politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Remain appear to be winning the ground game but looks like

David_Evershed said:

Election pollsters don't normally cover Northern Ireland because the main parties don't compete there.

Anyone know if they are including NI in the referendum polls.

NI is said to be very REMAIN so could make the difference in a close vote.

surbiton said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.

You mentioned earlier today that you thought that we were nowhere near the country's population limits, especially given technological advances etc.

I can see the force of the point you are making but I just wanted to suggest two points:-

1. Most of the migration will head for the areas of demand and growth which is overwhelmingly concentrated in London and the South East. That places a lot of strain on a relatively small area and further accentuates a divide between it and much of the rest of the UK. So a figure of, say, 80 million is not equally spread out over a large country - a large part is concentrated. That concentration may well place more constraints on further growth.

2. There are large areas of the UK which are not very inhabited but (a) that may be for a good reason i.e. not much reason for anyone to want to live there; and (b) the very space/green lungs and houses with gardens which are seen as desirable become impossible save for the very few as a result of an increase in numbers. So it's not just about whether we can accommodate more but about what that means for the style of life we have, our urban and country environment, for how we live and what our idea of home is.

I was brought up for parts of my childhood in Naples - a noisy, filthy, uber-urban city with scarcely a blade of grass anywhere in the place. I loved it. But I had Ireland too and a garden in which to play and Hampstead Heath. I think that part of the concern with an increasing population is that it will change a very English view of what the ideal or desirable life is - house and garden and a bit of space. That sense of space, that desire for to have a bit of England which people can call their own is not to be dismissed lightly. Just because we can fit more and more people in does not necessarily mean we should. We ought to have the choice.

I would say we were at the population limit when the British Isles is no longer capable of food self sufficiency.

120 million ?

Roger said:

However this parade of narcissists turns out the one politician who has enhanced their reputation is George Osborne. His cool demeanour is quite reassuring when juxtaposed with the peacock antics of Boris and co.

Even with the Tories penchant for choosing unwisely I'd be surprised if they go for anyone else (on the Remain side) least of all those who have kept their heads down like Theresa May.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

williamglenn said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

williamglenn said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

nunu said:

Decided against canvassing for Leave.
Was afraid of this scenario:

Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe
Me: We just don't know.

Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.

Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.

Disaster for who?

For British citizens whose world would become encumbered by new barriers and whose opportunities would be more limited.

And the other 90% who have no intention of working in the EU?

surbiton said:

williamglenn said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

nunu said:

Decided against canvassing for Leave.
Was afraid of this scenario:

Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe
Me: We just don't know.

Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.

Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.

You just don't understand. Europeans and others will need a visa to come to the UK. But, Brits ? You must be joking. The red carpet awaits us wherever we will go.

surbiton said:

williamglenn said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

nunu said:

Decided against canvassing for Leave.
Was afraid of this scenario:

Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe
Me: We just don't know.

Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.

Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.

You just don't understand. Europeans and others will need a visa to come to the UK. But, Brits ? You must be joking. The red carpet awaits us wherever we will go.

TheScreamingEagles said:

OMG The Brexit Concert have got most of Bucks Fizz performing at their gig.

And they've done a Gordon Brown, and hired an Elvis impersonator as well.

https://twitter.com/asabenn/status/738066991018311681

surbiton said:

Pulpstar said:

David_Evershed said:

Election pollsters don't normally cover Northern Ireland because the main parties don't compete there.

Anyone know if they are including NI in the referendum polls.

NI is said to be very REMAIN so could make the difference in a close vote.

This is true.

"Leave" way ahead in Google Trends btw.

NI will vote 2-1 for RemaIN.

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.

You mentioned earlier today that you thought that we were nowhere near the country's population limits, especially given technological advances etc.

I can see the force of the point you are making but I just wanted to suggest two points:-

1. Most of the migration will head for the areas of demand and growth which is overwhelmingly concentrated in London and the South East. That places a lot of strain on a relatively small area and further accentuates a divide between it and much of the rest of the UK. So a figure of, say, 80 million is not equally spread out over a large country - a large part is concentrated. That concentration may well place more constraints on further growth.

