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.
I wouldn’t try that line on the campaign trail. Edit - A very revealing comment actually.
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.
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.
I wouldn’t try that line on the campaign trail. Edit - A very revealing comment actually.
P.S. You’re really missing out on the meat raffles.
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.
You don`t think that xenophobic boomers are ordinary people? There`s loads of them round here.
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.
A lot of people perhaps 40 million plus voters didn't see it, I haven't seen a millisecond of it, but I knew Corbyn of old, so it wasn't that surprising... the total electorate is apparently 45.7million as at Dec 2018
3,323 candidates are standing at the election, although only 3,322 of them are able to be elected. The reason is the death of the independent candidate in Rutland Melton, Anthony Watchorn. He remains on the ballot paper and the election goes ahead on 12th December. (This wouldn't be the case if he was a party candidate). In the event of his election, there is an automatic by-election.
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 isdoesn'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 unde 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 waing'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.
It's not about narrow partisan advantage, it's about being subject to proper scrutiny as is his duty as someone asking for the privilege to lead this great country. Yes, Neil will rough him up a bit. That is his job, on behalf of the electorate. Democracy is not just about counting votes. It's also about an informed electorate and free and fair debate. If Johnson is allowed to duck this it is a slap in the face of voters and undermines any claim he would have to having won fairly. He should not be surprised to find many voters unwilling to treat him as a legitimate leader, a sad outcome for those of us proud to live in a democracy. The Tories need to be very careful about this. I also think it will be worse for them if he does chicken out, but that's not the point, he still must do the interview.
It's not about narrow partisan advantage, it's about being subject to proper scrutiny as is his duty as someone asking for the privilege to lead this great country. Yes, Neil will rough him up a bit. That is his job, on behalf of the electorate. Democracy is not just about counting votes. It's also about an informed electorate and free and fair debate. If Johnson is allowed to duck this it is a slap in the face of voters and undermines any claim he would have to having won fairly. He should not be surprised to find many voters unwilling to treat him as a legitimate leader, a sad outcome for those of us proud to live in a democracy. The Tories need to be very careful about this. I also think it will be worse for them if he does chicken out, but that's not the point, he still must do the interview.
I seem to recall Cameron refusing to be interviewed by Andrew Neil in 2015. Have I got that wrong?
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?
Johnson has a reputation for being lazy, not bothering with or grasping details and being a a serial liar. If you were being honest you would admit that is the reason he will dodge being interviewed by AN. It is very wise of him to do run away because he is all of things and it would be cruelly exposed. It won't affect the result but it does tell us a lot about the person who is about to become our elected dictator for the next 5 years years courtesy of FPTP.
It's not about narrow partisan advantage, it's about being subject to proper scrutiny as is his duty as someone asking for the privilege to lead this great country. Yes, Neil will rough him up a bit. That is his job, on behalf of the electorate. Democracy is not just about counting votes. It's also about an informed electorate and free and fair debate. If Johnson is allowed to duck this it is a slap in the face of voters and undermines any claim he would have to having won fairly. He should not be surprised to find many voters unwilling to treat him as a legitimate leader, a sad outcome for those of us proud to live in a democracy. The Tories need to be very careful about this. I also think it will be worse for them if he does chicken out, but that's not the point, he still must do the interview.
I seem to recall Cameron refusing to be interviewed by Andrew Neil in 2015.
Was Miliband? Johnson should just do it for goodness sake.
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.
It's not about narrow partisan advantage, it's about being subject to proper scrutiny as is his duty as someone asking for the privilege to lead this great country. Yes, Neil will rough him up a bit. That is his job, on behalf of the electorate. Democracy is not just about counting votes. It's also about an informed electorate and free and fair debate. If Johnson is allowed to duck this it is a slap in the face of voters and undermines any claim he would have to having won fairly. He should not be surprised to find many voters unwilling to treat him as a legitimate leader, a sad outcome for those of us proud to live in a democracy. The Tories need to be very careful about this. I also think it will be worse for them if he does chicken out, but that's not the point, he still must do the interview.
I seem to recall Cameron refusing to be interviewed by Andrew Neil in 2015. Have I got that wrong?
Is it an Etonian thing then? Scrutiny is beneath them.
