Yes, particularly the equilibrium in the EU8 figures.
Ha! In that respect it's quite a misleading chart. There isn't an equilibrium for the EU8 countries. In the year to June, 71,500 moved to the UK and 31,500 left the UK.
Why the discrepancy? Are those numbers based on more than just 'long term' migrants?
The chart shows composition of immigration and emigration. So the EU8 countries account for 11% of the 650k immigrants and 10% of the 315k emigrants.
These numbers are so prone to misuse and confusion.
Net migration is pretty much meaningless to me.
What I want to know is, How many students are we welcoming, and where are they coming from?
How many economic migrants are arriving here, and where from?
How many family reunions?
And how many cases of asylum?
The four types of migration are completely different, have different push and pull factors, have different economic impacts, and would be seen as different I suspect by the majority of the public.
Wasn't Jesus a Palestinian. From the Middle East? And, come to that, St George?
Er no, Jesus was not a "Palestinian". Modern "Palestinians" are not related to the ancient inhabitants of the region. George was ethnic Greek (the clue is in the name).
... and writes off large parts of the country, sending the message that the party isn't interested in them...
I think you'll find the voting system does that exceedingly well already
Except it doesn't. Everyone starts on zero and every vote counts. There have been enough so-called 'safe' seats lost (and won) by all three main parties that it should be obvious not to write off anywhere.
- Who would have thought that Labour could lose Glasgow East or Blaenau Gwent, or could encroach well into Tory shire territory, as in 1997?
- Who would have thought that the Tories could win Gower or Normanton (as was), or could lose Tatton?
- Who would have thought in 1996 that the Lib Dems could win over 60 seats, or be reduced to eight?
Seats worked over time can become winnable in the right circumstances, just as the reverse is true those neglected.
An unusually naïve reply from you, Mr Herdson. If you genuinely think that the parties put as much effort in everywhere, I suspect you are in a very small minority. As a voter I have lived in marginal seats and safe seats, and I can assure you that the difference in experience - not just at elections but between times as well - is utterly dramatic.
Not to mention the never-ending quest for the marketing marginal swing-voter sweet spot, Basildon Man or Worcester Woman and all such nonsense
No, obviously parties don't put in the same effort everywhere (and for that matter, don't put the same effort into the same seats at different elections). But for all that, there is a substantial difference between putting up a candidate and fighting the election 'light', and deliberately standing down and endorsing a different party.
Yes, particularly the equilibrium in the EU8 figures.
Ha! In that respect it's quite a misleading chart. There isn't an equilibrium for the EU8 countries. In the year to June, 71,500 moved to the UK and 31,500 left the UK.
Why the discrepancy? Are those numbers based on more than just 'long term' migrants?
The chart shows composition of immigration and emigration. So the EU8 countries account for 11% of the 650k immigrants and 10% of the 315k emigrants.
Yes that is misleading indeed.
Presumably someone who comes to the UK and stays until they acquire citizenship before moving somewhere else would also be classed as an emigrating British citizen?
Yes. I think it's residency based though.
There ought to be an independent body for migration analysis, equiv to the OBR.
Yes, particularly the equilibrium in the EU8 figures.
Ha! In that respect it's quite a misleading chart. There isn't an equilibrium for the EU8 countries. In the year to June, 71,500 moved to the UK and 31,500 left the UK.
Why the discrepancy? Are those numbers based on more than just 'long term' migrants?
The chart shows composition of immigration and emigration. So the EU8 countries account for 11% of the 650k immigrants and 10% of the 315k emigrants.
These numbers are so prone to misuse and confusion.
Net migration is pretty much meaningless to me.
What I want to know is, How many students are we welcoming, and where are they coming from?
How many economic migrants are arriving here, and where from?
How many family reunions?
And how many cases of asylum?
The four types of migration are completely different, have different push and pull factors, have different economic impacts, and would be seen as different I suspect by the majority of the public.
... and writes off large parts of the country, sending the message that the party isn't interested in them...
I think you'll find the voting system does that exceedingly well already
Except it doesn't. Everyone starts on zero and every vote counts. There have been enough so-called 'safe' seats lost (and won) by all three main parties that it should be obvious not to write off anywhere.
- Who would have thought that Labour could lose Glasgow East or Blaenau Gwent, or could encroach well into Tory shire territory, as in 1997?