2. There are large areas of the UK which are not very inhabited but (a) that may be for a good reason i.e. not much reason for anyone to want to live there; and (b) the very space/green lungs and houses with gardens which are seen as desirable become impossible save for the very few as a result of an increase in numbers. So it's not just about whether we can accommodate more but about what that means for the style of life we have, our urban and country environment, for how we live and what our idea of home is.

I was brought up for parts of my childhood in Naples - a noisy, filthy, uber-urban city with scarcely a blade of grass anywhere in the place. I loved it. But I had Ireland too and a garden in which to play and Hampstead Heath. I think that part of the concern with an increasing population is that it will change a very English view of what the ideal or desirable life is - house and garden and a bit of space. That sense of space, that desire to have a bit of England which people can call their own is not to be dismissed lightly. Just because we can fit more and more people in does not necessarily mean we should. We ought to have the choice.

Wanderer said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

williamglenn said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

nunu said:

Decided against canvassing for Leave.
Was afraid of this scenario:

Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe
Me: We just don't know.

Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.

Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.

Disaster for who?

For people that might want to do it, such as myself.

DavidL said:

HurstLlama said:

Mortimer said:

Cyclefree said:

Jobabob said:

I have noted that the tie has become increasingly unpopular for London mayors. Sadiq, while undeniably a snappy dresser, is rarely seen wearing one. Boris, too, was often without neckwear. Their predecessor Ken was, by contrast, a relatively committed tie-wearer while mayor.

British politicians are appallingly dressed. British men - on the whole, to be honest. (I now expect a load of posts from TSE pointing out his exquisite taste in shoes so I will exempt him from the charge.) They can't do casual and seem wholly unacquainted with mirrors. And the suits these days are an abomination. They rarely fit and those stupid skinny suits make men look like Victorian bank clerks.

And men with long dirty fingernails should be executed, frankly. Unless they're Monty Don - and even then they should keep them short.

The suit wearers that make me wince are those who obviously went to the tailor and asked for their trousers to be made two inches too-sodding-short.

Trousers should break once, somewhere between the top of the shin and the shoe according to taste.

I agree but find that most people have trousers that are too long not too short, I have seen chaps that have paid a lot of cash for a nice suit but the trousers end with a concertina effect at the bottom end, and look awful.

My biggest beef is with shoes. The number of men in expensive, if ill-fitting, suits flashy shirts and silk ties but with shoes that have never been polished astonishes me. When I was in business the feet were the first place I looked when I met someone new. Very few people with dirty shoes got a job or a contract from me. It is all about attention to detail.

In court tomorrow. Polished shoes tonight. You are not the only one that notices.

stodge said:

Evening all

A sense of a catching of breath tonight, marking time between polls.

The ICM poll may not be decisive but it has changed the mood. As that rare commodity, a LD supporting LEAVER (not as rare as a UKIP supporting REMAINER), I'm also confronting the equally rare prospect of possibly being on the winning side.

There's still an eternity to go - three weeks - and if some of the polls are correct, a large number of undecided and uncertain people out there. It's far from over.

stodge said:

Evening all

A sense of a catching of breath tonight, marking time between polls.

As that rare commodity, a LD supporting LEAVER .

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.

You mentioned earlier today that you thought that we were nowhere near the country's population limits, especially given technological advances etc.

I can see the force of the point you are making but I just wanted to suggest two points:-

1. Most of the migration will head for the areas of demand and growth which is overwhelmingly concentrated in London and the South East. That places a lot of strain on a relatively small area and further accentuates a divide between it and much of the rest of the UK. So a figure of, say, 80 million is not equally spread out over a large country - a large part is concentrated. That concentration may well place more constraints on further growth.