It's not about narrow partisan advantage, it's about being subject to proper scrutiny as is his duty as someone asking for the privilege to lead this great country. Yes, Neil will rough him up a bit. That is his job, on behalf of the electorate. Democracy is not just about counting votes. It's also about an informed electorate and free and fair debate. If Johnson is allowed to duck this it is a slap in the face of voters and undermines any claim he would have to having won fairly. He should not be surprised to find many voters unwilling to treat him as a legitimate leader, a sad outcome for those of us proud to live in a democracy. The Tories need to be very careful about this. I also think it will be worse for them if he does chicken out, but that's not the point, he still must do the interview.
I seem to recall Cameron refusing to be interviewed by Andrew Neil in 2015.
Was Miliband? Johnson should just do it for goodness sake.
No I don't think so. I don't think any of them agreed to it. In fact in many prior elections I think many party leaders chose [for good reason] to not go anywhere near him.
I've just received my first bit of election literature. From the Brexit Party through the post. It follows on from the only facebook advert I have received also being from them.
It barely mentions Brexit at all, but is all about the NHS. Very defensive, with lots of reassurance that they could be trusted in that area.
Bishop Auckland Labour MP Helen Goodman’s campaign literature - “Finally, I want you to know that I have always been a moderate politician. I did not back Jeremy Corbyn to be Leader of the Labour Party.”
Too little too late unless she votes against a Corbyn Queens speech.
I've just received my first bit of election literature. From the Brexit Party through the post. It follows on from the only facebook advert I have received also being from them.
It barely mentions Brexit at all, but is all about the NHS. Very defensive, with lots of reassurance that they could be trusted in that area.
I'm in the Canterbury constituency and now getting blitzed, especially by Labour. I don't think they need to worry here. I've lumped on Canterbury being a Labour hold.
I've just received my first bit of election literature. From the Brexit Party through the post. It follows on from the only facebook advert I have received also being from them.
It barely mentions Brexit at all, but is all about the NHS. Very defensive, with lots of reassurance that they could be trusted in that area.
do you mind me asking What seat, or type of seat do you live in, ( e.g lab with a 10,000 majority)
I've just received my first bit of election literature. From the Brexit Party through the post. It follows on from the only facebook advert I have received also being from them.
It barely mentions Brexit at all, but is all about the NHS. Very defensive, with lots of reassurance that they could be trusted in that area.
Sounds like they are trying to nab Tory votes - building upon the manufactured NHS/Tory concerns. Are you in a marginal seat?
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.
I wouldn’t try that line on the campaign trail.
Doesn’t make it false.
Loads of pretty ordinary people go to working men's clubs. Cheap beer.
It won't be immigration we're worrying about in a couple of years' time. It'll be the brain drain. Just like in the 1970s.
I made a prediction a couple of years ago that by 2026, the UK would have a year of negative net migration. Amusingly, I just went to Migration Watch and created a "net migration" chart for "The EU8 grouping includes citizens of Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia." There is now negative net migration for those countries.
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.
I wouldn’t try that line on the campaign trail.
Doesn’t make it false.
Loads of pretty ordinary people go to working men's clubs. Cheap beer.
Just a question - will SDLP and Alliance MPs take the Labour and Lib Dem whip respectively?
I don't think the SDLP did when they had MPs in the past, so I don't think they will again, same with the Alliance, but not having MPs in the past I may be proved wrong.
It won't be immigration we're worrying about in a couple of years' time. It'll be the brain drain. Just like in the 1970s.
I made a prediction a couple of years ago that by 2026, the UK would have a year of negative net migration. Amusingly, I just went to Migration Watch and created a "net migration" chart for "The EU8 grouping includes citizens of Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia." There is now negative net migration for those countries.
And by 2036 we will be back to big migration with climate refugees from southern Europe avoiding the 50 degree summers. Blackpool and Margate will be fashionable global beach resorts.
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.
I wouldn’t try that line on the campaign trail.
Doesn’t make it false.
Loads of pretty ordinary people go to working men's clubs. Cheap beer.
“Loads”
Yes. If Boris gets a majority, it’ll be thanks to them. You’ve obviously never been in one, but many of us do. Back in the day they were often Labour clubs. Today, not so much.
It won't be immigration we're worrying about in a couple of years' time. It'll be the brain drain. Just like in the 1970s.
I made a prediction a couple of years ago that by 2026, the UK would have a year of negative net migration. Amusingly, I just went to Migration Watch and created a "net migration" chart for "The EU8 grouping includes citizens of Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia." There is now negative net migration for those countries.
Poland is suffering from the brain drain emigration it has had and its government are actively trying to encourage some of its diaspora to return home. I'm curious how net migration for the EU8 in the UK compares with other comparable countries that received a large number of migrants who might now return home too. I honestly don't know the answer to that.
