MTimT said:

HYUFD said:

Indigo said:

HurstLlama said:

As for who voted to leave: I agree Mr. Charles cannot be counted amongst the "little people", as to the others you mention I have no idea of their background. Nonetheless we have been constantly told that it was the C2DE's that won it for Leave (though to be fair someone did post on here that 43% of the ABC1s voted for leave, something that seems not to be mentioned too much, can't imagine why).

Also 41% of London voted for Leave as well, a fact rather glossed over by people trying to big up the London as Global City schtick.

Most of the London vote for Leave came in Outer London boroughs like Havering, Barking, Bexley, Sutton and Hillingdon which all voted Leave. Not one inner London borough voted Leave

Ah, I see. So the London that will vote to be a City State will start its life by shedding its outer boroughs. Thanks for the clarification.

London will not be a city state but inner London is like Manhattan and the Bronx. The only areas the socially conservative right and the GOP does well in in NYC is in outer boroughs like Staten Island and Queens

chestnut said:

logical_song said:

chestnut said:

Now that the 2nd referendum petition has run out of steam the anti-democrats are trying to petition for Article 50 to be a parliamentary vote.

We are a parliamentary democracy.
The government will decide when to invoke Article 50 and no doubt take note of the advisory referendum which was passed 52:48.

And if they fail to respect the wishes of the people they will soon find themselves unemployed.

That's democracy. I believe that we should have a GE soon.
The wishes of which people ?
a. All 100%
b. The 51.9%
c. The 48.1%

SeanT said:

I had a Brexity moment today. Walking down Parkway, Camden I passed a well-fed, colourful Roma woman, selling the Big Issue. Probably from Bulgaria or Romania. it's well known that they come here to sell the Big Issue, so they can then get tax credits as "self employed". they come here TO be homeless, and claim

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090012/One-Big-Issue-sellers-Romanian-homes-AND-claim-benefits.html

For a second the thought zipped across my mind, of walking up to her, and saying "Ok love, you've had your fun, now could you please go home"

Because these people really ARE taking the piss.

Of course I didn't. I smiled at her and walked on. But that tiny fleeting thought did occur. I can see why there have been flashpoints.

If we fix our benefits system that problem goes away.

SeanT said:

Some Brexit facts: population DENSITY. England is one of the most crowded large countries on earth: 420 people per sq km

Most migrants to the UK come to England (at least 90%). Last year England received about 300,000 migrants...

This accounts for the feeling of “pressure” in England: on schools, hospitals, infrastructure, housing, simple space and land

420 per square kilometer is 50m x 50m per head, which is a very generous amount of space. If people were feeling pressure from actual population density, they'd be moving out to the countryside in large numbers. In reality people want to live where other people are living, which is why they move together to cities, where the population density is higher.

In any case this has nothing to do with schools and hospitals and barely anything to do with infrastructure. These things are just not particularly constrained by space. They're constrained by the cost of paying people to build them and work on them, which scales great with higher population density.

Britain does have a shortage of space for housing where people actually want to live, but that's entirely driven by regulation. US cities like San Francisco have shown they're perfectly capable of creating the same problem despite their country being nearly empty.

HYUFD said:

MTimT said:

HYUFD said:

Indigo said:

HurstLlama said:

As for who voted to leave: I agree Mr. Charles cannot be counted amongst the "little people", as to the others you mention I have no idea of their background. Nonetheless we have been constantly told that it was the C2DE's that won it for Leave (though to be fair someone did post on here that 43% of the ABC1s voted for leave, something that seems not to be mentioned too much, can't imagine why).

Also 41% of London voted for Leave as well, a fact rather glossed over by people trying to big up the London as Global City schtick.

Most of the London vote for Leave came in Outer London boroughs like Havering, Barking, Bexley, Sutton and Hillingdon which all voted Leave. Not one inner London borough voted Leave

Ah, I see. So the London that will vote to be a City State will start its life by shedding its outer boroughs. Thanks for the clarification.

London will not be a city state but inner London is like Manhattan and the Bronx. The only areas the socially conservative right and the GOP does well in in NYC is in outer boroughs like Staten Island and Queens

So either London is a city, all of it, in which case your post is meaningless. Or you are arguing that the Outer Boroughs are somehow less significant. Which is it?

JosiasJessop said:

John_M said:

Ashcroft's poll is just a poll (*spit*!). It does do a little bit of myth-busting - 43% of ABs voted Leave. It confirms others: older people were more likely to vote Leave, graduates more likely to want Remain.