- Who would have thought that the Tories could win Gower or Normanton (as was), or could lose Tatton?
- Who would have thought in 1996 that the Lib Dems could win over 60 seats, or be reduced to eight?
Seats worked over time can become winnable in the right circumstances, just as the reverse is true those neglected.
An unusually naïve reply from you, Mr Herdson. If you genuinely think that the parties put as much effort in everywhere, I suspect you are in a very small minority. As a voter I have lived in marginal seats and safe seats, and I can assure you that the difference in experience - not just at elections but between times as well - is utterly dramatic.
Not to mention the never-ending quest for the marketing marginal swing-voter sweet spot, Basildon Man or Worcester Woman and all such nonsense
No, obviously parties don't put in the same effort everywhere (and for that matter, don't put the same effort into the same seats at different elections). But for all that, there is a substantial difference between putting up a candidate and fighting the election 'light', and deliberately standing down and endorsing a different party.
Of course. And also of course, where parties are very weak, it is unrealistic to expect much effort. The real crime of the voting system is that where parties are very strong, local electors (mostly) see next to nothing either of any meaningful election campaigning or hear much from their representative at any other time.
... and writes off large parts of the country, sending the message that the party isn't interested in them...
I think you'll find the voting system does that exceedingly well already
Except it doesn't. Everyone starts on zero and every vote counts. There have been enough so-called 'safe' seats lost (and won) by all three main parties that it should be obvious not to write off anywhere.
- Who would have thought that Labour could lose Glasgow East or Blaenau Gwent, or could encroach well into Tory shire territory, as in 1997?
- Who would have thought that the Tories could win Gower or Normanton (as was), or could lose Tatton?
- Who would have thought in 1996 that the Lib Dems could win over 60 seats, or be reduced to eight?
Seats worked over time can become winnable in the right circumstances, just as the reverse is true those neglected.
Because of the first past the post system, it is very believeable that Lib Dem MP numbers will swing wildly because they are always on the edge of winning masses of seats or few seats. What they don't have are safe seats, apart from Tim Farron's.
Yes, particularly the equilibrium in the EU8 figures.
Ha! In that respect it's quite a misleading chart. There isn't an equilibrium for the EU8 countries. In the year to June, 71,500 moved to the UK and 31,500 left the UK.
Why the discrepancy? Are those numbers based on more than just 'long term' migrants?
The chart shows composition of immigration and emigration. So the EU8 countries account for 11% of the 650k immigrants and 10% of the 315k emigrants.
Yes that is misleading indeed.
Presumably someone who comes to the UK and stays until they acquire citizenship before moving somewhere else would also be classed as an emigrating British citizen?
Yes. I think it's residency based though.
There ought to be an independent body for migration analysis, equiv to the OBR.
The ONS is independent, just not very good.
I have no reason to doubt the ONS. I just note that migration, which has become a toxic totem for British debate, is surrounded in much confusion.
We need independent forecasting on why, where and whom, and to what impact. For eg, What *does* happen to all those students? Is there a particular type that stays? What kind of jobs to they take?
Let's shine a light on. The "left" have been culpable in not opening this up, and now the "right" are colluding by trying to find the most negative spin.
Yes, particularly the equilibrium in the EU8 figures.
Ha! In that respect it's quite a misleading chart. There isn't an equilibrium for the EU8 countries. In the year to June, 71,500 moved to the UK and 31,500 left the UK.
Why the discrepancy? Are those numbers based on more than just 'long term' migrants?
The chart shows composition of immigration and emigration. So the EU8 countries account for 11% of the 650k immigrants and 10% of the 315k emigrants.
These numbers are so prone to misuse and confusion.
Net migration is pretty much meaningless to me.
What I want to know is, How many students are we welcoming, and where are they coming from?
How many economic migrants are arriving here, and where from?
How many family reunions?
And how many cases of asylum?
The four types of migration are completely different, have different push and pull factors, have different economic impacts, and would be seen as different I suspect by the majority of the public.
The number of work related immigrants who don't have a job already lined up is rising.
Ironically, maybe they come because with Brexit looming they figure they need to come now...
Which is why it is foolish to simply guarantee the rights of everyone who is already here without setting a cut off date (24th June IMO) and without receiving equivalent guarantees for British people in the EU. If we do move to a reciprocal visa system and all existing migrants are phased into it then it hurts EU workers a lot more than it does for UK workers in Europe who tend to do highly skilled work and would qualify for most kinds of visas.