It doesn't matter, the returning Labour voters will back the party in spite of him.
Well you keep saying that. But what do you mean by 'returning voters'? Define your terms. A lot of 2017 Labour voters were new, not least from the Lib Dems who cratered in 2017. The Lib Dems are polling much better nowadays, Large numbers of Labour voters are clearly not returning to the fold, especially in the Midlands. So who and where are all these returning voters you speak of. And where are the new Labour voters to make up for those who arent coming back?
Just a question - will SDLP and Alliance MPs take the Labour and Lib Dem whip respectively?
I don't think the SDLP did when they had MPs in the past, so I don't think they will again, same with the Alliance, but not having MPs in the past I may be proved wrong.
IIRC There was no formal acceptance of the labour party whip but the SDLP did take it informally.
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.
I look forward to the DT tomorrow calling a politician refusing to do the AN interview as spineless and running scared ! Oh silly me it’s Bozo of course so we won’t see zip about it !
It doesn't matter, the returning Labour voters will back the party in spite of him.
Well you keep saying that. But what do you mean by 'returning voters'? Define your terms. A lot of 2017 Labour voters were new, not least from the Lib Dems who cratered in 2017. The Lib Dems are polling much better nowadays, Large numbers of Labour voters are clearly not returning to the fold, especially in the Midlands. So who and where are all these returning voters you speak of. And where are the new Labour voters to make up for those who arent coming back?
Are you saying that the Remain vote is going to coalesce around Labour? Some will, certainly. But in the same numbers as 2017 and in the same places where they are needed? I very much doubt it. Whatever, you have no evidence for your repetitive point, just fear. In truth it sounds a bit unhinged and, dare i say, slightly, childish.
Just a question - will SDLP and Alliance MPs take the Labour and Lib Dem whip respectively?
I don't think the SDLP did when they had MPs in the past, so I don't think they will again, same with the Alliance, but not having MPs in the past I may be proved wrong.
IIRC There was no formal acceptance of the labour party whip but the SDLP did take it informally.
Yes, the SDLP did take the whip. Whereas Alliance are the LDs' sister party.
I've just received my first bit of election literature. From the Brexit Party through the post. It follows on from the only facebook advert I have received also being from them.
It barely mentions Brexit at all, but is all about the NHS. Very defensive, with lots of reassurance that they could be trusted in that area.
I'm in the Canterbury constituency and now getting blitzed, especially by Labour. I don't think they need to worry here. I've lumped on Canterbury being a Labour hold.
Martin Baxter gives Canterbury to the Tories by a margin of 7.6% of the vote.
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?
Indeed. This isn’t particularly difficult, each immigrant should be able to prove their worth to the country they wish to immigrate to - whether that’s due to having a high income, providing a needed skill or be investing in the country. There’s plenty of scope for short-term farm workers, students and refugees. Countries such as Australia also operate various guest worker visas, so someone can go there and work for a few months whilst travelling. The important factor is that only citizens have recourse to state benefits and the right to vote. People should have to show their loyalty to the country before being able to take from it.
I've just received my first bit of election literature. From the Brexit Party through the post. It follows on from the only facebook advert I have received also being from them.
It barely mentions Brexit at all, but is all about the NHS. Very defensive, with lots of reassurance that they could be trusted in that area.
I'm in the Canterbury constituency and now getting blitzed, especially by Labour. I don't think they need to worry here. I've lumped on Canterbury being a Labour hold.
Martin Baxter gives Canterbury to the Tories by a margin of 7.6% of the vote.
Bet365 have the Tories down as favourites, I'm thinking different and took advantage.
It won't be immigration we're worrying about in a couple of years' time. It'll be the brain drain. Just like in the 1970s.
I made a prediction a couple of years ago that by 2026, the UK would have a year of negative net migration. Amusingly, I just went to Migration Watch and created a "net migration" chart for "The EU8 grouping includes citizens of Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia." There is now negative net migration for those countries.
And by 2036 we will be back to big migration with climate refugees from southern Europe avoiding the 50 degree summers. Blackpool and Margate will be fashionable global beach resorts.
We're only 17 years from 2036 (i.e. it's nearer than 2000), so the absolute increase in temperature is unlikely to be such that it causes mass climate migrations. And even if there were (which there won't be), we won't get (many) as we won't be in the EU, and there are plenty of places in the EU with terrible demographics they can move to.
