but this article suggests a couple of years ago the Premier League was raising £3.3bn per annum in taxation for the UK. Its probably more now: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/premier-leagues-7-6bn-contribution-to-uk-economy-glrz53vf6
Cap salaries and taxes will plummet as global stars would leave the country and more young kids will grow up supporting Barcelona etc
What we have plenty of is mid skilled.
Jam or Nutella.
As I've always said, I don't think EU immigrants should be eligible for benefis. (Or at least not until some level of NI has been paid at the least.) But I don't see the empirical evidence for your claim.
Mrs T would have done it, but as we all know, and as you keep saying, she was in a different league to our current crop of political savants.
In your heart you know I'm right on this, kinabalu, but you're pissed off because your man, Mr Corbyn, got there first and it backfired spectacularly. Just think if Boris had gone first and the result had been the same. I'm sure you would be screaming your lungs out begging for Mr Corbyn to do the interview afterwards....right? Right.
Why would the care industry collapse? We already recruit worldwide for care and can continue to do so. That is how migration works worldwide, if you need migrants for a sector you prioritise it. Simple!
I think the Tories will win regardless but having their policies properly scrutinised and challenged has a real benefit to the country. The public is being denied that.
For goodness' sake, where do the parties manage to find these morons?
If you are in a Conservative seat surrounded by Conservative seats (as you are, excluding Exeter and parts of Plymouth), I don't know you can read the election nationally any more than I can in East London where I'm surrounded by Labour seats.
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1199300778097295363/photo/1
84% are British. 8% are EU, 9% are non-EU.
So, given that EU citizens are 5.5% of the population they are more than 50% more likely to work in care industries than their British neighbours.
Now, that's still not a massive number, and I have no doubt that the British care industry would adapt if the tap of labour from Eastern Europe was turned off. But let's try and use real numbers.
Edit to add: apologoies. It's not as big a difference as I said. EU citizens are a greater proportion of the workforce than the population.
Why risk blowing a 10 point lead?
Single parent in this example is my girlfriend when I met her. She didn't get housing benefit, 10k was her rent (not at all expensive for a 2 bed in Winchester). She got UC, which took into account some of her rent. Her varying UC total (she's a self-employed cleaner so her income varies) was way in excess of her contributions to the Treasury.
Its worth noting that the non-EU at 4x is an unusually high ratio for non-EU too.
You've utterly failed to understand the brexit dynamic which is why, pleasingly, you are about to lose. And post hoc confected outrage such as your post cuts no ice. If youre really concerned about discrimination why is it i see so little from you on anti-semitism?
Along with Labour Leavers. Went to a council estate (not "social housing" - this is a full-on old-school 20's-30's council estate). The sort of place that Tory canvassers shy away from. Normally. But we got a great reception. (Kept looking at each other, going "this can't be right....")
Boris reaches the parts other politicians can't.
I did go on to say "even someone earning £15,000 is probably", so I should remove the first part of my post.
Care to quantify?
"The Brexiters, the Leavers ......... they`re not all racist are they.
No, not all racist.
No, not all of them
..... (pause)
Some of them are cunts aren`t they."
Not so civic and joyous nationalism after all.
Unite the Union has given £3m to Labour, who took a total of 3.5m
just under £3m in total for the Conservatives, biggest donation £250,000
BREXIT party got £2.25M most of it £2m from one person.
Lib Dem on £251,000 total
Those who voted in the Referendum, but not at general elections.
Normally. We keep finding people who don't normally vote. But they will for Boris.
Using your numbers my point still stands. 92% of workers British or non-EU and more non-EU than EU, remembering that non-EU don't come in via free movement they're still filling more vacancies than EU are. We will continue to get EU migrants in post-Brexit even if Freedom of Movement is reformed or ends.
Personally I suspect we'll get something very close to Freedom of Movement but without the benefits which is a reasonable compromise.
Or with does it become a Con - Lab contest?
Yeah, right......
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1200105330199408640?s=20
How out of touch are you?
Labour managed to knock that out of the news cycle with their dodgy dossier.
The dodgy dossier which has comprehensively unravelled. I don't think voters will forget that Corbyn interview, and I'm pretty certain the Tories won't let them either. Gosh, Francis, you really are a jellyfish. If the Tories were polling 50% and Corbyn did an interview stating he hated Jews, you'd still find reasons to be worried.