2. There are large areas of the UK which are not very inhabited but (a) that may be for a good reason i.e. not much reason for anyone to want to live there; and (b) the very space/green lungs and houses with gardens which are seen as desirable become impossible save for the very few as a result of an increase in numbers. So it's not just about whether we can accommodate more but about what that means for the style of life we have, our urban and country environment, for how we live and what our idea of home is.

I was brought up for parts of my childhood in Naples - a noisy, filthy, uber-urban city with scarcely a blade of grass anywhere in the place. I loved it. But I had Ireland too and a garden in which to play and Hampstead Heath. I think that part of the concern with an increasing population is that it will change a very English view of what the ideal or desirable life is - house and garden and a bit of space. That sense of space, that desire for to have a bit of England which people can call their own is not to be dismissed lightly. Just because we can fit more and more people in does not necessarily mean we should. We ought to have the choice.

I would say we were at the population limit when the British Isles is no longer capable of food self sufficiency.

Norm said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

OMG The Brexit Concert have got most of Bucks Fizz performing at their gig.

And they've done a Gordon Brown, and hired an Elvis impersonator as well.

https://twitter.com/asabenn/status/738066991018311681

Cheryl Baker once fetched me a plate of cheese and biscuits at a party. Nice down to earth girl.

surbiton said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/01/judge-says-nigel-farages-defeat-by-tories-could-be-ruled-void-ov/

Farage election re-run ? By-elections everywhere ?

williamglenn said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

The problem comes when countries with wages a fraction of yours and no benefits get free rein.

The EU sensibly allows for transitionary arrangements for new members. If you object to the Labour government of the time not taking advantage of them, sabotaging your fellow citizens reciprocal rights is not the way to go about it.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

stodge said:

Evening all

A sense of a catching of breath tonight, marking time between polls.

The ICM poll may not be decisive but it has changed the mood. As that rare commodity, a LD supporting LEAVER (not as rare as a UKIP supporting REMAINER), I'm also confronting the equally rare prospect of possibly being on the winning side.

There's still an eternity to go - three weeks - and if some of the polls are correct, a large number of undecided and uncertain people out there. It's far from over.

And events dear Boy events.

The one thing that could swing it for remain could be appalling behaviour by British Euro football fans.

TheScreamingEagles said:

OMG The Brexit Concert have got most of Bucks Fizz performing at their gig.

And they've done a Gordon Brown, and hired an Elvis impersonator as well.

https://twitter.com/asabenn/status/738066991018311681

Wanderer said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Wanderer said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

williamglenn said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

nunu said:

Decided against canvassing for Leave.
Was afraid of this scenario:

Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe
Me: We just don't know.

Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.

Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.

Disaster for who?

For people that might want to do it, such as myself.

Most of the people who actually want to do it would get in on a points system in any case. I suppose there might be some short term shenanigans out of pique but with declining populations self interest will prevail.

The problem comes when countries with wages a fraction of yours and no benefits get free rein.

In other words it's not your problem and you don't give a shit.

williamglenn said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

nunu said:

Decided against canvassing for Leave.
Was afraid of this scenario:

Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe
Me: We just don't know.

Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.

Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.

So immigrants, of whatever flavour, will go to the places with....a need for workers (cf @HurstLlama's quest).

We have employment at a 45 year high right now, and unemployment hovering around its 30-year lows. So immigration is presumably at about the right levels as we speak.

Yet those people worried by the most recent immigration stats were I imagine also worried about them five years ago. ie, they would have been saying "but it's unsustainable" several years ago when it has transparently been sustainable: unemployment has remained low and employment high.

So I am struggling to see where the huge issue is with immigration.

Employment is only one part of the jigsaw. We also have housing, schools, hospitals, congestion, pollution, I could go on.

We need to move away from an economy which grows because it employs ever more people at the living wage or whatever we want to call it. We need to squeeze the supply of labour to increase wages, drive productivity growth and make ourselves wealthier per capita. Not easy but frankly impossible when the supply of labour is infinite.