Finally, adding even 2 degrees to Blackpool and Margate only gets you temperatures approaching Paris Plage today, and that's not exactly Cap Ferrat.
I've just received my first bit of election literature. From the Brexit Party through the post. It follows on from the only facebook advert I have received also being from them.
It barely mentions Brexit at all, but is all about the NHS. Very defensive, with lots of reassurance that they could be trusted in that area.
do you mind me asking What seat, or type of seat do you live in, ( e.g lab with a 10,000 majority)
I've just received my first bit of election literature. From the Brexit Party through the post. It follows on from the only facebook advert I have received also being from them.
It barely mentions Brexit at all, but is all about the NHS. Very defensive, with lots of reassurance that they could be trusted in that area.
Sounds like they are trying to nab Tory votes - building upon the manufactured NHS/Tory concerns. Are you in a marginal seat?
Barnsley East. Safe Labour seat, but also very strongly leave. If the Brexit Party were to win a seat (which they won't) then this would be one of the possibilities. I can see why I have heard for them. To be honest, it's nice to hear from someone other than Labour. I was a bit surprised at the focus on the NHS, as I was expecting more of a direct appeal to vote for them over Conservative based on Brexit policy but yes, maybe this does make sense as a way of appealing to leavers who are undecided between the two.
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.
I wouldn’t try that line on the campaign trail.
Doesn’t make it false.
Just incredibly childish.
Just accept it, the Conservatives are relying on this demographic.
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?
Indeed. This isn’t particularly difficult, each immigrant should be able to prove their worth to the country they wish to immigrate to - whether that’s due to having a high income, providing a needed skill or be investing in the country. There’s plenty of scope for short-term farm workers, students and refugees. Countries such as Australia also operate various guest worker visas, so someone can go there and work for a few months whilst travelling. The important factor is that only citizens have recourse to state benefits and the right to vote. People should have to show their loyalty to the country before being able to take from it.
The problem is the mismatch between the "skills" that the country actually needs because of its demographics and economy, including lots of low skilled people, and the language of the tory party (and commentators on here) expecting immigrants to be only high income bankers, scientists and footballers, who are of course welcome but will only make up a small proportion of migration.
When voters see more low skilled immigrants from Africa and Asia replacing those from Europe the Tory leave coalition will split.
And the contribution of immigrants may be they raise great kids, or they are an empathetic and responsible carer, they deliver service with a smile at the local restaurant. And shock horror, some of them will not make a positive contribution because they are fallible humans just like people born here.
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?
Indeed. This isn’t particularly difficult, each immigrant should be able to prove their worth to the country they wish to immigrate to - whether that’s due to having a high income, providing a needed skill or be investing in the country. There’s plenty of scope for short-term farm workers, students and refugees. Countries such as Australia also operate various guest worker visas, so someone can go there and work for a few months whilst travelling. The important factor is that only citizens have recourse to state benefits and the right to vote. People should have to show their loyalty to the country before being able to take from it.
There are two ways to do this, and both have their advantages and disadvantages. Firstly, there is the US system where there are many, many different classes of visas. You can be an investor. A manager. An inter-corporate transfer. A student. A lottery winner. A genius. A family member. Quotas for specific professions. This, by and large, gets the right people into the country, but it comes with significant costs, in implementation and in the assumption the government knows the right numbers of people at any time. Secondly, there is the free market way, where you basically trust the free market to find the right people. That's the old US way. (And is used for US-Canada, Australia-New Zealand, or inter-EEA.) That means you get people who add value, and people who don't. But you also let the market decide, and you remove transactional costs. I personally prefer a hybrid system, where you have a "fee" to come. (Of course there would be rules such as no criminal record. It could be implemented via compulsory health insurance, as in Switzerland, or a one entrance charge. This could be on a sliding scale with age, so that a 20 year old pays a tenth of a 60 year old.) This means there are negligible transaction and implementation costs, it augments government revenue, and it means there is little incentive for low skilled workers to come.
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?
Indeed. This isn’t particularly difficult, each immigrant should be able to prove their worth to the country they wish to immigrate to - whether that’s due to having a high income, providing a needed skill or be investing in the country. There’s plenty of scope for short-term farm workers, students and refugees. Countries such as Australia also operate various guest worker visas, so someone can go there and work for a few months whilst travelling. The important factor is that only citizens have recourse to state benefits and the right to vote. People should have to show their loyalty to the country before being able to take from it.
