politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Team Corbyn say Jez will carry on if the confidence motion
Comments
-
deletedSimonStClare said:Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, he is a disgrace.YellowSubmarine said:Well if it is Watson I hope his vile role during Paedodogeddon is dredged up. He deliberately went down the witch trial route and undermined the presumption of innocence and parliamentary privelige. Both ancient bulwarks against tyranny. Yuk.
0 -
He either calls Mr Corbyn or Mr Watson. But it is a tricky one for the Speaker if Corbyn is still the official leader of the Labour Party.GIN1138 said:
Can they do that? What if Jezza takes his seat next to Watson and when Speaker B calls LOTO they both stand up and start speaking?Richard_Nabavi said:Look at the Twitter update in Mike's article. That's the nuclear option.
0 -
A minority voice this time Sunil.Sunil_Prasannan said:
No, it wasn't, at least for me!murali_s said:
F*cking immigrants - that's what it was all about - scary times ahead.Sunil_Prasannan said:Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
0 -
Unaffordable.anotherDave said:
The triple lock was always a terrible policy.not_on_fire said:
Indeed - high time the State Pension was frozen for a few years and the triple lock abandoned. After last week it's completely unsustainable.TheKrakenAwakes said:The latest pensioner incomes data from the ONS shows that average pensioner incomes have grown closer to those of workers.
In 1994/95 pensioner incomes were 38% lower than average workers' incomes, but by 2014/15 the gap had narrowed to just 7%.
There's a time bomb ticking in society - for how long can the working age people of today carry on bearing the burden of financing the elderly?0 -
Yes. That's exactly where I am.SeanT said:
This is the deal the Tories will negotiate, under May (or maybe even Boris).SouthamObserver said:What we are witnessing is the death of the Labour party as a potential party of government. The Labour membership would prefer that to allowing a "Blairite" (ie, anyone who is not Jeremy Corbyn) to be leader. The comfort blanket is too warm, the membership - largely well-off and unaffected personally by Tory policy - too detached from real life. Labour will develop into a full-blown socialist party and will gradually wither away into complete irrelevance. A new centre-left party will take its place. All that, though, will take time.
Unfortunately, what it means is that a right wing Tory government that needs just 37% of the vote to stay in power will negotiate the terms of Brexit largely unscrutinised and unopposed. And that will result in a deal which will hurt ordinary voters and alienate them even further from the political process.
That's how decent Jeremy Corbyn is.
The Norway option, with Free movement and a promise of another vote in ten years.
There aren't enough die-hard anti-migrationists in the Tory party to stop it. Most Tory LEAVERS are in the Hannan camp: Sovereigntists. They will be content with this, the City will be content with this. Labour and UKIP wwc voters will not be content, but the Tories won't care
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb8dbe8c-3d0c-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz4CsSQ3HZ40 -
Probably make more sense than listening to either of them on their own.GIN1138 said:
Can they do that? What if Jezza takes his seat next to Watson and when Speaker B calls LOTO they both stand up and start speaking?Richard_Nabavi said:Look at the Twitter update in Mike's article. That's the nuclear option.
0 -
Well if Jahadi Jez and McMao for the "Mr Benn" option to running a shadow cabinet team, one thing we can't accuse them of is not working hard enough and being value for money. Thatcher would have been proud.0
-
How do you think they should have set it up, made the first generation pay in without getting anything out?Richard_Tyndall said:
Blame the way Labour set up the system.TheKrakenAwakes said:The latest pensioner incomes data from the ONS shows that average pensioner incomes have grown closer to those of workers.
In 1994/95 pensioner incomes were 38% lower than average workers' incomes, but by 2014/15 the gap had narrowed to just 7%.
There's a time bomb ticking in society - for how long can the working age people of today carry on bearing the burden of financing the elderly?
People think that they are paying in to the system to support their own retirement. They are not. It was never designed that way. They are paying in to support those who are retired now in the hope that there wil still be someone to pay in when they are wanting to take out.
I agree with you entirely that it is unsustainable and someone needs to bite the bullet. Unfortunately I suspect it will be around my retirement age that it will all fall apart.
C'est la vie. Those are the breaks.
And what's with "in the hope that there will still be someone to pay in"? Are all the kids in school right now suddenly going to drop dead when they hit 18?0 -
The leader of the opposition is the leader of the PLP, not necessarily the Labour Party. I cite Angus Robertson over Nicola Sturgeon.0
-
It's bound to be May. The horrific aftermath of Brexit and all that immigration duplicity can then be blamed on silly old Boris. The Tories need to put clear blue water now between themselves and the whole Leave racket.0
-
Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, s2:
"In this Act “Leader of the Opposition” means, in relation to either House of Parliament, that Member of that House who is for the time being the Leader in that House of the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons(...)"
"If any doubt arises as to which is or was at any material time the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons, or as to who is or was at any material time the leader in that House of such a party, the question shall be decided for the purposes of this Act by the Speaker of the House of Commons, and his decision, certified in writing under his hand, shall be final and conclusive."
This is only to do with the LotO's salary.
But does "party" mean "parliamentary party"? What else would the Speaker know about?
Meanwhile, in the Tory party, Johnson and May are crossing over.0 -
It's all irrelevant as Corbyn is going nowhere. But if by some miracle he did depart I would take either Eagle or Watson as they would stand a better chance than Corbyn of keeping Labour relevant. The Tories will probably win the next election outright (though the LDs may make a comeback and win a few seats in the SW to deprive them), so the most important thing is the scrutiny that their Brexit deal gets in the Commons. If there is no serious opposition - and there can't be if Corbyn is Labour leader - then the deal is inevitably going to screw more ordinary punters than otherwise would be the case.FrancisUrquhart said:
I can hear the sigh of SouthamObserver from here.volcanopete said:R4 Wato stating Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out which leaves Eagle and Watson to fight it out for contender against Corbyn.Eagle is still the value bet but the price keeps contracting.25s will do me.
0 -
Is Eagle the short blonde lady from the 1st brexit debate? She was rubbish.volcanopete said:R4 Wato stating Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out which leaves Eagle and Watson to fight it out for contender against Corbyn.Eagle is still the value bet but the price keeps contracting.25s will do me.
0 -
I'm actually quite hopeful that the Tory Party might morph into something akin to the Patrick Party.0
-
Oh Good Lord. Tomorrow's PMQs might be fun as Corbyn and Watson jostle each other to ask Dave a question.Richard_Nabavi said:Look at the Twitter update in Mike's article. That's the nuclear option.
0 -
Sounds good to me. Sean T should be Tory Leader!SeanT said:
This is the deal the Tories will negotiate, under May (or maybe even Boris).SouthamObserver said:What we are witnessing is the death of the Labour party as a potential party of government. The Labour membership would prefer that to allowing a "Blairite" (ie, anyone who is not Jeremy Corbyn) to be leader. The comfort blanket is too warm, the membership - largely well-off and unaffected personally by Tory policy - too detached from real life. Labour will develop into a full-blown socialist party and will gradually wither away into complete irrelevance. A new centre-left party will take its place. All that, though, will take time.
Unfortunately, what it means is that a right wing Tory government that needs just 37% of the vote to stay in power will negotiate the terms of Brexit largely unscrutinised and unopposed. And that will result in a deal which will hurt ordinary voters and alienate them even further from the political process.