I still think the Verhofstadt solution to a transactional immigration system is what we're looking at, again something which would be a big win for the UK since we export highly skilled workers and import unskilled workers.
Since the Lib Dems have made the Richmond Park by-election a vote on Brexit, if Zac wins they have to accept that Brexit won and Remoaners lost, despite a 70% Remain vote in the constituency at the referendum.
Yes, particularly the equilibrium in the EU8 figures.
Ha! In that respect it's quite a misleading chart. There isn't an equilibrium for the EU8 countries. In the year to June, 71,500 moved to the UK and 31,500 left the UK.
Why the discrepancy? Are those numbers based on more than just 'long term' migrants?
The chart shows composition of immigration and emigration. So the EU8 countries account for 11% of the 650k immigrants and 10% of the 315k emigrants.
Yes that is misleading indeed.
Presumably someone who comes to the UK and stays until they acquire citizenship before moving somewhere else would also be classed as an emigrating British citizen?
Yes. I think it's residency based though.
There ought to be an independent body for migration analysis, equiv to the OBR.
The ONS is independent, just not very good.
I have no reason to doubt the ONS. I just note that migration, which has become a toxic totem for British debate, is surrounded in much confusion.
We need independent forecasting on why, where and whom, and to what impact. For eg, What *does* happen to all those students? Is there a particular type that stays? What kind of jobs to they take?
Let's shine a light on. The "left" have been culpable in not opening this up, and now the "right" are colluding by trying to find the most negative spin.
Well in that case I'd like for HMRC and the DSS to break down tax credits and benefit recipients by country of origin. If we're going to shine a light on immigration we should do it properly. At the moment HMRC have point blank refused to release any breakdown of tax credit spending and the DSS don't reveal anything about benefits other than unemployment benefits, which most migrants aren't eligible for.
@DannyShawBBC: For the first time Romania tops the list of new migrants - 54,000 came to UK, followed by China and India.
Heh. My nanny, my cleaner, and my hairdresser are all Romanian. China is interesting though. Thought it was quite hard to migrate, and family connections are limited. Is it students?
Is it because China has a population of 1.4 billion compared with 20 million in Romania?
Yes, particularly the equilibrium in the EU8 figures.
Ha! In that respect it's quite a misleading chart. There isn't an equilibrium for the EU8 countries. In the year to June, 71,500 moved to the UK and 31,500 left the UK.
Why the discrepancy? Are those numbers based on more than just 'long term' migrants?
The chart shows composition of immigration and emigration. So the EU8 countries account for 11% of the 650k immigrants and 10% of the 315k emigrants.
Yes that is misleading indeed.
Presumably someone who comes to the UK and stays until they acquire citizenship before moving somewhere else would also be classed as an emigrating British citizen?
Yes. I think it's residency based though.
There ought to be an independent body for migration analysis, equiv to the OBR.
The ONS is independent, just not very good.
I have no reason to doubt the ONS. I just note that migration, which has become a toxic totem for British debate, is surrounded in much confusion.
We need independent forecasting on why, where and whom, and to what impact. For eg, What *does* happen to all those students? Is there a particular type that stays? What kind of jobs to they take?
Let's shine a light on. The "left" have been culpable in not opening this up, and now the "right" are colluding by trying to find the most negative spin.
The problem with measuring immigration is with border control not the ONS.
We don't record individuals entering and leaving the UK. So we have no idea whether people coming here to work, as students or on holiday are still here or have left.
The ONS carries out a small, unrepresentative sample of interviews of travellers entering and leaving the country but there is a massive range of statistical error which the ONS do not deny.
What is the point of the Tory party if it hasn't got a clear line on what for a few decades has been one of its favourite issues, Europe, and it hasn't got the guts to contest a Commons seat that it lost a few weeks ago?
Oh and it screwed the country up by holding a crazy referendum. And Theresa May stands there in pearls and shoes and tells us the Competent Sherpas of Whitehall will manage those foreigner fuzzywuzzies awfully competently in the the negotiations, and nobody should worry. What could possibly go wrong?
Is there a market on UKIP winning the most votes in the next general election?
What is the point of the Tory party if it hasn't got a clear line on what for a few decades has been one of its favourite issues, Europe, and it hasn't got the guts to contest a Commons seat that it lost a few weeks ago?