There are two ways to do this, and both have their advantages and disadvantages. Firstly, there is the US system where there are many, many different classes of visas. You can be an investor. A manager. An inter-corporate transfer. A student. A lottery winner. A genius. A family member. Quotas for specific professions. This, by and large, gets the right people into the country, but it comes with significant costs, in implementation and in the assumption the government knows the right numbers of people at any time. Secondly, there is the free market way, where you basically trust the free market to find the right people. That's the old US way. (And is used for US-Canada, Australia-New Zealand, or inter-EEA.) That means you get people who add value, and people who don't. But you also let the market decide, and you remove transactional costs. I personally prefer a hybrid system, where you have a "fee" to come. (Of course there would be rules such as no criminal record. It could be implemented via compulsory health insurance, as in Switzerland, or a one entrance charge. This could be on a sliding scale with age, so that a 20 year old pays a tenth of a 60 year old.) This means there are negligible transaction and implementation costs, it augments government revenue, and it means there is little incentive for low skilled workers to come.
With our demographics, a service based economy, and all parties looking to invest more in social care and health to cope with a booming retired population, why are we pretending we dont need low skilled workers?
I am rewatching the dystopian BBC drama "1990," originally shown in 1977-8. I found it quite interesting that even though Britain is depicted as a totalitarian state run by a Labour government in cahoots with the trades unions, following national bankruptcy (I wonder where on earth those ideas came from), it remains a member of the EEC and a signatory of the ECHR!
Obviously the scriptwriters' imaginations were too limited ...
It won't be immigration we're worrying about in a couple of years' time. It'll be the brain drain. Just like in the 1970s.
I made a prediction a couple of years ago that by 2026, the UK would have a year of negative net migration. Amusingly, I just went to Migration Watch and created a "net migration" chart for "The EU8 grouping includes citizens of Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia." There is now negative net migration for those countries.
Which, of course, is exactly what some people voted for.
I think Boris ducking Neil is a serious mistake. And a stupid one.
I find myself instantly losing respect for him at the prospect of it. Admittedly, I didn’t have much of it to start with, but I thought he did ok at the QT special last Friday night.
Getting a ”frit” meme snowballing is a horrible label to have hung round your neck in the last 2 weeks before polling day when you’re relying on your best PM lead and a ‘balls of steel’ reputation.
Indeed. This isn’t particularly difficult, each immigrant should be able to prove their worth to the country they wish to immigrate to - whether that’s due to having a high income, providing a needed skill or be investing in the country. There’s plenty of scope for short-term farm workers, students and refugees. Countries such as Australia also operate various guest worker visas, so someone can go there and work for a few months whilst travelling. The important factor is that only citizens have recourse to state benefits and the right to vote. People should have to show their loyalty to the country before being able to take from it.
There are two ways to do this, and both have their advantages and disadvantages. Firstly, there is the US system where there are many, many different classes of visas. You can be an investor. A manager. An inter-corporate transfer. A student. A lottery winner. A genius. A family member. Quotas for specific professions. This, by and large, gets the right people into the country, but it comes with significant costs, in implementation and in the assumption the government knows the right numbers of people at any time. Secondly, there is the free market way, where you basically trust the free market to find the right people. That's the old US way. (And is used for US-Canada, Australia-New Zealand, or inter-EEA.) That means you get people who add value, and people who don't. But you also let the market decide, and you remove transactional costs. I personally prefer a hybrid system, where you have a "fee" to come. (Of course there would be rules such as no criminal record. It could be implemented via compulsory health insurance, as in Switzerland, or a one entrance charge. This could be on a sliding scale with age, so that a 20 year old pays a tenth of a 60 year old.) This means there are negligible transaction and implementation costs, it augments government revenue, and it means there is little incentive for low skilled workers to come.
Yes, there’s plenty of examples around the world of immigration systems, and we should look at what works and what doesn’t when it comes to designing our own. I imagine that you and I, who have both lived and worked extensively abroad, could quickly work out something that allows for skilled and key workers, while preventing immigrant Big Issue sellers, organised beggars and child benefit exports. Or in California, thousands of H1(B)s displacing tech jobs to companies like Tata. As you say, there’s a fine line between too much government intervention / bureaucracy and letting the free market work as it does best.
Are you saying that the Remain vote is going to coalesce around Labour? Some will, certainly. But in the same numbers as 2017 and in the same places where they are needed? I very much doubt it. Whatever, you have no evidence for your repetitive point, just fear. In truth it sounds a bit unhinged and, dare i say, slightly, childish.
Oh. That's nice.