I'd just like to make a point (based on figures from the 2006 DfES report). High numbers of graduates are a recent phenomenon. Only 3.4% of the 1950 cohort went into higher education. It was 8.4% in 1970, 19.3% in 1990.

It used to be perfectly possible to succeed in life without a degree. My siblings and I went to a grammar school and left in the late 70s/early 80s. Only around 20% of the sixth form went to university.

My family (impeccably working class) was unusual in that two of us went to university. My youngest sister (indisputably the most intelligent in our family) has only A-levels to her name (I took a 1st, my other sis a 2:1).

You make some good points. I don't have a degree, and I'm not sure it's done me much harm. In some ways it has helped; in others it has hindered. All in all I'd say it's neutral (though it helped that I went to uni and broadened my experience, just didn't finish the course).

But I do think that we as a society are putting too much emphasis on degrees. As (I think) Mr Llama has said passim, we should be looking at less people going to uni, and more into technical colleges and the like.

It'd all be different if I was in charge. Worse, but different.

I didn't actually get my degree until I was 41. Post the .com bust the world had changed, and I suffered for a couple of years .

It's just slightly irked me that we have this meme of "ill educated oldies took us out of the EU" that I've seen.

I can't accept the argument that people have become more intelligent in the space of fifty years. A lot of middle-aged people would waltz their way to a 2:1 or better if they were to bother.

On your main points, I completely agree. We've perpetrated another con job on the young. For some degrees the graduate premium has completely disappeared and (iirc) for some types of degree it's actually a graduate deficit.

ALP retains Willis

SeanT said:

I had a Brexity moment today. Walking down Parkway, Camden I passed a well-fed, colourful Roma woman, selling the Big Issue. Probably from Bulgaria or Romania. it's well known that they come here to sell the Big Issue, so they can then get tax credits as "self employed". they come here TO be homeless, and claim

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090012/One-Big-Issue-sellers-Romanian-homes-AND-claim-benefits.html

For a second the thought zipped across my mind, of walking up to her, and saying "Ok love, you've had your fun, now could you please go home"

Because these people really ARE taking the piss.

Of course I didn't. I smiled at her and walked on. But that tiny fleeting thought did occur. I can see why there have been flashpoints.

There was a BBC panorama documentary on how many of the Romanian and Bulgarian beggers actually own villas in their own countries.

JosiasJessop said:

John_M said:

Ashcroft's poll is just a poll (*spit*!). It does do a little bit of myth-busting - 43% of ABs voted Leave. It confirms others: older people were more likely to vote Leave, graduates more likely to want Remain.

I'd just like to make a point (based on figures from the 2006 DfES report). High numbers of graduates are a recent phenomenon. Only 3.4% of the 1950 cohort went into higher education. It was 8.4% in 1970, 19.3% in 1990.

It used to be perfectly possible to succeed in life without a degree. My siblings and I went to a grammar school and left in the late 70s/early 80s. Only around 20% of the sixth form went to university.

My family (impeccably working class) was unusual in that two of us went to university. My youngest sister (indisputably the most intelligent in our family) has only A-levels to her name (I took a 1st, my other sis a 2:1).

You make some good points. I don't have a degree, and I'm not sure it's done me much harm. In some ways it has helped; in others it has hindered. All in all I'd say it's neutral (though it helped that I went to uni and broadened my experience, just didn't finish the course).

But I do think that we as a society are putting too much emphasis on degrees. As (I think) Mr Llama has said passim, we should be looking at less people going to uni, and more into technical colleges and the like.

It'd all be different if I was in charge. Worse, but different.

That was indeed mr, Mr. Jessop. I am surprised, and gratified, that you remembered. I don't want to rehearse the whole argument here, but I do believe that more emphasis on apprenticeships, articled clerks (for the professions), and technical education from the age of 14 would be of greater benefit to all concerned that having this "rule" that 50% should go to university.

Stark_Dawning said:

rottenborough said:

"So we will soon be faced with this question: do we as a nation hate foreigners sufficiently to deny ourselves access to the single market? This might easily be rephrased as: is Britain too racist to be a leading nation in a modern globalised world? However one puts it, it’s a question that will soon need to be resolved because, as we stand, the future PM has no mandate on what sort of Brexit to negotiate." Ishiguro in FT.

https://next.ft.com/content/7877a0a6-3e11-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a

Call me a bigot, but I struggle to picture a Leaver as anything other than a shaven-headed school skiver with cobweb tattoos on his neck or a shuffling bloke in a crumpled blazer with a toothbrush moustache. I'm sure there must be some Leavers who aren't only to be found on society's desolate fringe, but it's just that I've never met one.