Is there a market on UKIP winning the most votes in the next general election?
The problem with the Tory Party on Europe for the last 30 years is precisely its inability to establish a clear line acceptable across the great majority of the party.
As for Richmond Park, it's not formally contesting the seat because it's informally contesting it. Why isn't UKIP standing?
Since the Lib Dems have made the Richmond Park by-election a vote on Brexit, if Zac wins they have to accept that Brexit won and Remoaners lost, despite a 70% Remain vote in the constituency at the referendum.
If the Lib Dems fail to win Richmond today, they’ll conclude it was all about Heathrow after all and an endorsement for a second EU referendum.
On topic. ‘Would the Tories stand aside in a seat where UKIP was 2nd behind LAB?’ – Er, No.
Since the Lib Dems have made the Richmond Park by-election a vote on Brexit, if Zac wins they have to accept that Brexit won and Remoaners lost, despite a 70% Remain vote in the constituency at the referendum.
They don't have to but they should. It would be a clear indication that being anti-Brexit will win precious few seats for them (though I wouldn't be surprised to see CCHQ recycle some quotes from Lib Dem literature in this by-election to the South West).
Wasn't Jesus a Palestinian. From the Middle East? And, come to that, St George?
Er no, Jesus was not a "Palestinian". Modern "Palestinians" are not related to the ancient inhabitants of the region. George was ethnic Greek (the clue is in the name).
OK so, Jesus was a Jew. From whence do modern Palestinians come? Am I to believe that at some point the country we know as Palestine/Israel was completely ethnically cleared, and new inhabitants appeared. That George was ethnic Greek I'll accept, although I believe there's some argument about it. Not sure how that goes down with the National Front and the like, of course.
What is the point of the Tory party if it hasn't got a clear line on what for a few decades has been one of its favourite issues, Europe, and it hasn't got the guts to contest a Commons seat that it lost a few weeks ago?
Oh and it screwed the country up by holding a crazy referendum. And Theresa May stands there in pearls and shoes and tells us the Competent Sherpas of Whitehall will manage those foreigner fuzzywuzzies awfully competently in the the negotiations, and nobody should worry. What could possibly go wrong?
Is there a market on UKIP winning the most votes in the next general election?
She also goes to India - to India! - with a begging-bowl and promises to increase the flow of immigrants from that country.
I know the Labour party is a shambles, but so is the Tory party, and neither observation is especially controversial. Got to wonder whether either of them will get past 23% in the next general election.
It's going to be soft Brexit. We will still pay billions, but they will call these contributions something else, to save face. Freedom of Movement will become Freedom to Move with a job offer.
We will get back control of many laws, but still be subject to the ECJ in terms of the Single Market. Over which we will have less influence. Hardcore Brexiteers and ultra Remainers will be incensed. Most voters will shrug and accept.
And slowly, over time, the UK will grow apart from the EU.
I think I predicted this outcome about a week after the vote.
I agree with your anaylsis and would be content with that solution
... and writes off large parts of the country, sending the message that the party isn't interested in them...
I think you'll find the voting system does that exceedingly well already
Except it doesn't. Everyone starts on zero and every vote counts. There have been enough so-called 'safe' seats lost (and won) by all three main parties that it should be obvious not to write off anywhere.
- Who would have thought that Labour could lose Glasgow East or Blaenau Gwent, or could encroach well into Tory shire territory, as in 1997?
- Who would have thought that the Tories could win Gower or Normanton (as was), or could lose Tatton?
- Who would have thought in 1996 that the Lib Dems could win over 60 seats, or be reduced to eight?
Seats worked over time can become winnable in the right circumstances, just as the reverse is true those neglected.
Because of the first past the post system, it is very believeable that Lib Dem MP numbers will swing wildly because they are always on the edge of winning masses of seats or few seats. What they don't have are safe seats, apart from Tim Farron's.
Between 1983 and 1992, Lib Dem seat numbers were very stable. 1983 and 1987 in particular pointed to perpetually dashed hopes of 'breaking the mould'. And by 2015, we were assured that they had far more safe seats than just eight (or one), due to incumbency factors.
The assumptions of yesterday are easily forgotten once proven false.
Wasn't Jesus a Palestinian. From the Middle East? And, come to that, St George?
Er no, Jesus was not a "Palestinian". Modern "Palestinians" are not related to the ancient inhabitants of the region. George was ethnic Greek (the clue is in the name).