That's how decent Jeremy Corbyn is.
The Norway option, with Free movement and a promise of another vote in ten years.
There aren't enough die-hard anti-migrationists in the Tory party to stop it. Most Tory LEAVERS are in the Hannan camp: Sovereigntists. They will be content with this, the City will be content with this. Labour and UKIP wwc voters will not be content, but the Tories won't care
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb8dbe8c-3d0c-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz4CsSQ3HZ40 -
Ever since he was elected Leader, she reacts in the strangest OTT way and will do anything to support him.Pulpstar said:
I made a comparison with a Jeremy Kyle guest months ago. "You're still in love with him, aren't you?"
I cast no aspersions on his fidelity.0 -
Yvette has also been on manoeuvres this morning...volcanopete said:R4 Wato stating Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out which leaves Eagle and Watson to fight it out for contender against Corbyn.Eagle is still the value bet but the price keeps contracting.25s will do me.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/yvette-cooper-calls-jeremy-corbyn-83014640 -
I have worked in both Newham and Redbridge within the last year and listened to complaints about street drinking, mini-cab drivers having their wages undercut, closed shops on employment, etc.murali_s said:
F*cking immigrants - that's what it was all about - scary times ahead.Sunil_Prasannan said:Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
None of it from Tories, Kippers or white people.
0 -
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.SeanT said:I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb8dbe8c-3d0c-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz4CsSQ3HZ4
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.0 -
I'm altering my opinion to join the campaign for Boris - he can own 'it'.
Brown really wanted to be PM and we know how good he was once he got there...
Mensch is doing my head in. again0 -
Remember the Sunil on Sunday's *positive* message from way back in April:Ally_B said:
A minority voice this time Sunil.Sunil_Prasannan said:
No, it wasn't, at least for me!murali_s said:
F*cking immigrants - that's what it was all about - scary times ahead.Sunil_Prasannan said:Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/7253390576691650580 -
Redbridge LEAVE 46%chestnut said:
I have worked in both Newham and Redbridge within the last year and listened to complaints about street drinking, mini-cab drivers having their wages undercut, closed shops on employment, etc.murali_s said:
F*cking immigrants - that's what it was all about - scary times ahead.Sunil_Prasannan said:Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
None of it from Tories, Kippers or white people.
Newham LEAVE 47%0 -
Two factions in my party - Progress and Momentum. Progress try and pretend that its still 2005 but at least they turn out and are active campaigners. Momentum try and pretend that its still 1945, but instead of doing any actual work spend too much time holding impromptu demonstrations and passing pointless resolutions.
Both sides are utterly incapable of recognising the other as the Labour Party. Progress thinks Momentum are trots and crazies. Momentum think anyone not Momentum is a Tory or a closet Tory. One or the other will leave the party in the coming weeks.
The sad thing is they could be great together. Momentum have great ideas and a genuine grasp on where the country has gone wrong and solutions to proffer, but couldn't run the proverbial piss-up in a brewery. Progress have nothing whatsoever left to say of their third way project but are great at organising (as long as they don't get too carried away and have the brewery privatised under a "what works" initiative.
They need each other. Sadly they appear to have decided that oblivion is better - rank arrogance and disdain from both sides. Perhaps a grand political realignment is needed. But not now. Not like this.0 -
Norway means Open Borders. Munchau rarely (ever?) considers/sees a problem there. Some party will have to sell it to the People at an election/ref. Good luck with that.SeanT said:
I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is importantfelix said:
Labour members would never vote for her. That is a bigger disconnect that the one which also clearly exists between MPs and voters, 62% of whom voted remain. Indeed to listen to some on here last week's vote for Leave was rather grander than 52/48. Of course the result has to be accepted but let's not pretend the country is united.Brom said:
Gisela would probably be the best for stopping the UKIP surge. I struggle to see who Labour can pick that would actually see them increase their seat count. Given the short space of time between choosing a leader and the supposed general election they might be better off picking someone with the right background and instant appeal (Dan Jarvis if he wants it), even if his lack of ability gets exposed further down the line.Richard_Tyndall said:
I thought the whole point of this rebellion against Corbyn was because he didn't support Remain as much as they wanted him to. Why would they then choose an out and out Outer to replace him?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Gisela?SandyRentool said:
Rentool/BJO dream ticket?Sunil_Prasannan said:Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
Brexiteer - check!
Woman - check!
Immigrant - check!
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb8dbe8c-3d0c-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz4CsSQ3HZ40 -
Yes.Richard_Nabavi said:Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed?
And what are they going to do then?
As for Norway, they are subject to about 70% of EU directives. EU laws which bring significant new obligations do have to be okayed by the Storting, though. (Whether they've ever said no, I don't know.)0 -
Surely the fact that this rule applies to the Lords proves that it is the leader of the parliamentary party in each House.John_N4 said:Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, s2:
"In this Act “Leader of the Opposition” means, in relation to either House of Parliament, that Member of that House who is for the time being the Leader in that House of the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons(...)"
...0 -
My Eagles bet is looking good. Her WatO intv yesterday must surely have swayed many. She genuinely cares about her Party.volcanopete said:R4 Wato stating Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out which leaves Eagle and Watson to fight it out for contender against Corbyn.Eagle is still the value bet but the price keeps contracting.25s will do me.
0 -
Hopeless communicator.. lacks gravitas, sounds like an angry mum on mumsnet. she cannot win... and if by some miracle she does win Labour are just as fecked as they are now..RodCrosby said:
Yvette has also been on manoeuvres this morning...volcanopete said:R4 Wato stating Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out which leaves Eagle and Watson to fight it out for contender against Corbyn.Eagle is still the value bet but the price keeps contracting.25s will do me.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/yvette-cooper-calls-jeremy-corbyn-83014640 -
Although it is the right option, you need serious balls to propose that, as there will be plenty of UK based losers. Think how the BBC / Guardian went nuts over Tax Credit reform then multiple by 1000.SeanT said:
There is also a way for us to square the immigration circle. May (or Boris) should propose, along with joining EEA, that our benefits system becomes contributory, thus ending much of the pull factorSunil_Prasannan said:
Sounds good to me. Sean T should be Tory Leader!SeanT said:
This is the deal the Tories will negotiate, under May (or maybe even Boris).SouthamObserver said:What we are witnessing is the death of the Labour party as a potential party of government. The Labour membership would prefer that to allowing a "Blairite" (ie, anyone who is not Jeremy Corbyn) to be leader. The comfort blanket is too warm, the membership - largely well-off and unaffected personally by Tory policy - too detached from real life. Labour will develop into a full-blown socialist party and will gradually wither away into complete irrelevance. A new centre-left party will take its place. All that, though, will take time.
Unfortunately, what it means is that a right wing Tory government that needs just 37% of the vote to stay in power will negotiate the terms of Brexit largely unscrutinised and unopposed. And that will result in a deal which will hurt ordinary voters and alienate them even further from the political process.
That's how decent Jeremy Corbyn is.
The Norway option, with Free movement and a promise of another vote in ten years.
There aren't enough die-hard anti-migrationists in the Tory party to stop it. Most Tory LEAVERS are in the Hannan camp: Sovereigntists. They will be content with this, the City will be content with this. Labour and UKIP wwc voters will not be content, but the Tories won't care
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb8dbe8c-3d0c-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz4CsSQ3HZ4
This would also be popular with quite a lot of voters, in itself.