Cyclefree said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.

You mentioned earlier today that you thought that we were nowhere near the country's population limits, especially given technological advances etc.

I can see the force of the point you are making but I just wanted to suggest two points:-

1. Most of the migration will head for the areas of demand and growth which is overwhelmingly concentrated in London and the South East. That places a lot of strain on a relatively small area and further accentuates a divide between it and much of the rest of the UK. So a figure of, say, 80 million is not equally spread out over a large country - a large part is concentrated. That concentration may well place more constraints on further growth.

2. There are large areas of the UK which are not very inhabited but (a) that may be for a good reason i.e. not much reason for anyone to want to live there; and (b) the very space/green lungs and houses with gardens which are seen as desirable become impossible save for the very few as a result of an increase in numbers. So it's not just about whether we can accommodate more but about what that means for the style of life we have, our urban and country environment, for how we live and what our idea of home is.

I was brought up for parts of my childhood in Naples - a noisy, filthy, uber-urban city with scarcely a blade of grass anywhere in the place. I loved it. But I had Ireland too and a garden in which to play and Hampstead Heath. I think that part of the concern with an increasing population is that it will change a very English view of what the ideal or desirable life is - house and garden and a bit of space. That sense of space, that desire for to have a bit of England which people can call their own is not to be dismissed lightly. Just because we can fit more and more people in does not necessarily mean we should. We ought to have the choice.

I would say we were at the population limit when the British Isles is no longer capable of food self sufficiency.

I thought we'd passed that point long ago......

Stark_Dawning said:

Roger said:

However this parade of narcissists turns out the one politician who has enhanced their reputation is George Osborne. His cool demeanour is quite reassuring when juxtaposed with the peacock antics of Boris and co.

Even with the Tories penchant for choosing unwisely I'd be surprised if they go for anyone else (on the Remain side) least of all those who have kept their heads down like Theresa May.

You're absolutely right Roger. Osborne has been the model pro - sticking doggedly to his economic brief, no whizz bangs or silliness, the stolid deliverer of brutal facts. In a few months' time, when we witness Boris stumble out of yet another disastrous post-Brexit negotiation, we'll look back on Ozzy's vinegary statesmanship with a surge of nostalgia.

surbiton said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/01/judge-says-nigel-farages-defeat-by-tories-could-be-ruled-void-ov/

Farage election re-run ? By-elections everywhere ?

Roger said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

https://twitter.com/paulnuttallukip/status/737915150259388416

It is ridiculous that we have free entry to EU citizens yet our Kith and Kin and fellow subjects of Her Majesty do not.

Even Germany give special preference to Ethnic Germans who live outside the EU.

You don't even have to scratch the surface before the Mail revert to their roots. Little has really changed there since the mid 1930's

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.

You mentioned earlier today that you thought that we were nowhere near the country's population limits, especially given technological advances etc.

I can see the force of the point you are making but I just wanted to suggest two points:-

1. Most of the migration will head for the areas of demand and growth which is overwhelmingly concentrated in London and the South East. That places a lot of strain on a relatively small area and further accentuates a divide between it and much of the rest of the UK. So a figure of, say, 80 million is not equally spread out over a large country - a large part is concentrated. That concentration may well place more constraints on further growth.

2. There are large areas of the UK which are not very inhabited but (a) that may be for a good reason i.e. not much reason for anyone to want to live there; and (b) the very space/green lungs and houses with gardens which are seen as desirable become impossible save for the very few as a result of an increase in numbers. So it's not just about whether we can accommodate more but about what that means for the style of life we have, our urban and country environment, for how we live and what our idea of home is.

I was brought up for parts of my childhood in Naples - a noisy, filthy, uber-urban city with scarcely a blade of grass anywhere in the place. I loved it. But I had Ireland too and a garden in which to play and Hampstead Heath. I think that part of the concern with an increasing population is that it will change a very English view of what the ideal or desirable life is - house and garden and a bit of space. That sense of space, that desire for to have a bit of England which people can call their own is not to be dismissed lightly. Just because we can fit more and more people in does not necessarily mean we should. We ought to have the choice.