Don't you dare talk about Charles that way!

MTimT said:

HYUFD said:

MTimT said:

HYUFD said:

Indigo said:

HurstLlama said:

As for who voted to leave: I agree Mr. Charles cannot be counted amongst the "little people", as to the others you mention I have no idea of their background. Nonetheless we have been constantly told that it was the C2DE's that won it for Leave (though to be fair someone did post on here that 43% of the ABC1s voted for leave, something that seems not to be mentioned too much, can't imagine why).

Also 41% of London voted for Leave as well, a fact rather glossed over by people trying to big up the London as Global City schtick.

Most of the London vote for Leave came in Outer London boroughs like Havering, Barking, Bexley, Sutton and Hillingdon which all voted Leave. Not one inner London borough voted Leave

Ah, I see. So the London that will vote to be a City State will start its life by shedding its outer boroughs. Thanks for the clarification.

London will not be a city state but inner London is like Manhattan and the Bronx. The only areas the socially conservative right and the GOP does well in in NYC is in outer boroughs like Staten Island and Queens

So either London is a city, all of it, in which case your post is meaningless. Or you are arguing that the Outer Boroughs are somehow less significant. Which is it?

Technically the Outer Boroughs are in London but culturally and demographically many of them have more in common with suburban Essex and Kent than they do with inner city London

TCPoliticalBetting said:

SouthamObserver said:

And that's fantastic. Except if Brexit ends up harming the "little people". The ruling class, of course, will be entirely unaffected.

Q: With lower immigration are the "little people" going to see less housing, fewer GPs, fewer school places etc available to them?
A: No.

Given how dependent housebuilding, healthcare and teaching are on migrant labour it's not clear cut. Reform benefits to get the chancers out and shift immigration to higher paid jobs.

TudorRose said:

HYUFD said:

Indigo said:

HurstLlama said:

As for who voted to leave: I agree Mr. Charles cannot be counted amongst the "little people", as to the others you mention I have no idea of their background. Nonetheless we have been constantly told that it was the C2DE's that won it for Leave (though to be fair someone did post on here that 43% of the ABC1s voted for leave, something that seems not to be mentioned too much, can't imagine why).

Also 41% of London voted for Leave as well, a fact rather glossed over by people trying to big up the London as Global City schtick.

Most of the London vote for Leave came in Outer London boroughs like Havering, Barking, Bexley, Sutton and Hillingdon which all voted Leave. Not one inner London borough voted Leave

Next you'll be arguing that they are second class Londoners and their votes shouldn't count.

Indeed. It does beg the question of what is 'London'. Is it the geography and buildings. Clearly not - cities are people. But which people? In defining London for voting purposes, we say it is those who live (or register as living) within its geographic boundaries. But in a more real sense, London includes all who work there too.

I wonder how 'London' voted in that sense, the aggregate of all those who live and work in there. I imaging that was a closer run thing.

edmundintokyo said:

SeanT said:

Some Brexit facts: population DENSITY. England is one of the most crowded large countries on earth: 420 people per sq km

Most migrants to the UK come to England (at least 90%). Last year England received about 300,000 migrants...

This accounts for the feeling of “pressure” in England: on schools, hospitals, infrastructure, housing, simple space and land

420 per square kilometer is 50m x 50m per head, which is a very generous amount of space. If people were feeling pressure from actual population density, they'd be moving out to the countryside in large numbers. In reality people want to live where other people are living, which is why they move together to cities, where the population density is higher.

In any case this has nothing to do with schools and hospitals and barely anything to do with infrastructure. These things are just not particularly constrained by space. They're constrained by the cost of paying people to build them and work on them, which scales great with higher population density.

Britain does have a shortage of space for housing where people actually want to live, but that's entirely driven by regulation. US cities like San Francisco have shown they're perfectly capable of creating the same problem despite their country being nearly empty.

Yep. Let people build upwards, mixed neted/purchase, so we can live affordably. Sorry about the skyline, but affordable life vs. traditional view is not even a close decision.

SeanT said:

Population density Japan? 336 per sq km. Considerably LESS than England.

The vast majority of that is mountain, which is populated primarily by monkeys and they're not counted in the numbers.