They really wouldn't have to try hard to find lots and lots of sob stories of people who are going to lose out a lot from any contributory system.0 -
Watson. Parliament only recognises the leader of the PLP. The leader of the party is irrelevant constitutionallyDavidL said:
Could be a tricky one for the Speaker. Who does he call?Richard_Nabavi said:Look at the Twitter update in Mike's article. That's the nuclear option.
0 -
That was a genuine LOL. Very good.RochdalePioneers said:
The sad thing is they could be great together. Momentum have great ideas and a genuine grasp on where the country has gone wrong and solutions to proffer, but couldn't run the proverbial piss-up in a brewery. Progress have nothing whatsoever left to say of their third way project but are great at organising (as long as they don't get too carried away and have the brewery privatised under a "what works" initiative.
0 -
Indeed, Sunil.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Redbridge LEAVE 46%chestnut said:
I have worked in both Newham and Redbridge within the last year and listened to complaints about street drinking, mini-cab drivers having their wages undercut, closed shops on employment, etc.murali_s said:
F*cking immigrants - that's what it was all about - scary times ahead.Sunil_Prasannan said:Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
None of it from Tories, Kippers or white people.
Newham LEAVE 47%
The idea that rapid change is something Labour London isn't vexed about is nonsense.
Large swathes of suburban London was very close to voting leave - Croydon, Hounslow, Enfield, Redbridge and so on.
It's the enclaves of vast wealth or Corbynistas that are different.0 -
Gosh! Almost as many people as the entire population of Iceland!shiney2 said:
LABOUR REMAIN believes in 300,000+ immigrants every year for ever.murali_s said:
F*cking immigrants - that's what it was all about - scary times ahead.Sunil_Prasannan said:Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
It is doomed.0 -
Yes, well she's the obvious choice, an oven-ready, Corbyn-untainted PM-in-waiting who could match Theresa May for seriousness and make Boris look like a smirking schoolboy.RodCrosby said:
Yvette has also been on manoeuvres this morning...volcanopete said:R4 Wato stating Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out which leaves Eagle and Watson to fight it out for contender against Corbyn.Eagle is still the value bet but the price keeps contracting.25s will do me.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/yvette-cooper-calls-jeremy-corbyn-8301464
Labour would be out of their minds not to choose her as Corbyn's replacement. So it won't be her, I guess.0 -
She's great in the HoC - funny, passionate, on her brief.anotherDave said:
Is Eagle the short blonde lady from the 1st brexit debate? She was rubbish.volcanopete said:R4 Wato stating Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out which leaves Eagle and Watson to fight it out for contender against Corbyn.Eagle is still the value bet but the price keeps contracting.25s will do me.
She was awful and tribal for Remain - she was in totally the wrong zone, then again so were Sturgeon/Rudd - it was a tactical failure for all three. That's over now.0 -
@STJamesl: Voting has been brisk in the Corbyn no confidence motion, MPs report0
-
Any indication of the turf out figure?TheScreamingEagles said:@STJamesl: Voting has been brisk in the Corbyn no confidence motion, MPs report
0 -
http://campaignforanindependentbritain.org.uk/some-restriction-on-free-movement-of-people-is-possible-within-the-eea-agreement/SeanT said:
Boris is pro-migration so is Hannan, I don't think Cash especially cares. Etc. For them it's all about sovereignty.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.SeanT said:I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb8dbe8c-3d0c-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz4CsSQ3HZ4
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Besides the point is they will HAVE to do this, or face economic meltdown, the destruction of the City, desertion of party donors. Choices are narrowing, by the day.
This is just about the only solution which looks remotely democratic (i.e. we really are LEAVING) while saving the economy0 -
For the people who just voted leave, the primary expression of lack of sovereignty is immigration. They are seriously playing with fire if this is on the table.SeanT said:
Boris is pro-migration so is Hannan, I don't think Cash especially cares. Etc. For them it's all about sovereignty.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.SeanT said:I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb8dbe8c-3d0c-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz4CsSQ3HZ4
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Besides the point is they will HAVE to do this, or face economic meltdown, the destruction of the City, desertion of party donors. Choices are narrowing, by the day.
This is just about the only solution which looks remotely democratic (i.e. we really are LEAVING) while saving the economy
0 -
Vote UKIP. I think between 25% and 30% of Leave's 52% was based on immigration. Some of them can be won over with minor concessions, the others will look to UKIP. I think the Tories will be safe as the party delivering our exit from the EU, but if Labour are going to seriously campaign on the basis of re-entry or ignoring the will of the people then they could face heavy losses to UKIP.John_N4 said:
Yes.Richard_Nabavi said:Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed?
And what are they going to do then?0 -
Erm...apart from the fact that all the rhetoric on immigration came from UKIP. Boris and Gove fought hard to ensure Vote Leave was the voice of Leave and not Farage. They fought almost all on sovereignty. UKIP own the nastiness not Boris. He can easily distance himself from it, starting with Farage's somewhat incendiary (but not wrong) speech in the EU Parliament today.Stark_Dawning said:It's bound to be May. The horrific aftermath of Brexit and all that immigration duplicity can then be blamed on silly old Boris. The Tories need to put clear blue water now between themselves and the whole Leave racket.
0 -
I wonder if there is some grand plan here. When I've proposed this sort of revolution in the past, my friends on the Left have howled about how unfair it would be. They might not be in a position to oppose such radical changes to welfare if it's wrapped up in a deal to keep us in the Single Market.SeanT said:
Make our benefits contributory, at the same time, so fewer want to come.shiney2 said:
Norway means Open Borders. Some party will have to sell it to the People at an election/ref. Good luck with that.SeanT said:
I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is importantfelix said:
Labour members would never vote for her. That is a bigger disconnect that the one which also clearly exists between MPs and voters, 62% of whom voted remain. Indeed to listen to some on here last week's vote for Leave was rather grander than 52/48. Of course the result has to be accepted but let's not pretend the country is united.Brom said:
Gisela would probably be the best for stopping the UKIP surge. I struggle to see who Labour can pick that would actually see them increase their seat count. Given the short space of time between choosing a leader and the supposed general election they might be better off picking someone with the right background and instant appeal (Dan Jarvis if he wants it), even if his lack of ability gets exposed further down the line.Richard_Tyndall said:
I thought the whole point of this rebellion against Corbyn was because he didn't support Remain as much as they wanted him to. Why would they then choose an out and out Outer to replace him?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Gisela?SandyRentool said:
Rentool/BJO dream ticket?Sunil_Prasannan said:Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
Brexiteer - check!
Woman - check!
Immigrant - check!
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb8dbe8c-3d0c-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz4CsSQ3HZ40 -
Some procedural questions - can anyone help?TheScreamingEagles said:
Oh Good Lord. Tomorrow's PMQs might be fun as Corbyn and Watson jostle each other to ask Dave a question.Richard_Nabavi said:Look at the Twitter update in Mike's article. That's the nuclear option.
If the PLP install a parliamentary leader, can Corbyn have them suspended from the party? Interestingly, this would reduce the numbers required to nominate John McDonnell.