Truth is, we're all guessing a bit here aren't we? My thesis is, quite simply, that not that much has changed since 2017 and we all know what happened then.
This time around, the Conservatives have probably squeezed all that they're going to out of the Brexit Party vote, whereas the Lib Dems still have further to drop. The Labour habit vote is very sticky, and Labour drones on endlessly about the NHS for a reason: it works. Despite all the awful headlines Corbyn's dreadful leadership ratings are improving, Johnson's are moving in the other direction.
I said when this all kicked off that I thought the Tories would either get just over the finishing line or fall just short. I now think it more likely that they'll fall short. The Conservative seats won in 2017 probably represent, in broad-brush terms, the maximum extent of toleration for austerity, which has been going on for a decade now. Labour's vast expenditure plans, as ludicrous as they appear, will probably attract more of the lower middle income swing voters that they need to win back than they'll repel. Brexit ought to help them a little, but most of the Labour Leave seats are held by large margins and the surviving Brexit Party candidates will get in the way as well. Taking into account all of this and the number of marginal defences they have against the SNP, the Tories may very well go slightly backwards.
Once again, this is all an educated guess. One could just as easily argue that the YouGov MRP called it right last time and will, therefore, probably be about right this time. But their projected national share of the vote (Con 43, Lab 32, LD 14) just doesn't smell right. The polls have been showing a slow but steady improvement for Labour since the start of the campaign, we've already had a couple of 34% results so far this week, and there's still a fortnight to go until the big day. And yes, the Tories were doing slightly better when all the postal votes went out, but only about 1 in 5 votes will be cast in this fashion.
We shall soon find out if I'm on the right track here, because we shall see further tightening in the polls over the next few days. This does not necessarily preclude a Conservative majority but, unless UNS proves to be a very poor guide for this election and the Tories do manage to stack up the votes where they need them most (i.e. with outsized swings in the Midlands and the North,) then the likelihood of a Hung Parliament increases, of course, with each percentage point reduction in the Con-Lab spread.
Are you saying that the Remain vote is going to coalesce around Labour? Some will, certainly. But in the same numbers as 2017 and in the same places where they are needed? I very much doubt it. Whatever, you have no evidence for your repetitive point, just fear. In truth it sounds a bit unhinged and, dare i say, slightly, childish.
Truth is, we're all guessing a bit here aren't we? My thesis is, quite simply, that not that much has changed since 2017 and we all know what happened then.
This time around, the Conservatives have probably squeezed all that they're going to out of the Brexit Party vote, whereas the Lib Dems still have further to drop. The Labour habit vote is very sticky, and Labour drones on endlessly about the NHS for a reason: it works. Despite all the awful headlines Corbyn's dreadful leadership ratings are improving, Johnson's are moving in the other direction.
I said when this all kicked off that I thought the Tories would either get just over the finishing line or fall just short. I now think it more likely that they'll fall short. The Conservative seats won in 2017 probably represent, in broad-brush terms, the maximum extent of toleration for austerity, which has been going on for a decade now. Labour's vast expenditure plans, as ludicrous as they appear, will probably attract more of the lower middle income swing voters that they need to win back than they'll repel. Brexit ought to help them a little, but most of the Labour Leave seats are held by large margins and the surviving Brexit Party candidates will get in the way as well. Taking into account all of this and the number of marginal defences they have against the SNP, the Tories may very well go slightly backwards.
Once again, this is all an educated guess. One could just as easily argue that the YouGov MRP called it right last time and will, therefore, probably be about right this time. But their projected national share of the vote (Con 43, Lab 32, LD 14) just doesn't smell right. The polls have been showing a slow but steady improvement for Labour since the start of the campaign, we've already had a couple of 34% results so far this week, and there's still a fortnight to go until the big day. And yes, the Tories were doing slightly better when all the postal votes went out, but only about 1 in 5 votes will be cast in this fashion.
We shall soon find out if I'm on the right track here, because we shall see further tightening in the polls over the next few days. This does not necessarily preclude a Conservative majority but, unless UNS proves to be a very poor guide for this election and the Tories do manage to stack up the votes where they need them most (i.e. with outsized swings in the Midlands and the North,) then the likelihood of a Hung Parliament increases, of course, with ..
What do you do when the post you make comes up ‘to long’? I can delete up thread but it isn’t the answer, I put blockquote in but it doesn’t work what is the solution?
I think Boris ducking Neil is a serious mistake. And a stupid one.
I find myself instantly losing respect for him at the prospect of it. Admittedly, I didn’t have much of it to start with, but I thought he did ok at the QT special last Friday night.