... and writes off large parts of the country, sending the message that the party isn't interested in them...
I think you'll find the voting system does that exceedingly well already
Except it doesn't. Everyone starts on zero and every vote counts. There have been enough so-called 'safe' seats lost (and won) by all three main parties that it should be obvious not to write off anywhere.
- Who would have thought that Labour could lose Glasgow East or Blaenau Gwent, or could encroach well into Tory shire territory, as in 1997?
- Who would have thought that the Tories could win Gower or Normanton (as was), or could lose Tatton?
- Who would have thought in 1996 that the Lib Dems could win over 60 seats, or be reduced to eight?
Seats worked over time can become winnable in the right circumstances, just as the reverse is true those neglected.
Because of the first past the post system, it is very believeable that Lib Dem MP numbers will swing wildly because they are always on the edge of winning masses of seats or few seats. What they don't have are safe seats, apart from Tim Farron's.
And Orkney & Shetland, if the Scottish elections are any guide.
Lib Dem MP and cheif whip Tom Brake has chipped in this morning about the byelection in Richmond saying that Zac shouldnt be representing a constituency that voted so overwhelmingly to remain when he was in favour of leave. He seems to have forgotten that his iwn constituency voted to leave.. will he kindly stand down?
It's going to be soft Brexit. We will still pay billions, but they will call these contributions something else, to save face. Freedom of Movement will become Freedom to Move with a job offer.
We will get back control of many laws, but still be subject to the ECJ in terms of the Single Market. Over which we will have less influence. Hardcore Brexiteers and ultra Remainers will be incensed. Most voters will shrug and accept.
And slowly, over time, the UK will grow apart from the EU.
I think I predicted this outcome about a week after the vote.
Yes, it's Brexit for the 60%. The hardcore on both sides will be unhappy for various reasons but the majority of the country will carry in as normal. I really do believe that Verhofstadt has brought on this new "have cake, eat it" plan. If immigration rights are going to move to a transactional basis between the UK and rEU it is massively favourable to the UK and gives us what we want - single market membership with restrictions on free movement. If we can agree to £2.5-3k per person per year for 5 years in either direction unskilled migration will come to a very sudden halt and turning up to the UK without a job will be impossible without paying up £3k for an NI number.
"At GE2015 UKIP was runner up in 120 seats most which were held by Labour. If one of those came up could you see the Tories being ready to stand aside to give UKIP a better chance of defeating LAB?" I know Mike likes rhetorical questions, but this is a doozie. Chance of this happening is absolute zero.
OGH is right though that politics will continue to be dominated by Brexit for years to come, no matter how much many people will try to make it otherwise. This is another reason that Brexit is A Bad Thing. It is sucking the life out of politics - the metaphorical cost is in many ways as high as the actual financial cost of going through the whole palaver. A palaver that we're being through (kicking and screaming, as it will turn out) because of the ideological obsessions of a bunch of reactionaries.
... and writes off large parts of the country, sending the message that the party isn't interested in them...
I think you'll find the voting system does that exceedingly well already
Except it doesn't. Everyone starts on zero and every vote counts. There have been enough so-called 'safe' seats lost (and won) by all three main parties that it should be obvious not to write off anywhere.
- Who would have thought that Labour could lose Glasgow East or Blaenau Gwent, or could encroach well into Tory shire territory, as in 1997?
- Who would have thought that the Tories could win Gower or Normanton (as was), or could lose Tatton?
- Who would have thought in 1996 that the Lib Dems could win over 60 seats, or be reduced to eight?
Seats worked over time can become winnable in the right circumstances, just as the reverse is true those neglected.
Because of the first past the post system, it is very believeable that Lib Dem MP numbers will swing wildly because they are always on the edge of winning masses of seats or few seats. What they don't have are safe seats, apart from Tim Farron's.
And Orkney & Shetland, if the Scottish elections are any guide.
Lib Dem MP and cheif whip Tom Brake has chipped in this morning about the byelection in Richmond saying that Zac shouldnt be representing a constituency that voted so overwhelmingly to remain when he was in favour of leave. He seems to have forgotten that his iwn constituency voted to leave.. will he kindly stand down?
The Lib Dems are already tying themselves in knots over their anti-Brexit stance. Predictable.