I would say we were at the population limit when the British Isles is no longer capable of food self sufficiency.

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

nunu said:

Decided against canvassing for Leave.
Was afraid of this scenario:

Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe
Me: We just don't know.

Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.

Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.

Many British nationals seem to have little difficulty living and working in First World countries outside the EU. But of course, they have no unqualified right to live and work there. They are subject to immigration controls and that is right.

I certainly see no reason why I should have an unqualified right to live and work in other countries and vice versa.

Stop thinking of the EU as 'other countries'. It is a federation whose citizens, including Brits, should consider such privileges as a birthright.

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.

So immigrants, of whatever flavour, will go to the places with....a need for workers (cf @HurstLlama's quest).

We have employment at a 45 year high right now, and unemployment hovering around its 30-year lows. So immigration is presumably at about the right levels as we speak.

Yet those people worried by the most recent immigration stats were I imagine also worried about them five years ago. ie, they would have been saying "but it's unsustainable" several years ago when it has transparently been sustainable: unemployment has remained low and employment high.

So I am struggling to see where the huge issue is with immigration.

Employment is only one part of the jigsaw. We also have housing, schools, hospitals, congestion, pollution, I could go on.

We need to move away from an economy which grows because it employs ever more people at the living wage or whatever we want to call it. We need to squeeze the supply of labour to increase wages, drive productivity growth and make ourselves wealthier per capita. Not easy but frankly impossible when the supply of labour is infinite.

Yes. The infrastructure debate should be had. But as you know, every government for years without fail has promised 200,000 new houses per year on their watch and as you also know from the stats, the amount of social housing completions has been derisory (it has edged up recently but from a low base).

My point is, dealing with the factors you mention, houses, hospitals, etc, all of which need addressing, shouldn't be the reason to torch our relationship with the EU and leave the single market.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Not if you include RoI and agricultural productivity increases since WW2

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

nunu said:

Decided against canvassing for Leave.
Was afraid of this scenario:

Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe
Me: We just don't know.

Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.

Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.

Many British nationals seem to have little difficulty living and working in First World countries outside the EU. But of course, they have no unqualified right to live and work there. They are subject to immigration controls and that is right.

I certainly see no reason why I should have an unqualified right to live and work in other countries and vice versa.

Stop thinking of the EU as 'other countries'. It is a federation whose citizens, including Brits, should consider such privileges as a birthright.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

OMG The Brexit Concert have got most of Bucks Fizz performing at their gig.

And they've done a Gordon Brown, and hired an Elvis impersonator as well.

https://twitter.com/asabenn/status/738066991018311681

They will be pushing that line that there comes a time for making your mind up.

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.

So immigrants, of whatever flavour, will go to the places with....a need for workers (cf @HurstLlama's quest).

We have employment at a 45 year high right now, and unemployment hovering around its 30-year lows. So immigration is presumably at about the right levels as we speak.

Yet those people worried by the most recent immigration stats were I imagine also worried about them five years ago. ie, they would have been saying "but it's unsustainable" several years ago when it has transparently been sustainable: unemployment has remained low and employment high.

So I am struggling to see where the huge issue is with immigration.

Employment is only one part of the jigsaw. We also have housing, schools, hospitals, congestion, pollution, I could go on.

We need to move away from an economy which grows because it employs ever more people at the living wage or whatever we want to call it. We need to squeeze the supply of labour to increase wages, drive productivity growth and make ourselves wealthier per capita. Not easy but frankly impossible when the supply of labour is infinite.

Yes. The infrastructure debate should be had. But as you know, every government for years without fail has promised 200,000 new houses per year on their watch and as you also know from the stats, the amount of social housing completions has been derisory (it has edged up recently but from a low base).