If there's a Oct/Nov general election, is there time for deselections?0 -
99% ?williamglenn said:
Any indication of the turf out figure?TheScreamingEagles said:@STJamesl: Voting has been brisk in the Corbyn no confidence motion, MPs report
0 -
My rather hard nosed view is that in the end it all comes down to numbers.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
There is a hard core of true racists and xenophobes who are very small in number and will never be satisfied with anything less than a BNP style repatriation. Given that both their numbers are tiny and their views absolutely abhorrent I am not sure anyone is looking to take their views into account when deciding the best deal for the country.
There are a larger number of people who are genuinely concerned, rightly or wrongly about immigration and the effects on their lives and communities. Again there is a spectrum of these from those who feel they have been directly affected by immigration in places like Boston to those who are not directly affected at all but blame a lot of the ills they genuinely suffer from on migration. I don't believe those people should be lumped together with the racists but I also do believe that a lot of their fears and problems can be addressed by other measures such as limits on benefits and a general wider move to improve their lives through measures unconnected to the EU debate.
These two sections of the leave vote apparently - according to polls - account for around 50% of those who voted to Leave the EU. They are the ones who are not immediately amenable to an EFTA type solution.
But that still leaves the other 50% of Leave voters who, along with a large majority of Remain voters, would be in favour of an EFTA or EEA type solution as outlined by Munchau.
And as an aside I certainly don't buy your idea that there is very much buyers remorse at all.0 -
She does have the baggage of having lost to him. But I do have her cautiously onside (I'm mostly all-in on Watson at the moment, with a bit on Eagle). McDonnell is a worry in the event of a formal split, but I'd get enough non-monetary upside from that to compensate.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, well she's the obvious choice, an oven-ready, Corbyn-untainted PM-in-waiting who could match Theresa May for seriousness and make Boris look like a smirking schoolboy.RodCrosby said:
Yvette has also been on manoeuvres this morning...volcanopete said:R4 Wato stating Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out which leaves Eagle and Watson to fight it out for contender against Corbyn.Eagle is still the value bet but the price keeps contracting.25s will do me.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/yvette-cooper-calls-jeremy-corbyn-8301464
Labour would be out of their minds not to choose her as Corbyn's replacement. So it won't be her, I guess.0 -
I reckon the outcome of the North Korean elections is less one sided than this vote of no confidence in Corbyn.0
-
The baby boomers were a large enough demographic to pay their parent's the derisory state pension . There are not enough children of the baby boomers to pay theirtriple locked pensions plus top ups.edmundintokyo said:
How do you think they should have set it up, made the first generation pay in without getting anything out?Richard_Tyndall said:
Blame the way Labour set up the system.TheKrakenAwakes said:The latest pensioner incomes data from the ONS shows that average pensioner incomes have grown closer to those of workers.
In 1994/95 pensioner incomes were 38% lower than average workers' incomes, but by 2014/15 the gap had narrowed to just 7%.
There's a time bomb ticking in society - for how long can the working age people of today carry on bearing the burden of financing the elderly?
People think that they are paying in to the system to support their own retirement. They are not. It was never designed that way. They are paying in to support those who are retired now in the hope that there wil still be someone to pay in when they are wanting to take out.
I agree with you entirely that it is unsustainable and someone needs to bite the bullet. Unfortunately I suspect it will be around my retirement age that it will all fall apart.
C'est la vie. Those are the breaks.
And what's with "in the hope that there will still be someone to pay in"? Are all the kids in school right now suddenly going to drop dead when they hit 18?0 -
Moving towards a Ceaușescu moment, I think
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/747777048706351104
Look at Watson, FFS.
And then he's gone...0 -
We could win the world cup !Disraeli said:
Gosh! Almost as many people as the entire population of Iceland!shiney2 said:
LABOUR REMAIN believes in 300,000+ immigrants every year for ever.murali_s said:
F*cking immigrants - that's what it was all about - scary times ahead.Sunil_Prasannan said:Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
It is doomed.0 -
Yes, Johnson and Gove never, ever campaigned or even mentioned immigration and those nasty foreigners coming over here. And signing up for a deal (EEA) that means they won't even be in the room when Turkey accession is discussed will not be a massive U-turn.Patrick said:
Erm...apart from the fact that all the rhetoric on immigration came from UKIP. Boris and Gove fought hard to ensure Vote Leave was the voice of Leave and not Farage. They fought almost all on sovereignty. UKIP own the nastiness not Boris. He can easily distance himself from it, starting with Farage's somewhat incendiary (but not wrong) speech in the EU Parliament today.Stark_Dawning said:It's bound to be May. The horrific aftermath of Brexit and all that immigration duplicity can then be blamed on silly old Boris. The Tories need to put clear blue water now between themselves and the whole Leave racket.
"Boris Johnson and Michael Gove have challenged David Cameron to "guarantee" that Turkey will never join the European Union by pledging to use the UK's veto to block it
The move is designed to focus the campaign on the issue of immigration in the final days ahead of the vote, as Mr Cameron fought yesterday to focus on the economy"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/15/boris-johnson-and-michael-gove-demand-david-cameron-veto-turkeys/
0 -
I think Tristam Hunt going around Stoke campaigning to ignore them and re-enter the EU in a GE campaign would be worth a tv mini-series alone....would contain more swearing than the best of Malcolm Tucker compilation.MaxPB said:
Vote UKIP. I think between 25% and 30% of Leave's 52% was based on immigration. Some of them can be won over with minor concessions, the others will look to UKIP. I think the Tories will be safe as the party delivering our exit from the EU, but if Labour are going to seriously campaign on the basis of re-entry or ignoring the will of the people then they could face heavy losses to UKIP.John_N4 said:
Yes.Richard_Nabavi said:Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed?
And what are they going to do then?0 -
Nicola making her statement right now, its on BBC News and Sky, they won't cover the debate afterwards and the motion to start the process but it can be followed at
http://www.scottishparliament.tv/
One warning. When they go to vote you don't have time to pop out for a three course dinner as you do with Westminster votes. It only takes 20 seconds.0 -
..errr.. were you on holiday at the last leader hustings. she was awful.. .Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, well she's the obvious choice, an oven-ready, Corbyn-untainted PM-in-waiting who could match Theresa May for seriousness and make Boris look like a smirking schoolboy.RodCrosby said:
Yvette has also been on manoeuvres this morning...volcanopete said:R4 Wato stating Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out which leaves Eagle and Watson to fight it out for contender against Corbyn.Eagle is still the value bet but the price keeps contracting.25s will do me.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/yvette-cooper-calls-jeremy-corbyn-8301464
Labour would be out of their minds not to choose her as Corbyn's replacement. So it won't be her, I guess.0 -
This is where Theresa out-Brexits Boris, though. Something ought to be done on immigration, given the vote we just had, even though it would cynically probably be in the Tory Party's interest not to do so.SeanT said:
Boris is pro-migration so is Hannan, I don't think Cash especially cares. Etc. For them it's all about sovereignty.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.SeanT said:I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb8dbe8c-3d0c-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz4CsSQ3HZ4
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Besides the point is they will HAVE to do this, or face economic meltdown, the destruction of the City, desertion of party donors. Choices are narrowing, by the day.