Er no, Jesus was not a "Palestinian". Modern "Palestinians" are not related to the ancient inhabitants of the region.
Jesus was a Palestinian refugee from the West Bank.
Didn't the Canaanites and Jebusites reproduce? Why do you use inverted commas around the term "Palestinian" when referring to people who call themselves that today? Don't you think people have the right to call themselves by the ethnic identity names that they want? Or do a few such names only refer to something worthless that shouldn't exist?
It's going to be soft Brexit. We will still pay billions, but they will call these contributions something else, to save face. Freedom of Movement will become Freedom to Move with a job offer.
We will get back control of many laws, but still be subject to the ECJ in terms of the Single Market. Over which we will have less influence. Hardcore Brexiteers and ultra Remainers will be incensed. Most voters will shrug and accept.
And slowly, over time, the UK will grow apart from the EU.
I think I predicted this outcome about a week after the vote.
I don't recall your being in much of a state, a week after the vote, to be predicting very much at all (apart from imminent doom, as I remember)?
Wasn't Jesus a Palestinian. From the Middle East? And, come to that, St George?
Er no, Jesus was not a "Palestinian". Modern "Palestinians" are not related to the ancient inhabitants of the region. George was ethnic Greek (the clue is in the name).
Wasn't Jesus born a jew in Judah?
Official Judea, not Judah. In what had long been the area of Palestine (just as Hull has long been in Yorkshire, and Twickenham in Middlesex), and which later when merged with official Syria gave rise to official Palestine.
Whatever the result in Richmond it will be a gain from the Conservatives. Can anyone remember a by election where the government lost a seat by not putting up a candidate? Wartime? The Liberals before the First World War?
It's going to be soft Brexit. We will still pay billions, but they will call these contributions something else, to save face. Freedom of Movement will become Freedom to Move with a job offer.
We will get back control of many laws, but still be subject to the ECJ in terms of the Single Market. Over which we will have less influence. Hardcore Brexiteers and ultra Remainers will be incensed. Most voters will shrug and accept.
And slowly, over time, the UK will grow apart from the EU.
I think I predicted this outcome about a week after the vote.
I think this is right and said something similar. It is a mistake to think everything in the last 40 years can be unwound in the current negotiations. We need to find as simple a package as possible involving tariff free trade, respect for current occupancy rights and co-operation on policing and security. We can deal with the rest later. In some areas this will involve continued co-operation (such as patents perhaps). In others we will drift apart.
And over time the percentage of our trade with the EU will significantly diminish. This was already happening and is inevitable as the relatively unsuccessful EU forms an ever smaller part of world trade. Brexit will merely accelerate the trend.
For anyone who doesn't fancy the whole thing, FFW to 12mins re the motivation of arms companies.
I thought this from JFK was interesting too re secret societies.
I'm bored stiff of PBers micro bickering thread after thread. There's big stuff to discuss re the end of political correctness inc on campuses /censoring re social media platforms of supposed fake news - attempts to overthrow democracy that doesn't suit the Left.
This is massive counter revolution by the Right where it's suddenly okay to say things and joke for the first time in years.
Whatever the result in Richmond it will be a gain from the Conservatives. Can anyone remember a by election where the government lost a seat by not putting up a candidate? Wartime? The Liberals before the First World War?
Not really because we all know Zac will be back on the Tory benches quicker than a rat up a drainpipe.
It's going to be soft Brexit. We will still pay billions, but they will call these contributions something else, to save face. Freedom of Movement will become Freedom to Move with a job offer.
We will get back control of many laws, but still be subject to the ECJ in terms of the Single Market. Over which we will have less influence. Hardcore Brexiteers and ultra Remainers will be incensed. Most voters will shrug and accept.
And slowly, over time, the UK will grow apart from the EU.
I think I predicted this outcome about a week after the vote.
I don't recall your being in much of a state, a week after the vote, to be predicting very much at all (apart from imminent doom, as I remember)?
In between my many meltdowns, I did have saner interludes. During which I made precisely this prediction (which I've repeated ever since). Brexit will be a mixture of British muddle and EU-fudge. It's what both sides do so well.
It will be bad enough for the EU to laugh at us and say we got a crap deal, it will be good enough for TMay to sell it to the Brits as a plucky and successful escape.
You have been consistent in this prediction but I think you may be proven wrong, because while joe public might not care one way or the other, there is a very large minority in the Tory party, inside and outside Parliament, that do and very much so.