My point is, dealing with the factors you mention, houses, hospitals, etc, all of which need addressing, shouldn't be the reason to torch our relationship with the EU and leave the single market.

Its a trade off and it is not clear cut. "Torching" would be silly. But the EU refused to recognise that we have a significant problem here. We speak the lingua franca of the age, we have a buoyant employment market, we have the greatest population density in southern England that you can find in Europe already and we are wide open to over 500m people.

We want and wanted a deal with the EU which restricts freedom of movement for residency and work but we also want to keep the single market benefits. If Cameron had got anything close to that I would be voting remain. But he didn't. So we need to negotiate from outside.

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.

So immigrants, of whatever flavour, will go to the places with....a need for workers (cf @HurstLlama's quest).

We have employment at a 45 year high right now, and unemployment hovering around its 30-year lows. So immigration is presumably at about the right levels as we speak.

Yet those people worried by the most recent immigration stats were I imagine also worried about them five years ago. ie, they would have been saying "but it's unsustainable" several years ago when it has transparently been sustainable: unemployment has remained low and employment high.

So I am struggling to see where the huge issue is with immigration.

Employment is only one part of the jigsaw. We also have housing, schools, hospitals, congestion, pollution, I could go on.

We need to move away from an economy which grows because it employs ever more people at the living wage or whatever we want to call it. We need to squeeze the supply of labour to increase wages, drive productivity growth and make ourselves wealthier per capita. Not easy but frankly impossible when the supply of labour is infinite.

Yes. The infrastructure debate should be had. But as you know, every government for years without fail has promised 200,000 new houses per year on their watch and as you also know from the stats, the amount of social housing completions has been derisory (it has edged up recently but from a low base).

My point is, dealing with the factors you mention, houses, hospitals, etc, all of which need addressing, shouldn't be the reason to torch our relationship with the EU and leave the single market.

Its a trade off and it is not clear cut. "Torching" would be silly. But the EU refused to recognise that we have a significant problem here. We speak the lingua franca of the age, we have a buoyant employment market, we have the greatest population density in southern England that you can find in Europe already and we are wide open to over 500m people.

We want and wanted a deal with the EU which restricts freedom of movement for residency and work but we also want to keep the single market benefits. If Cameron had got anything close to that I would be voting remain. But he didn't. So we need to negotiate from outside.

RobD said:

Alistair said:

Cyclefree said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.

You mentioned earlier today that you thought that we were nowhere near the country's population limits, especially given technological advances etc.

I can see the force of the point you are making but I just wanted to suggest two points:-

1. Most of the migration will head for the areas of demand and growth which is overwhelmingly concentrated in London and the South East. That places a lot of strain on a relatively small area and further accentuates a divide between it and much of the rest of the UK. So a figure of, say, 80 million is not equally spread out over a large country - a large part is concentrated. That concentration may well place more constraints on further growth.

2. There are large areas of the UK which are not very inhabited but (a) that may be for a good reason i.e. not much reason for anyone to want to live there; and (b) the very space/green lungs and houses with gardens which are seen as desirable become impossible save for the very few as a result of an increase in numbers. So it's not just about whether we can accommodate more but about what that means for the style of life we have, our urban and country environment, for how we live and what our idea of home is.

I was brought up for parts of my childhood in Naples - a noisy, filthy, uber-urban city with scarcely a blade of grass anywhere in the place. I loved it. But I had Ireland too and a garden in which to play and Hampstead Heath. I think that part of the concern with an increasing population is that it will change a very English view of what the ideal or desirable life is - house and garden and a bit of space. That sense of space, that desire for to have a bit of England which people can call their own is not to be dismissed lightly. Just because we can fit more and more people in does not necessarily mean we should. We ought to have the choice.

I would say we were at the population limit when the British Isles is no longer capable of food self sufficiency.

I thought we'd passed that point long ago......

What kind of diet do you want. 0.1 hectares per person for a nutritious but entirely vegetarian diet.