Getting a ”frit” meme snowballing is a horrible label to have hung round your neck in the last 2 weeks before polling day when you’re relying on your best PM lead and a ‘balls of steel’ reputation.
Neil is a competent interviewer but he is also a self-important bully. Look at the stuff he retweets about himself, e.g. "It appears that @afneil is on a one-man mission to clean up politics in the UK, by exposing the lies, exaggerations and deceptions of every party’s politicians. He must be striking fear into the stone-cold hearts of most of those in Westminster. Thank goodness. Bravo, Sir." So let's not appoint him a living national treasure, bulwark of our democracy, etc. and let's not condemn Johnson for ducking out of the interview until he actually ducks out of it. It's very possible he is stringing things out so that we can continue to laugh at the sheer ineptitude of Labour in putting forward Corbyn without guarantees, and so that he can extract concessions from Neil. For instance it would be reasonable to stipulate that Arcuri is sub judice and off limits, and that's a concession he might get if Neil is desperate enough.
I think Boris ducking Neil is a serious mistake. And a stupid one. I find myself instantly losing respect for him at the prospect of it. Admittedly, I didn’t have much of it to start with, but I thought he did ok at the QT special last Friday night. Getting a ”frit” meme snowballing is a horrible label to have hung round your neck in the last 2 weeks before polling day when you’re relying on your best PM lead and a ‘balls of steel’ reputation.
Agree with you. It will look bad for both BBC and Boris if he ducks it. Not sure he has a "balls of steel" reputation though. Do lots of people think he has balls of steel?
Comments
Edit - A very revealing comment actually.
A glowing endorsement from a very marginal seat.
If Johnson is allowed to duck this it is a slap in the face of voters and undermines any claim he would have to having won fairly. He should not be surprised to find many voters unwilling to treat him as a legitimate leader, a sad outcome for those of us proud to live in a democracy. The Tories need to be very careful about this. I also think it will be worse for them if he does chicken out, but that's not the point, he still must do the interview.
FULL-TIME
Astana 2-1 Man Utd
Nur-Sultan erupts.
Kazakhstan champions Astana have beaten Manchester United.
It is very wise of him to do run away because he is all of things and it would be cruelly exposed. It won't affect the result but it does tell us a lot about the person who is about to become our elected dictator for the next 5 years years courtesy of FPTP.
I mean, honestly.
It barely mentions Brexit at all, but is all about the NHS. Very defensive, with lots of reassurance that they could be trusted in that area.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-legal-threat-ilford-south-gapes-tarry-leaflet-real-labour_uk_5de001f4e4b00149f72ba2a7
Bishop Auckland Labour MP Helen Goodman’s campaign literature - “Finally, I want you to know that I have always been a moderate politician. I did not back Jeremy Corbyn to be Leader of the Labour Party.”
Too little too late unless she votes against a Corbyn Queens speech.
Amusingly, I just went to Migration Watch and created a "net migration" chart for "The EU8 grouping includes citizens of Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia."
There is now negative net migration for those countries.
“Corbyn Labour colours are dull red – they don’t use the Tony Blair, Gordon Brown New Labour colours,” he said.
I'm curious how net migration for the EU8 in the UK compares with other comparable countries that received a large number of migrants who might now return home too. I honestly don't know the answer to that.
And with sticky carpets.
Whatever, you have no evidence for your repetitive point, just fear. In truth it sounds a bit unhinged and, dare i say, slightly, childish.
Finally, adding even 2 degrees to Blackpool and Margate only gets you temperatures approaching Paris Plage today, and that's not exactly Cap Ferrat.
To be honest, it's nice to hear from someone other than Labour.
I was a bit surprised at the focus on the NHS, as I was expecting more of a direct appeal to vote for them over Conservative based on Brexit policy but yes, maybe this does make sense as a way of appealing to leavers who are undecided between the two.
When voters see more low skilled immigrants from Africa and Asia replacing those from Europe the Tory leave coalition will split.
And the contribution of immigrants may be they raise great kids, or they are an empathetic and responsible carer, they deliver service with a smile at the local restaurant. And shock horror, some of them will not make a positive contribution because they are fallible humans just like people born here.
Who'd have thought a total bigot would harbour other terrible views?
Firstly, there is the US system where there are many, many different classes of visas. You can be an investor. A manager. An inter-corporate transfer. A student. A lottery winner. A genius. A family member. Quotas for specific professions. This, by and large, gets the right people into the country, but it comes with significant costs, in implementation and in the assumption the government knows the right numbers of people at any time.