If Zac loses... Really quite a remarkable fall from grace. In the space of maybe seven months to go from respected independent forward looking conservative mp... To reviled racist campaigning ex-mp who failed utterly to convince his party on Heathrow.
Andrew Neil Of 650,000 who migrated here year to June: 176k to a job 127k looking for work 89k accompanying others 164k to study 86K other or no reason
Whatever the result in Richmond it will be a gain from the Conservatives. Can anyone remember a by election where the government lost a seat by not putting up a candidate? Wartime? The Liberals before the First World War?
Good question. Running away is terrible leadership.
I think the WW2 by-elections were all stood in by a candidate from one or other of the parties in the coalition government. When the seats were contested they often lost to radical leftwing candidates, such as in Maldon in 1942 and Eddisbury in 1943. But at least they had the guts to come back and fight the next one.
Maybe the Tories will get an even harder slap in the next general election than they got in 1945?
If Zac loses... Really quite a remarkable fall from grace. In the space of maybe seven months to go from respected independent forward looking conservative mp... To reviled racist campaigning ex-mp who failed utterly to convince his party on Heathrow.
And two fewer old Etonians in the Tory party (after Cameron's departure).
"It's going to be soft Brexit. We will still pay billions, but they will call these contributions something else, to save face. Freedom of Movement will become Freedom to Move with a job offer."
Probably, and I'd have been happy with that.
But now I think we ought to teach these Europeans a lesson. Firstly for saying we can't leave, and then for threatening to teach us a lesson for daring to leave.
Who do they think we are? We don't bow the knee to dictators. The Europhiles need to man up (or however Eric phrases it) and remember "Britons never never never shall be slaves."
For anyone who doesn't fancy the whole thing, FFW to 12mins re the motivation of arms companies.
I thought this from JFK was interesting too re secret societies.
I'm bored stiff of PBers micro bickering thread after thread. There's big stuff to discuss re the end of political correctness inc on campuses /censoring re social media platforms of supposed fake news - attempts to overthrow democracy that doesn't suit the Left.
This is massive counter revolution by the Right where it's suddenly okay to say things and joke for the first time in years.
FDR, Harry Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson are ranked 2nd, 6th, 9th, 11th, 13th in the all time presidential rankings - a sequence of presidential rankings that hasn't nearly been came close to since. JFK at the time of his assasination had 70+% approval !
The most recent "sequence of 5" is
Reagen 15th HW Bush 22nd Clinton 20th W Bush 34th B Obama 17th
So actually the bar isn't particularly historically high for Trump.
Cake is a very good thing. No wonder the GBBO was such a success. Making it the first priority of government is novel and imaginative too. What could go wrong?
@PaulBrandITV: Senior Labour HQ source tells me the party could lose its deposit in Richmond. Not entirely sure if it's dark humour or totally serious.
A bit of clear blue water between us and the Frogs for 5th largest global economy.
I think €1.20 and $1.30 are fair long term rates for soft-Brexit Britain. Our internal devaluation won't be as tough either, even if oil goes up to $60, although I don't rate those chances because US and Canadian shale will drive prices back down to ~$50 which feels like the new equilibrium.
"“The latest PMI indicates that the UK manufacturing sector remained in good health during November. Although the recent growth spurt showed further signs of slowing, the pace of expansion is still solid and above its long-term trend. This should be sufficient to ensure manufacturing is a positive contributor to fourth quarter GDP." https://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/5b8850ae3e93410d9f4e2aa782a22660
BBC reporting markiteconomics: "UK manufacturing sector growth slowed in November, a closely-watched survey has indicated.
The Markit/CIPS purchasing managers' index (PMI) fell to 53.4 from 54.2 in October. A figure above 50 indicates expansion.
It really is remarkable. It is even more remarkable that the majority of the country just does not want to listen to them anymore. It must be very frustrating.
@PaulBrandITV: Senior Labour HQ source tells me the party could lose its deposit in Richmond. Not entirely sure if it's dark humour or totally serious.
Comments
More seriously, this is the mindset that wins referendums and elections, and may win more.
Before YouTube, we'd never have seen a speech made just once
https://youtu.be/CWiIYW_fBfY
I just note that migration, which has become a toxic totem for British debate, is surrounded in much confusion.