With ~17 million hectares of arable land, that corresponds to a maximum population of 170 million!

TOPPING said:

So immigrants, of whatever flavour, will go to the places with....a need for workers (cf @HurstLlama's quest).

We have employment at a 45 year high right now, and unemployment hovering around its 30-year lows. So immigration is presumably at about the right levels as we speak.

Yet those people worried by the most recent immigration stats were I imagine also worried about them five years ago. ie, they would have been saying "but it's unsustainable" several years ago when it has transparently been sustainable: unemployment has remained low and employment high.

So I am struggling to see where the huge issue is with immigration.

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

nunu said:

Decided against canvassing for Leave.
Was afraid of this scenario:

Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe
Me: We just don't know.

Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.

Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.

Many British nationals seem to have little difficulty living and working in First World countries outside the EU. But of course, they have no unqualified right to live and work there. They are subject to immigration controls and that is right.

I certainly see no reason why I should have an unqualified right to live and work in other countries and vice versa.

Stop thinking of the EU as 'other countries'. It is a federation whose citizens, including Brits, should consider such privileges as a birthright.

That's it. To me, they are other countries, with different traditions and interests, and I fail to see why I should have an automatic right to settle in them.

Alistair said:

RobD said:

Alistair said:

Cyclefree said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.

You mentioned earlier today that you thought that we were nowhere near the country's population limits, especially given technological advances etc.

I can see the force of the point you are making but I just wanted to suggest two points:-

1. Most of the migration will head for the areas of demand and growth which is overwhelmingly concentrated in London and the South East. That places a lot of strain on a relatively small area and further accentuates a divide between it and much of the rest of the UK. So a figure of, say, 80 million is not equally spread out over a large country - a large part is concentrated. That concentration may well place more constraints on further growth.

2. There are large areas of the UK which are not very inhabited but (a) that may be for a good reason i.e. not much reason for anyone to want to live there; and (b) the very space/green lungs and houses with gardens which are seen as desirable become impossible save for the very few as a result of an increase in numbers. So it's not just about whether we can accommodate more but about what that means for the style of life we have, our urban and country environment, for how we live and what our idea of home is.

I was brought up for parts of my childhood in Naples - a noisy, filthy, uber-urban city with scarcely a blade of grass anywhere in the place. I loved it. But I had Ireland too and a garden in which to play and Hampstead Heath. I think that part of the concern with an increasing population is that it will change a very English view of what the ideal or desirable life is - house and garden and a bit of space. That sense of space, that desire for to have a bit of England which people can call their own is not to be dismissed lightly. Just because we can fit more and more people in does not necessarily mean we should. We ought to have the choice.

I would say we were at the population limit when the British Isles is no longer capable of food self sufficiency.

I thought we'd passed that point long ago......

What kind of diet do you want. 0.1 hectares per person for a nutritious but entirely vegetarian diet.

With ~17 million hectares of arable land, that corresponds to a maximum population of 170 million!

That .1 hectare figure is making assumptions about good water management, no soil erosion and no food waste.

For our current diet it's 0.5 hectares.

Omnium said:

If you had to choose what would you rate as more remarkable - Trump's progress, or the state Clinton is in?

I think both eclipse Corbyn for political remarkableness. A few months ago I'd have thought I could live several lifetimes without seeing something so odd as him!

FPT: I imagine someone has made this point anyway, but the referenda polls may overestimate the change vote on the day, but there's some evidence that change gathers momentum towards the day.

FrancisUrquhart said:

After that embarrassing appearance for the Labour Party in 2010, it is good to see the Elvis Impersonator has got another gig ;-)

Cookie said:

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

nunu said:

Decided against canvassing for Leave.
Was afraid of this scenario:

Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe
Me: We just don't know.

Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.

Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.

Many British nationals seem to have little difficulty living and working in First World countries outside the EU. But of course, they have no unqualified right to live and work there. They are subject to immigration controls and that is right.