SeanT said:

There really is a sense that England is full up - or close to it. We can't simply keep importing more and more people, and think it won't affect the quality of life of those already here. It will and it has.

There may be that sense, but it's nothing to do with population density per square kilometer.

chestnut said:

logical_song said:

chestnut said:

logical_song said:

chestnut said:

Now that the 2nd referendum petition has run out of steam the anti-democrats are trying to petition for Article 50 to be a parliamentary vote.

We are a parliamentary democracy.
The government will decide when to invoke Article 50 and no doubt take note of the advisory referendum which was passed 52:48.

And if they fail to respect the wishes of the people they will soon find themselves unemployed.

That's democracy. I believe that we should have a GE soon.
The wishes of which people ?
a. All 100%
b. The 51.9%
c. The 48.1%

The majority of voters.

They will pay at the ballot box if the try to obstruct. Remainers would be best advised to accept the result and try to influence implementation rather than impede it.

Thanks to FPTP, they won't. Angry Northern UKIP voters will pile up votes in many seats up north but only win a handful of labour.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

SeanT said:

Southam:


"Yep, that is true. Outside of the nationalist right the reaction abroad seems to have been one of complete astonishment. Outside the UK the mainstream opinion is that the vote was a ludicrous act of self-harm. It is now up to the Leavers to show that is wrong, while also delivering on the promises made during the campaign. Very soon we will have a cabinet dominated by Leave Tories, so a start will hopefully be made."

*****

Foreigners simply don't understand the immigration issue.

I did some number crunching on Twitter today, and worked it out, and here's how I put it:


Some Brexit facts: population DENSITY. England is one of the most crowded large countries on earth: 420 people per sq km

Most migrants to the UK come to England (at least 90%). Last year England received about 300,000 migrants...

This accounts for the feeling of “pressure” in England: on schools, hospitals, infrastructure, housing, simple space and land

Compare with other countries. For France (population density 194) to feel the same "pressure", they’d be taking 1.3 million migrants a year. 1.3 MILLION. Every single YEAR.

For Spain to feel the same pressure they’d be taking 1 million. Every year.

For America, the equivalent is 19 million migrants. Every year. NINETEEN MILLION

In that light, Brexit is no surprise. What is surprising is that England has not elected a Fascist government already

I don't think actual overcrowding has been much of a factor in the referendum, given that, in England at least, the mostly densely populated areas largely voted for Remain, while the Leave vote was strongest in rural areas. This is the opposite to what your thesis would suggest.

Alternatively the parts of the country designed to cope with a dense population don't feel the problem in the same way as the parts of the country not designed to cope with so many people.

not_on_fire said:

RobD said:

logical_song said:

chestnut said:

logical_song said:

chestnut said:

Now that the 2nd referendum petition has run out of steam the anti-democrats are trying to petition for Article 50 to be a parliamentary vote.

We are a parliamentary democracy.
The government will decide when to invoke Article 50 and no doubt take note of the advisory referendum which was passed 52:48.

And if they fail to respect the wishes of the people they will soon find themselves unemployed.

That's democracy. I believe that we should have a GE soon.
The wishes of which people ?
a. All 100%
b. The 51.9%
c. The 48.1%

The wishes of the majority, given we live in a democracy.

Majorities, especially small ones, crushing minorities is certainly not democracy.

But minorities blocking majorities is even less democratic, surely?

new thread

TudorRose said:

not_on_fire said:

RobD said:

logical_song said:

chestnut said:

logical_song said:

chestnut said:

Now that the 2nd referendum petition has run out of steam the anti-democrats are trying to petition for Article 50 to be a parliamentary vote.

We are a parliamentary democracy.
The government will decide when to invoke Article 50 and no doubt take note of the advisory referendum which was passed 52:48.

And if they fail to respect the wishes of the people they will soon find themselves unemployed.

That's democracy. I believe that we should have a GE soon.
The wishes of which people ?
a. All 100%
b. The 51.9%
c. The 48.1%

The wishes of the majority, given we live in a democracy.

Majorities, especially small ones, crushing minorities is certainly not democracy.

But minorities blocking majorities is even less democratic, surely?

A democratic interpretation of the result would be that yes, Leave won, but narrowly and hence the most just outcome involves leaving the EU but maintaining a close relationship. That is, EEA with full FoM.

MTimT said:

TudorRose said:

HYUFD said:

Indigo said:

HurstLlama said:

As for who voted to leave: I agree Mr. Charles cannot be counted amongst the "little people", as to the others you mention I have no idea of their background. Nonetheless we have been constantly told that it was the C2DE's that won it for Leave (though to be fair someone did post on here that 43% of the ABC1s voted for leave, something that seems not to be mentioned too much, can't imagine why).