Secondly, there is the free market way, where you basically trust the free market to find the right people. That's the old US way. (And is used for US-Canada, Australia-New Zealand, or inter-EEA.) That means you get people who add value, and people who don't. But you also let the market decide, and you remove transactional costs.
I personally prefer a hybrid system, where you have a "fee" to come. (Of course there would be rules such as no criminal record. It could be implemented via compulsory health insurance, as in Switzerland, or a one entrance charge. This could be on a sliding scale with age, so that a 20 year old pays a tenth of a 60 year old.) This means there are negligible transaction and implementation costs, it augments government revenue, and it means there is little incentive for low skilled workers to come.
Obviously the scriptwriters' imaginations were too limited ...
I find myself instantly losing respect for him at the prospect of it. Admittedly, I didn’t have much of it to start with, but I thought he did ok at the QT special last Friday night.
Getting a ”frit” meme snowballing is a horrible label to have hung round your neck in the last 2 weeks before polling day when you’re relying on your best PM lead and a ‘balls of steel’ reputation.
I imagine that you and I, who have both lived and worked extensively abroad, could quickly work out something that allows for skilled and key workers, while preventing immigrant Big Issue sellers, organised beggars and child benefit exports. Or in California, thousands of H1(B)s displacing tech jobs to companies like Tata.
As you say, there’s a fine line between too much government intervention / bureaucracy and letting the free market work as it does best.
Truth is, we're all guessing a bit here aren't we? My thesis is, quite simply, that not that much has changed since 2017 and we all know what happened then.
This time around, the Conservatives have probably squeezed all that they're going to out of the Brexit Party vote, whereas the Lib Dems still have further to drop. The Labour habit vote is very sticky, and Labour drones on endlessly about the NHS for a reason: it works. Despite all the awful headlines Corbyn's dreadful leadership ratings are improving, Johnson's are moving in the other direction.
I said when this all kicked off that I thought the Tories would either get just over the finishing line or fall just short. I now think it more likely that they'll fall short. The Conservative seats won in 2017 probably represent, in broad-brush terms, the maximum extent of toleration for austerity, which has been going on for a decade now. Labour's vast expenditure plans, as ludicrous as they appear, will probably attract more of the lower middle income swing voters that they need to win back than they'll repel. Brexit ought to help them a little, but most of the Labour Leave seats are held by large margins and the surviving Brexit Party candidates will get in the way as well. Taking into account all of this and the number of marginal defences they have against the SNP, the Tories may very well go slightly backwards.
Once again, this is all an educated guess. One could just as easily argue that the YouGov MRP called it right last time and will, therefore, probably be about right this time. But their projected national share of the vote (Con 43, Lab 32, LD 14) just doesn't smell right. The polls have been showing a slow but steady improvement for Labour since the start of the campaign, we've already had a couple of 34% results so far this week, and there's still a fortnight to go until the big day. And yes, the Tories were doing slightly better when all the postal votes went out, but only about 1 in 5 votes will be cast in this fashion.
We shall soon find out if I'm on the right track here, because we shall see further tightening in the polls over the next few days. This does not necessarily preclude a Conservative majority but, unless UNS proves to be a very poor guide for this election and the Tories do manage to stack up the votes where they need them most (i.e. with outsized swings in the Midlands and the North,) then the likelihood of a Hung Parliament increases, of course, with each percentage point reduction in the Con-Lab spread.
https://twitter.com/robertlargan/status/1200121847804772352
"It appears that
@afneil
is on a one-man mission to clean up politics in the UK, by exposing the lies, exaggerations and deceptions of every party’s politicians. He must be striking fear into the stone-cold hearts of most of those in Westminster. Thank goodness. Bravo, Sir."
So let's not appoint him a living national treasure, bulwark of our democracy, etc. and let's not condemn Johnson for ducking out of the interview until he actually ducks out of it. It's very possible he is stringing things out so that we can continue to laugh at the sheer ineptitude of Labour in putting forward Corbyn without guarantees, and so that he can extract concessions from Neil. For instance it would be reasonable to stipulate that Arcuri is sub judice and off limits, and that's a concession he might get if Neil is desperate enough.
#ch4noshow
Not sure he has a "balls of steel" reputation though.
Do lots of people think he has balls of steel?
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1200124563067166720?s=20
https://twitter.com/RuthGeorgeMP/status/1200049865293811713/hidden