This is just about the only solution which looks remotely democratic (i.e. we really are LEAVING) while saving the economy0 -
I rate Yvette lower than Watson. She's a wet mewling swot - who achieved FA squared in any role she had. Watson is awful, but he gets things done.RodCrosby said:
Yvette has also been on manoeuvres this morning...volcanopete said:R4 Wato stating Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out which leaves Eagle and Watson to fight it out for contender against Corbyn.Eagle is still the value bet but the price keeps contracting.25s will do me.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/yvette-cooper-calls-jeremy-corbyn-83014640 -
Bring back the Sked!MaxPB said:
The danger is that UKIP become a socially conservative, left wing economic party in favour of higher taxes and higher spending. I don't know how Labour would react to that.SouthamObserver said:
You are assuming that:Essexit said:
Not that it will happen, but Labour making a Leaver leader would be an incredibly smart move for holding onto support in Northern heartlands and winning some back from Ukip. Gisela Stuart would be the standout choice were this to happen, which it won't.Sunil_Prasannan said:Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
a) Leaving the EU will be as popular at the time of the GE as it was last Thursday.
b) All those who voted Leave will vote in a general election
c) All those who voted Leave in a binary referendum would be as binary in a general election
d) a competent Labour leader would not be able to frame the argument in Labour constituencies as a vote about the Tories
e) Labour leave voters would be happy to vote for an economically and fiscally right wing party
These may be all fair assumptions. But I am not sure that they are close to being certainties.
The only certainty is that with Corbyn as leader Labour will be destroyed.0 -
Someone better tell IDS to quieten down then:Patrick said:
Erm...apart from the fact that all the rhetoric on immigration came from UKIP. Boris and Gove fought hard to ensure Vote Leave was the voice of Leave and not Farage. They fought almost all on sovereignty. UKIP own the nastiness not Boris. He can easily distance himself from it, starting with Farage's somewhat incendiary (but not wrong) speech in the EU Parliament today.Stark_Dawning said:It's bound to be May. The horrific aftermath of Brexit and all that immigration duplicity can then be blamed on silly old Boris. The Tories need to put clear blue water now between themselves and the whole Leave racket.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1347997/tory-spat-erupts-after-brexit-backer-iain-duncan-smith-vows-annual-migration-will-fall-below-100000/0 -
Yes - good point. But LotO the PLP leader isn't chosen by the PLP.Richard_Nabavi said:
Surely the fact that this rule applies to the Lords proves that it is the leader of the parliamentary party in each House.John_N4 said:Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, s2:
"In this Act “Leader of the Opposition” means, in relation to either House of Parliament, that Member of that House who is for the time being the Leader in that House of the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons(...)"
...0 -
That hilarious. I can only imagine what it is going to be like when Corbyn is PM....I wonder if Comical Ali will get his job back at the Guardian?RodCrosby said:Moving towards a Ceaușescu moment, I think
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/747777048706351104
Look at Watson, FFS.
And then he's gone...0 -
Someone tell me why Tom Watson is a good idea. Other than why he's not a bad idea0
-
Which is why the next leader will get a minor concession such as longer welfare waiting periods of 12 or 18 months instead of the current 3 months. They can't and won't pull up the drawbridge. It will be too economically damaging in the short term.Tissue_Price said:
This is where Theresa out-Brexits Boris, though. Something ought to be done on immigration, given the vote we just had, even though it would cynically probably be in the Tory Party's interest not to do so.SeanT said:
Boris is pro-migration so is Hannan, I don't think Cash especially cares. Etc. For them it's all about sovereignty.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.SeanT said:I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb8dbe8c-3d0c-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz4CsSQ3HZ4
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Besides the point is they will HAVE to do this, or face economic meltdown, the destruction of the City, desertion of party donors. Choices are narrowing, by the day.
This is just about the only solution which looks remotely democratic (i.e. we really are LEAVING) while saving the economy0 -
He won't. The Speaker calls MPs by name (except for government ministers).GIN1138 said:
Can they do that? What if Jezza takes his seat next to Watson and when Speaker B calls LOTO they both stand up and start speaking?Richard_Nabavi said:Look at the Twitter update in Mike's article. That's the nuclear option.
As I understand it, the House does not recognise organisations that exist outside the House, which makes sense as the government exists - for example - as long as it has the confidence of MPs (or as long as it isn't shown not to have it). What the view of any party is outside the House is beside the point. In essence, it goes back to pre-1885 when a political party and its parliamentary caucus were essentially one and the same; they barely existed outside Westminster.
One historic point I don't have the data to at hand but which might provide a precedent is Labour itself, pre-1918. Before then, there was no leader of the party, the leader in the Commons was simply the chairman of the parliamentary party. The party overall was 'led' by the NEC corporately. Presumably there was a chairman of that and I assume that it wasn't always the leader in the Commons; it may even at some points have been a different MP. it might be worth checking.0 -
Brilliant! - it really is like those Stalin-era photos:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union#/media/File:Soviet_censorship_with_Stalin2.jpg
Compare the entry at 14.02 here:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/28/brexit-live-cameron-eu-leaders-brussels-corbyn-confidence
0 -
I don't disagree, they're paying them too much. But the problem isn't that each generation pays for the previous one, it's that the current previous one is getting too much.Alistair said:
The baby boomers were a large enough demographic to pay their parent's the derisory state pension . There are not enough children of the baby boomers to pay theirtriple locked pensions plus top ups.edmundintokyo said:
How do you think they should have set it up, made the first generation pay in without getting anything out?Richard_Tyndall said:
Blame the way Labour set up the system.TheKrakenAwakes said:The latest pensioner incomes data from the ONS shows that average pensioner incomes have grown closer to those of workers.
In 1994/95 pensioner incomes were 38% lower than average workers' incomes, but by 2014/15 the gap had narrowed to just 7%.
There's a time bomb ticking in society - for how long can the working age people of today carry on bearing the burden of financing the elderly?
People think that they are paying in to the system to support their own retirement. They are not. It was never designed that way. They are paying in to support those who are retired now in the hope that there wil still be someone to pay in when they are wanting to take out.
I agree with you entirely that it is unsustainable and someone needs to bite the bullet. Unfortunately I suspect it will be around my retirement age that it will all fall apart.
C'est la vie. Those are the breaks.
And what's with "in the hope that there will still be someone to pay in"? Are all the kids in school right now suddenly going to drop dead when they hit 18?0 -
The only way it works is if just British born citizens get auto benefits - everyone else is excluded. Even then, it's The Establishment trying to get around what the populace believed they voted for.SeanT said:
There is also a way for us to square the immigration circle. May (or Boris) should propose, along with joining EEA, that our benefits system becomes contributory, thus ending much of the pull factorSunil_Prasannan said:
Sounds good to me. Sean T should be Tory Leader!SeanT said:
This is the deal the Tories will negotiate, under May (or maybe even Boris).SouthamObserver said:What we are witnessing is the death of the Labour party as a potential party of government. The Labour membership would prefer that to allowing a "Blairite" (ie, anyone who is not Jeremy Corbyn) to be leader. The comfort blanket is too warm, the membership - largely well-off and unaffected personally by Tory policy - too detached from real life. Labour will develop into a full-blown socialist party and will gradually wither away into complete irrelevance. A new centre-left party will take its place. All that, though, will take time.
Unfortunately, what it means is that a right wing Tory government that needs just 37% of the vote to stay in power will negotiate the terms of Brexit largely unscrutinised and unopposed. And that will result in a deal which will hurt ordinary voters and alienate them even further from the political process.