Also 41% of London voted for Leave as well, a fact rather glossed over by people trying to big up the London as Global City schtick.

Most of the London vote for Leave came in Outer London boroughs like Havering, Barking, Bexley, Sutton and Hillingdon which all voted Leave. Not one inner London borough voted Leave

Next you'll be arguing that they are second class Londoners and their votes shouldn't count.

Indeed. It does beg the question of what is 'London'. Is it the geography and buildings. Clearly not - cities are people. But which people? In defining London for voting purposes, we say it is those who live (or register as living) within its geographic boundaries. But in a more real sense, London includes all who work there too.

I wonder how 'London' voted in that sense, the aggregate of all those who live and work in there. I imaging that was a closer run thing.

In that case you include most of the commuter belt and the Home Counties, Essex and Kent, Surrey, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire and even parts of Hampshire as London

TudorRose said:

HYUFD said:

Indigo said:

HurstLlama said:

As for who voted to leave: I agree Mr. Charles cannot be counted amongst the "little people", as to the others you mention I have no idea of their background. Nonetheless we have been constantly told that it was the C2DE's that won it for Leave (though to be fair someone did post on here that 43% of the ABC1s voted for leave, something that seems not to be mentioned too much, can't imagine why).

Also 41% of London voted for Leave as well, a fact rather glossed over by people trying to big up the London as Global City schtick.

Most of the London vote for Leave came in Outer London boroughs like Havering, Barking, Bexley, Sutton and Hillingdon which all voted Leave. Not one inner London borough voted Leave

Next you'll be arguing that they are second class Londoners and their votes shouldn't count.

No but there is a different feel to outer London, it is the suburbs not the heart of the City

Alanbrooke said:

@Southam

Ever the Remainer SO it's not about the money. :-)

If you view it only in financial terms you are most likely correct. However the british establishment has just had the biggest kicking I can remember. The certainties of last month are no longer certain and from herfe on they now will have to take on board the electorates view rather than just assume they have nowhere lesel to go.

The Establshment has just nobbled Boris Johnson (deservedly so, of course). It is going absolutely nowhere.

SeanT said:

I had a Brexity moment today. Walking down Parkway, Camden I passed a well-fed, colourful Roma woman, selling the Big Issue. Probably from Bulgaria or Romania. it's well known that they come here to sell the Big Issue, so they can then get tax credits as "self employed". they come here TO be homeless, and claim

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090012/One-Big-Issue-sellers-Romanian-homes-AND-claim-benefits.html

For a second the thought zipped across my mind, of walking up to her, and saying "Ok love, you've had your fun, now could you please go home"

Because these people really ARE taking the piss.

Of course I didn't. I smiled at her and walked on. But that tiny fleeting thought did occur. I can see why there have been flashpoints.

It is actually even worse. Big issue works by individuals buying a supply & selling on, with the presumption that homeless people have limited capital & know their own "pitch", so anybody who wants / needs can sell.big issue.

The suggestion is that it is now basically "mob" run & the mob buy up all the copies so basically the roma.have to sell for them but also genuinely homeless people can't even get supply if the magazine.

In many places it is now organised criminal monopoly that controls big issue supply & means for genuine homeless people this avenue of getting oneself back on two feet isn't available.

NickPalmer said:

edmundintokyo said:

SeanT said:

Some Brexit facts: population DENSITY. England is one of the most crowded large countries on earth: 420 people per sq km

Most migrants to the UK come to England (at least 90%). Last year England received about 300,000 migrants...

This accounts for the feeling of “pressure” in England: on schools, hospitals, infrastructure, housing, simple space and land

420 per square kilometer is 50m x 50m per head, which is a very generous amount of space. If people were feeling pressure from actual population density, they'd be moving out to the countryside in large numbers. In reality people want to live where other people are living, which is why they move together to cities, where the population density is higher.

In any case this has nothing to do with schools and hospitals and barely anything to do with infrastructure. These things are just not particularly constrained by space. They're constrained by the cost of paying people to build them and work on them, which scales great with higher population density.

Britain does have a shortage of space for housing where people actually want to live, but that's entirely driven by regulation. US cities like San Francisco have shown they're perfectly capable of creating the same problem despite their country being nearly empty.