I certainly see no reason why I should have an unqualified right to live and work in other countries and vice versa.

Stop thinking of the EU as 'other countries'. It is a federation whose citizens, including Brits, should consider such privileges as a birthright.

But a pretty impractical one. Most of us don't have the language skills to exercise such a right. It would be far more useful for far more people to have the right to live and work in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand - and I think we would be fairly happy for those rights to be reciprocal. The right to go and work in France or Italy or Romania isn't really much use to many beyond a small minority. I don't want to dismiss this out of hand, but I don't think many people can get too excited by it.

HurstLlama said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

HurstLlama said:

Mortimer said:

Cyclefree said:

Jobabob said:

I have noted that the tie has become increasingly unpopular for London mayors. Sadiq, while undeniably a snappy dresser, is rarely seen wearing one. Boris, too, was often without neckwear. Their predecessor Ken was, by contrast, a relatively committed tie-wearer while mayor.

British politicians are appallingly dressed. British men - on the whole, to be honest. (I now expect a load of posts from TSE pointing out his exquisite taste in shoes so I will exempt him from the charge.) They can't do casual and seem wholly unacquainted with mirrors. And the suits these days are an abomination. They rarely fit and those stupid skinny suits make men look like Victorian bank clerks.

And men with long dirty fingernails should be executed, frankly. Unless they're Monty Don - and even then they should keep them short.

The suit wearers that make me wince are those who obviously went to the tailor and asked for their trousers to be made two inches too-sodding-short.

Trousers should break once, somewhere between the top of the shin and the shoe according to taste.

I agree but find that most people have trousers that are too long not too short, I have seen chaps that have paid a lot of cash for a nice suit but the trousers end with a concertina effect at the bottom end, and look awful.

My biggest beef is with shoes. The number of men in expensive, if ill-fitting, suits flashy shirts and silk ties but with shoes that have never been polished astonishes me. When I was in business the feet were the first place I looked when I met someone new. Very few people with dirty shoes got a job or a contract from me. It is all about attention to detail.

In court tomorrow. Polished shoes tonight. You are not the only one that notices.

I notice too, it's why I'm so fussy, choosy, and particular when it comes to buying the right footwear for myself.

Hmm....I seem to recall that you like red shoes. I take the Henry Ford view of shoes. You can have any colour you like as long as its black.

Or as I was taught as a young man, never brown in Town, Ken Clarke famously used to wear suede shoes, probably cost him the top job.

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

nunu said:

Decided against canvassing for Leave.
Was afraid of this scenario:

Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe
Me: We just don't know.

Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.

Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.

Many British nationals seem to have little difficulty living and working in First World countries outside the EU. But of course, they have no unqualified right to live and work there. They are subject to immigration controls and that is right.

I certainly see no reason why I should have an unqualified right to live and work in other countries and vice versa.

Stop thinking of the EU as 'other countries'. It is a federation whose citizens, including Brits, should consider such privileges as a birthright.

That's it. To me, they are other countries, with different traditions and interests, and I fail to see why I should have an automatic right to settle in them.

So you'd support an automatic right to settle in Belfast, but not in Dublin?

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

nunu said:

Decided against canvassing for Leave.
Was afraid of this scenario:

Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe
Me: We just don't know.

Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.

Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.

Many British nationals seem to have little difficulty living and working in First World countries outside the EU. But of course, they have no unqualified right to live and work there. They are subject to immigration controls and that is right.

I certainly see no reason why I should have an unqualified right to live and work in other countries and vice versa.

Stop thinking of the EU as 'other countries'. It is a federation whose citizens, including Brits, should consider such privileges as a birthright.

That's it. To me, they are other countries, with different traditions and interests, and I fail to see why I should have an automatic right to settle in them.

So you'd support an automatic right to settle in Belfast, but not in Dublin?

Thats irrelevant as treaties going back to partition make us honorsry citizens of each others states with all the rights that go with it.

Thats why RoI citizens get to vote in the referendum if resident here