That's how decent Jeremy Corbyn is.
The Norway option, with Free movement and a promise of another vote in ten years.
There aren't enough die-hard anti-migrationists in the Tory party to stop it. Most Tory LEAVERS are in the Hannan camp: Sovereigntists. They will be content with this, the City will be content with this. Labour and UKIP wwc voters will not be content, but the Tories won't care
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb8dbe8c-3d0c-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz4CsSQ3HZ4
This would also be popular with quite a lot of voters, in itself.
It does politicians no favours to subvert what the people decided. Sovereignty and control are inimical with FoM.0 -
Well, yes, she was. Beggars can't be choosers, though. At least she's credible and grown-up.SquareRoot said:
..errr.. were you on holiday at the last leader hustings. she was awful.. .Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, well she's the obvious choice, an oven-ready, Corbyn-untainted PM-in-waiting who could match Theresa May for seriousness and make Boris look like a smirking schoolboy.RodCrosby said:
Yvette has also been on manoeuvres this morning...volcanopete said:R4 Wato stating Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out which leaves Eagle and Watson to fight it out for contender against Corbyn.Eagle is still the value bet but the price keeps contracting.25s will do me.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/yvette-cooper-calls-jeremy-corbyn-8301464
Labour would be out of their minds not to choose her as Corbyn's replacement. So it won't be her, I guess.0 -
I have never seen such panic as these latest posts on PB. It's frantic; it's manic, and SeanT, who should know better, is leader of the pack.SeanT said:
We're already playing with fire. The economy might burn down. Our choices are dwindling, as I saywilliamglenn said:
For the people who just voted leave, the primary expression of lack of sovereignty is immigration. They are seriously playing with fire if this is on the table.SeanT said:
Boris is pro-migration so is Hannan, I don't think Cash especially cares. Etc. For them it's all about sovereignty.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.SeanT said:I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb8dbe8c-3d0c-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz4CsSQ3HZ4
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Besides the point is they will HAVE to do this, or face economic meltdown, the destruction of the City, desertion of party donors. Choices are narrowing, by the day.
This is just about the only solution which looks remotely democratic (i.e. we really are LEAVING) while saving the economy0 -
I see there is talk of a Southgate/Hoddle dream ticket. A desire to go back to the relative glory days of the 90s when only penalties could stop England and the Prime minister was loved by everyone.0
-
I wasn't born in the UK. I'm f*cked then!PlatoSaid said:
The only way it works is if just British born citizens get auto benefits - everyone else is excluded. Even then, it's The Establishment trying to get around what the populace believed they voted for.SeanT said:
There is also a way for us to square the immigration circle. May (or Boris) should propose, along with joining EEA, that our benefits system becomes contributory, thus ending much of the pull factorSunil_Prasannan said:
Sounds good to me. Sean T should be Tory Leader!SeanT said:
This is the deal the Tories will negotiate, under May (or maybe even Boris).SouthamObserver said:What we are witnessing is the death of the Labour party as a potential party of government. The Labour membership would prefer that to allowing a "Blairite" (ie, anyone who is not Jeremy Corbyn) to be leader. The comfort blanket is too warm, the membership - largely well-off and unaffected personally by Tory policy - too detached from real life. Labour will develop into a full-blown socialist party and will gradually wither away into complete irrelevance. A new centre-left party will take its place. All that, though, will take time.
Unfortunately, what it means is that a right wing Tory government that needs just 37% of the vote to stay in power will negotiate the terms of Brexit largely unscrutinised and unopposed. And that will result in a deal which will hurt ordinary voters and alienate them even further from the political process.
That's how decent Jeremy Corbyn is.
The Norway option, with Free movement and a promise of another vote in ten years.
There aren't enough die-hard anti-migrationists in the Tory party to stop it. Most Tory LEAVERS are in the Hannan camp: Sovereigntists. They will be content with this, the City will be content with this. Labour and UKIP wwc voters will not be content, but the Tories won't care
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb8dbe8c-3d0c-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz4CsSQ3HZ4
This would also be popular with quite a lot of voters, in itself.
It does politicians no favours to subvert what the people decided. Sovereignty and control are inimical with FoM.
Plato's world must a really wonderful place to live in!!
PS - I pay over 30k in tax every year - can i get an exemption please?
0 -
Isn't it Uber rather than the immigrants that are cutting minicab wages?chestnut said:
I have worked in both Newham and Redbridge within the last year and listened to complaints about street drinking, mini-cab drivers having their wages undercut, closed shops on employment, etc.murali_s said:
F*cking immigrants - that's what it was all about - scary times ahead.Sunil_Prasannan said:Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
None of it from Tories, Kippers or white people.
And Amazon is destroying High Street jobs everywhere.0 -
Obama's take on Brexit....now about that back of the queue stuff...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9S3KFSgAj00 -
Would you have a word with @murali_s ? He seems to think every Leaver is a white supremacist. @MaxPB and @Sunil_Prasannan has tried and yet he's still at it.nunu said:
http://campaignforanindependentbritain.org.uk/some-restriction-on-free-movement-of-people-is-possible-within-the-eea-agreement/SeanT said:
Boris is pro-migration so is Hannan, I don't think Cash especially cares. Etc. For them it's all about sovereignty.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.SeanT said:I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb8dbe8c-3d0c-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz4CsSQ3HZ4
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Besides the point is they will HAVE to do this, or face economic meltdown, the destruction of the City, desertion of party donors. Choices are narrowing, by the day.
This is just about the only solution which looks remotely democratic (i.e. we really are LEAVING) while saving the economy0 -
Sturgeon going to Brussels tomorrow not next week.
Suggests she's had some positive messages in private.0 -
Pass. It is turning into a bloody disaster for Labour, think The Titanic meets The Hindenburg meets Chernobyl meets The Battle of Zama meets Tron 2 meets Batman v Superman: The Dawn of JusticeTissue_Price said:
Some procedural questions - can anyone help?TheScreamingEagles said:
Oh Good Lord. Tomorrow's PMQs might be fun as Corbyn and Watson jostle each other to ask Dave a question.Richard_Nabavi said:Look at the Twitter update in Mike's article. That's the nuclear option.
If the PLP install a parliamentary leader, can Corbyn have them suspended from the party? Interestingly, this would reduce the numbers required to nominate John McDonnell.
If there's a Oct/Nov general election, is there time for deselections?0 -
So not naturalized British citizens? Great way to divide society even further.PlatoSaid said:
The only way it works is if just British born citizens get auto benefits - everyone else is excluded. Even then, it's The Establishment trying to get around what the populace believed they voted for.SeanT said:
There is also a way for us to square the immigration circle. May (or Boris) should propose, along with joining EEA, that our benefits system becomes contributory, thus ending much of the pull factorSunil_Prasannan said:
Sounds good to me. Sean T should be Tory Leader!SeanT said:
This is the deal the Tories will negotiate, under May (or maybe even Boris).SouthamObserver said:What we are witnessing is the death of the Labour party as a potential party of government. The Labour membership would prefer that to allowing a "Blairite" (ie, anyone who is not Jeremy Corbyn) to be leader. The comfort blanket is too warm, the membership - largely well-off and unaffected personally by Tory policy - too detached from real life. Labour will develop into a full-blown socialist party and will gradually wither away into complete irrelevance. A new centre-left party will take its place. All that, though, will take time.