Yep. Let people build upwards, mixed neted/purchase, so we can live affordably. Sorry about the skyline, but affordable life vs. traditional view is not even a close decision.

Wasn't your Broxtowe constituency home a bungalow ?

williamglenn said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

SeanT said:

Southam:


"Yep, that is true. Outside of the nationalist right the reaction abroad seems to have been one of complete astonishment. Outside the UK the mainstream opinion is that the vote was a ludicrous act of self-harm. It is now up to the Leavers to show that is wrong, while also delivering on the promises made during the campaign. Very soon we will have a cabinet dominated by Leave Tories, so a start will hopefully be made."

*****

Foreigners simply don't understand the immigration issue.

I did some number crunching on Twitter today, and worked it out, and here's how I put it:


Some Brexit facts: population DENSITY. England is one of the most crowded large countries on earth: 420 people per sq km

Most migrants to the UK come to England (at least 90%). Last year England received about 300,000 migrants...

This accounts for the feeling of “pressure” in England: on schools, hospitals, infrastructure, housing, simple space and land

Compare with other countries. For France (population density 194) to feel the same "pressure", they’d be taking 1.3 million migrants a year. 1.3 MILLION. Every single YEAR.

For Spain to feel the same pressure they’d be taking 1 million. Every year.

For America, the equivalent is 19 million migrants. Every year. NINETEEN MILLION

In that light, Brexit is no surprise. What is surprising is that England has not elected a Fascist government already

I don't think actual overcrowding has been much of a factor in the referendum, given that, in England at least, the mostly densely populated areas largely voted for Remain, while the Leave vote was strongest in rural areas. This is the opposite to what your thesis would suggest.

Alternatively the parts of the country designed to cope with a dense population don't feel the problem in the same way as the parts of the country not designed to cope with so many people.

Quite, Mr. Glenn. Furthermore, to take for example, my part of the country the population is increasing rapidly and dramatically but there is no commensurate investment in infrastructure. No more hospitals, no more ambulances, no more roads or railways, and so forth. On top of which we are seeing cuts on social services like libraries, education budgets, policing and so forth.

HYUFD said:

MTimT said:

TudorRose said:

HYUFD said:

Indigo said:

HurstLlama said:

As for who voted to leave: I agree Mr. Charles cannot be counted amongst the "little people", as to the others you mention I have no idea of their background. Nonetheless we have been constantly told that it was the C2DE's that won it for Leave (though to be fair someone did post on here that 43% of the ABC1s voted for leave, something that seems not to be mentioned too much, can't imagine why).

Also 41% of London voted for Leave as well, a fact rather glossed over by people trying to big up the London as Global City schtick.

Most of the London vote for Leave came in Outer London boroughs like Havering, Barking, Bexley, Sutton and Hillingdon which all voted Leave. Not one inner London borough voted Leave

Next you'll be arguing that they are second class Londoners and their votes shouldn't count.

Indeed. It does beg the question of what is 'London'. Is it the geography and buildings. Clearly not - cities are people. But which people? In defining London for voting purposes, we say it is those who live (or register as living) within its geographic boundaries. But in a more real sense, London includes all who work there too.

I wonder how 'London' voted in that sense, the aggregate of all those who live and work in there. I imaging that was a closer run thing.

In that case you include most of the commuter belt and the Home Counties, Essex and Kent, Surrey, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire and even parts of Hampshire as London

That is, indeed, the point I am making.

John_M said:

Stark_Dawning said:

rottenborough said:

"So we will soon be faced with this question: do we as a nation hate foreigners sufficiently to deny ourselves access to the single market? This might easily be rephrased as: is Britain too racist to be a leading nation in a modern globalised world? However one puts it, it’s a question that will soon need to be resolved because, as we stand, the future PM has no mandate on what sort of Brexit to negotiate." Ishiguro in FT.

https://next.ft.com/content/7877a0a6-3e11-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a

Call me a bigot, but I struggle to picture a Leaver as anything other than a shaven-headed school skiver with cobweb tattoos on his neck or a shuffling bloke in a crumpled blazer with a toothbrush moustache. I'm sure there must be some Leavers who aren't only to be found on society's desolate fringe, but it's just that I've never met one.

Don't you dare talk about Charles that way!

How do you know I'm not a shaven-headed skool skiver with cobweb tattoos?

At a meeting of Preseli Pembs CLP a motion in support of JC was passed overwhelmingly. Getting very leftish down here.
Ps I was unable to attend to a prior engagement in front of the telly.
Come on Wales!