Unfortunately, what it means is that a right wing Tory government that needs just 37% of the vote to stay in power will negotiate the terms of Brexit largely unscrutinised and unopposed. And that will result in a deal which will hurt ordinary voters and alienate them even further from the political process.
That's how decent Jeremy Corbyn is.
The Norway option, with Free movement and a promise of another vote in ten years.
There aren't enough die-hard anti-migrationists in the Tory party to stop it. Most Tory LEAVERS are in the Hannan camp: Sovereigntists. They will be content with this, the City will be content with this. Labour and UKIP wwc voters will not be content, but the Tories won't care
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb8dbe8c-3d0c-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz4CsSQ3HZ4
This would also be popular with quite a lot of voters, in itself.
It does politicians no favours to subvert what the people decided. Sovereignty and control are inimical with FoM.0 -
You know as well as i do that Sean's emotions are usually set to 11. Sometimes he even means it.MikeK said:
I have never seen such panic as these latest posts on PB. It's frantic; it's manic, and SeanT, who should know better, is leader of the pack.SeanT said:
We're already playing with fire. The economy might burn down. Our choices are dwindling, as I saywilliamglenn said:
For the people who just voted leave, the primary expression of lack of sovereignty is immigration. They are seriously playing with fire if this is on the table.SeanT said:
Boris is pro-migration so is Hannan, I don't think Cash especially cares. Etc. For them it's all about sovereignty.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.SeanT said:I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb8dbe8c-3d0c-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz4CsSQ3HZ4
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Besides the point is they will HAVE to do this, or face economic meltdown, the destruction of the City, desertion of party donors. Choices are narrowing, by the day.
This is just about the only solution which looks remotely democratic (i.e. we really are LEAVING) while saving the economy0 -
,0
-
NoPatrick said:Erm...apart from the fact that all the rhetoric on immigration came from UKIP. Boris and Gove fought hard to ensure Vote Leave was the voice of Leave and not Farage. They fought almost all on sovereignty. UKIP own the nastiness not Boris. He can easily distance himself from it, starting with Farage's somewhat incendiary (but not wrong) speech in the EU Parliament today.
You can't rewrite history.
Gove went on national TV and talked about 80 million new immigrants.
Twat,0 -
This isn't a select committee. The broad thrust of a contributory system has some merit. I just doubt our political masters have the balls to tackle health, pension and welfare reform.not_on_fire said:
So not naturalized British citizens? Great way to divide society even further.PlatoSaid said:
The only way it works is if just British born citizens get auto benefits - everyone else is excluded. Even then, it's The Establishment trying to get around what the populace believed they voted for.SeanT said:
There is also a way for us to square the immigration circle. May (or Boris) should propose, along with joining EEA, that our benefits system becomes contributory, thus ending much of the pull factorSunil_Prasannan said:
Sounds good to me. Sean T should be Tory Leader!SeanT said:
This is the deal the Tories will negotiate, under May (or maybe even Boris).SouthamObserver said:What we are witnessing is the death of the Labour party as a potential party of government. The Labour membership would prefer that to allowing a "Blairite" (ie, anyone who is not Jeremy Corbyn) to be leader. The comfort blanket is too warm, the membership - largely well-off and unaffected personally by Tory policy - too detached from real life. Labour will develop into a full-blown socialist party and will gradually wither away into complete irrelevance. A new centre-left party will take its place. All that, though, will take time.
Unfortunately, what it means is that a right wing Tory government that needs just 37% of the vote to stay in power will negotiate the terms of Brexit largely unscrutinised and unopposed. And that will result in a deal which will hurt ordinary voters and alienate them even further from the political process.
That's how decent Jeremy Corbyn is.
The Norway option, with Free movement and a promise of another vote in ten years.
There aren't enough die-hard anti-migrationists in the Tory party to stop it. Most Tory LEAVERS are in the Hannan camp: Sovereigntists. They will be content with this, the City will be content with this. Labour and UKIP wwc voters will not be content, but the Tories won't care
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb8dbe8c-3d0c-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz4CsSQ3HZ4
This would also be popular with quite a lot of voters, in itself.
It does politicians no favours to subvert what the people decided. Sovereignty and control are inimical with FoM.
I noticed from Cooper's remarks that she still doesn't get it. One million people every three years. It's not difficult to understand.0 -
It also means having to obey every EU single market directive, no matter how idiotic, and having no say in how they are made, doesn't it? Also making massive annual contributions. I can't see it working in the medium term, though it would undoubtedly calm industry and finance in the short term.shiney2 said:Norway means Open Borders. Munchau rarely (ever?) considers/sees a problem there. Some party will have to sell it to the People at an election/ref. Good luck with that.
I think Switzerland is better than Norway, though hardly perfect.0 -
No I don't.PlatoSaid said:
Would you have a word with @murali_s ? He seems to think every Leaver is a white supremacist. @MaxPB and @Sunil_Prasannan has tried and yet he's still at it.nunu said:
http://campaignforanindependentbritain.org.uk/some-restriction-on-free-movement-of-people-is-possible-within-the-eea-agreement/SeanT said:
Boris is pro-migration so is Hannan, I don't think Cash especially cares. Etc. For them it's all about sovereignty.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.SeanT said:I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb8dbe8c-3d0c-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz4CsSQ3HZ4
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Besides the point is they will HAVE to do this, or face economic meltdown, the destruction of the City, desertion of party donors. Choices are narrowing, by the day.
This is just about the only solution which looks remotely democratic (i.e. we really are LEAVING) while saving the economy
However I do know that a lot of bigoted and racist people voted Leave - that's well known.0 -
Strong grasp of the Norway model.....Fishing said:
It also means having to obey every EU single market directive, no matter how idiotic, and having no say in how they are made, doesn't it? Also making massive annual contributions. I can't see it working in the medium term, though it would undoubtedly calm industry and finance in the short term.shiney2 said:Norway means Open Borders. Munchau rarely (ever?) considers/sees a problem there. Some party will have to sell it to the People at an election/ref. Good luck with that.
I think Switzerland is better than Norway, though hardly perfect.0 -
i'm am both stunned that you have a job and that you manage to turn the computer on every day. Perhaps you need to calm down and engage with the real world, it's not as scary as you think.murali_s said:
I wasn't born in the UK. I'm f*cked then!PlatoSaid said:
The only way it works is if just British born citizens get auto benefits - everyone else is excluded. Even then, it's The Establishment trying to get around what the populace believed they voted for.SeanT said:
There is also a way for us to square the immigration circle. May (or Boris) should propose, along with joining EEA, that our benefits system becomes contributory, thus ending much of the pull factorSunil_Prasannan said:
Sounds good to me. Sean T should be Tory Leader!SeanT said:
This is the deal the Tories will negotiate, under May (or maybe even Boris).SouthamObserver said:What we are witnessing is the death of the Labour party as a potential party of government. The Labour membership would prefer that to allowing a "Blairite" (ie, anyone who is not Jeremy Corbyn) to be leader. The comfort blanket is too warm, the membership - largely well-off and unaffected personally by Tory policy - too detached from real life. Labour will develop into a full-blown socialist party and will gradually wither away into complete irrelevance. A new centre-left party will take its place. All that, though, will take time.
Unfortunately, what it means is that a right wing Tory government that needs just 37% of the vote to stay in power will negotiate the terms of Brexit largely unscrutinised and unopposed. And that will result in a deal which will hurt ordinary voters and alienate them even further from the political process.
That's how decent Jeremy Corbyn is.
The Norway option, with Free movement and a promise of another vote in ten years.
There aren't enough die-hard anti-migrationists in the Tory party to stop it. Most Tory LEAVERS are in the Hannan camp: Sovereigntists. They will be content with this, the City will be content with this. Labour and UKIP wwc voters will not be content, but the Tories won't care
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb8dbe8c-3d0c-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz4CsSQ3HZ4
This would also be popular with quite a lot of voters, in itself.
It does politicians no favours to subvert what the people decided. Sovereignty and control are inimical with FoM.
Plato's world must a really wonderful place to live in!!
PS - I pay over 30k in tax every year - can i get an exemption please?0 -
Quislings the lot of them! Only Jezza is sticking to his guns at this point!MikeK said:
I have never seen such panic as these latest posts on PB. It's frantic; it's manic, and SeanT, who should know better, is leader of the pack.SeanT said:
We're already playing with fire. The economy might burn down. Our choices are dwindling, as I saywilliamglenn said:
For the people who just voted leave, the primary expression of lack of sovereignty is immigration. They are seriously playing with fire if this is on the table.SeanT said:
Boris is pro-migration so is Hannan, I don't think Cash especially cares. Etc. For them it's all about sovereignty.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.SeanT said:I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb8dbe8c-3d0c-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz4CsSQ3HZ4
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Besides the point is they will HAVE to do this, or face economic meltdown, the destruction of the City, desertion of party donors. Choices are narrowing, by the day.
This is just about the only solution which looks remotely democratic (i.e. we really are LEAVING) while saving the economy
0 -
Who ate all the pies?YellowSubmarine said:If the answer is Watson what is the question ?
0 -
I think it's going to be a test of the EU. If they can't manage a custom deal for the UK, they're doomed (note for pedants: we might be doomed too of course).Fishing said:
It also means having to obey every EU single market directive, no matter how idiotic, and having no say in how they are made, doesn't it? Also making massive annual contributions. I can't see it working in the medium term, though it would undoubtedly calm industry and finance in the short term.shiney2 said:Norway means Open Borders. Munchau rarely (ever?) considers/sees a problem there. Some party will have to sell it to the People at an election/ref. Good luck with that.
I think Switzerland is better than Norway.0 -
Even better, they demanded Cameron veto Turkey joining the EU and now seem to be proposing we join the EEA where we have no say over Turkeys EU accession but have to allow Free Movement to those 80 million Turks.Scott_P said:
NoPatrick said:Erm...apart from the fact that all the rhetoric on immigration came from UKIP. Boris and Gove fought hard to ensure Vote Leave was the voice of Leave and not Farage. They fought almost all on sovereignty. UKIP own the nastiness not Boris. He can easily distance himself from it, starting with Farage's somewhat incendiary (but not wrong) speech in the EU Parliament today.
You can't rewrite history.
Gove went on national TV and talked about 80 million new immigrants.
Twat,
0 -
This is why Boris has been invisible since Friday
https://twitter.com/petermannionmp/status/7477606601304391680 -
so the assumption is that everyone who posts here doesn't have a job?Brom said:
i'm am both stunned that you have a job and that you manage to turn the computer on every day. Perhaps you need to calm down and engage with the real world, it's not as scary as you think.murali_s said:
I wasn't born in the UK. I'm f*cked then!PlatoSaid said:
The only way it works is if just British born citizens get auto benefits - everyone else is excluded. Even then, it's The Establishment trying to get around what the populace believed they voted for.SeanT said:
There is also a way for us to square the immigration circle. May (or Boris) should propose, along with joining EEA, that our benefits system becomes contributory, thus ending much of the pull factorSunil_Prasannan said:
Sounds good to me. Sean T should be Tory Leader!SeanT said:
This is the deal the Tories will negotiate, under May (or maybe even Boris).SouthamObserver said:What we are witnessing is the death of the Labour party as a potential party of government. The Labour membership would prefer that to allowing a "Blairite" (ie, anyone who is not Jeremy Corbyn) to be leader. The comfort blanket is too warm, the membership - largely well-off and unaffected personally by Tory policy - too detached from real life. Labour will develop into a full-blown socialist party and will gradually wither away into complete irrelevance. A new centre-left party will take its place. All that, though, will take time.
Unfortunately, what it means is that a right wing Tory government that needs just 37% of the vote to stay in power will negotiate the terms of Brexit largely unscrutinised and unopposed. And that will result in a deal which will hurt ordinary voters and alienate them even further from the political process.
That's how decent Jeremy Corbyn is.
The Norway option, with Free movement and a promise of another vote in ten years.
There aren't enough die-hard anti-migrationists in the Tory party to stop it. Most Tory LEAVERS are in the Hannan camp: Sovereigntists. They will be content with this, the City will be content with this. Labour and UKIP wwc voters will not be content, but the Tories won't care
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb8dbe8c-3d0c-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz4CsSQ3HZ4
This would also be popular with quite a lot of voters, in itself.
It does politicians no favours to subvert what the people decided. Sovereignty and control are inimical with FoM.
Plato's world must a really wonderful place to live in!!
PS - I pay over 30k in tax every year - can i get an exemption please?0 -
Define 'a lot'. I want to hear a proper number from you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. How many of the 17 million people who voted Leave are racist bigots?murali_s said:
No I don't.PlatoSaid said:
Would you have a word with @murali_s ? He seems to think every Leaver is a white supremacist. @MaxPB and @Sunil_Prasannan has tried and yet he's still at it.nunu said:
http://campaignforanindependentbritain.org.uk/some-restriction-on-free-movement-of-people-is-possible-within-the-eea-agreement/SeanT said:
Boris is pro-migration so is Hannan, I don't think Cash especially cares. Etc. For them it's all about sovereignty.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.SeanT said:I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb8dbe8c-3d0c-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/comment/feed//product#axzz4CsSQ3HZ4
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Besides the point is they will HAVE to do this, or face economic meltdown, the destruction of the City, desertion of party donors. Choices are narrowing, by the day.
This is just about the only solution which looks remotely democratic (i.e. we really are LEAVING) while saving the economy
However I do know that a lot of bigoted and racist people voted Leave - that's well known.0 -
-
@Freedland: They're just scaremongering > Siemens freezes new UK wind power investment following Brexit vote https://t.co/ltDfV2Dn9N0
-
They are both stupid ideas. Benefits should be payable only to those who have paid into the system for a minimum of 12 out of the last 24 months. Doesn't matter where you're from or what nationality you are. Naturalised, born here, commonwealth citizen, EU citizen. Everyone should get the same bloody treatment, let's just fix the fucking benefits system once and for all. I'm sick of hearing about how British citizens are out competed by EU citizens, until we have a benefits system that incentiveses work and an education system fit for purpose, everything else is just treating the symptoms. Mass immigration is caused by a badly designed benefits system and rubbish education system, let's fix those.not_on_fire said:
So not naturalized British citizens? Great way to divide society even further.0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