We need independent forecasting on why, where and whom, and to what impact. For eg, What *does* happen to all those students? Is there a particular type that stays? What kind of jobs to they take?
Let's shine a light on. The "left" have been culpable in not opening this up, and now the "right" are colluding by trying to find the most negative spin.
I still think the Verhofstadt solution to a transactional immigration system is what we're looking at, again something which would be a big win for the UK since we export highly skilled workers and import unskilled workers.
https://twitter.com/therealbradg/status/804048624615198720
We don't record individuals entering and leaving the UK. So we have no idea whether people coming here to work, as students or on holiday are still here or have left.
The ONS carries out a small, unrepresentative sample of interviews of travellers entering and leaving the country but there is a massive range of statistical error which the ONS do not deny.
Oh and it screwed the country up by holding a crazy referendum. And Theresa May stands there in pearls and shoes and tells us the Competent Sherpas of Whitehall will manage those foreigner fuzzywuzzies awfully competently in the the negotiations, and nobody should worry. What could possibly go wrong?
Is there a market on UKIP winning the most votes in the next general election?
It looks like boring mindless tweet crazy service-as-usual to me.
Is he making a comeback?
As for Richmond Park, it's not formally contesting the seat because it's informally contesting it. Why isn't UKIP standing?
On topic. ‘Would the Tories stand aside in a seat where UKIP was 2nd behind LAB?’ – Er, No.
From whence do modern Palestinians come? Am I to believe that at some point the country we know as Palestine/Israel was completely ethnically cleared, and new inhabitants appeared.
That George was ethnic Greek I'll accept, although I believe there's some argument about it. Not sure how that goes down with the National Front and the like, of course.
I know the Labour party is a shambles, but so is the Tory party, and neither observation is especially controversial. Got to wonder whether either of them will get past 23% in the next general election.
The assumptions of yesterday are easily forgotten once proven false.
Wasn't Jesus born a jew in Judah?
He seems to have forgotten that his iwn constituency voted to leave.. will he kindly stand down?
OGH is right though that politics will continue to be dominated by Brexit for years to come, no matter how much many people will try to make it otherwise. This is another reason that Brexit is A Bad Thing. It is sucking the life out of politics - the metaphorical cost is in many ways as high as the actual financial cost of going through the whole palaver. A palaver that we're being through (kicking and screaming, as it will turn out) because of the ideological obsessions of a bunch of reactionaries.
Didn't the Canaanites and Jebusites reproduce? Why do you use inverted commas around the term "Palestinian" when referring to people who call themselves that today? Don't you think people have the right to call themselves by the ethnic identity names that they want? Or do a few such names only refer to something worthless that shouldn't exist?
@LadPolitics: Richmond Park guess:
Zac 49%
LDs 43%
Lab 6%
And over time the percentage of our trade with the EU will significantly diminish. This was already happening and is inevitable as the relatively unsuccessful EU forms an ever smaller part of world trade. Brexit will merely accelerate the trend.
I thought this from JFK was interesting too re secret societies.
I'm bored stiff of PBers micro bickering thread after thread. There's big stuff to discuss re the end of political correctness inc on campuses /censoring re social media platforms of supposed fake news - attempts to overthrow democracy that doesn't suit the Left.
This is massive counter revolution by the Right where it's suddenly okay to say things and joke for the first time in years.
https://youtu.be/zdMbmdFOvTs
Wonder if Zac will beat that this evening...
Of 650,000 who migrated here year to June:
176k to a job
127k looking for work
89k accompanying others
164k to study
86K other or no reason
I think the WW2 by-elections were all stood in by a candidate from one or other of the parties in the coalition government. When the seats were contested they often lost to radical leftwing candidates, such as in Maldon in 1942 and Eddisbury in 1943. But at least they had the guts to come back and fight the next one.
Maybe the Tories will get an even harder slap in the next general election than they got in 1945?
https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/747000584226607104/photo/1
BBC by-election coverage due to finish at 3am.
"It's going to be soft Brexit. We will still pay billions, but they will call these contributions something else, to save face. Freedom of Movement will become Freedom to Move with a job offer."
Probably, and I'd have been happy with that.
But now I think we ought to teach these Europeans a lesson. Firstly for saying we can't leave, and then for threatening to teach us a lesson for daring to leave.
Who do they think we are? We don't bow the knee to dictators. The Europhiles need to man up (or however Eric phrases it) and remember "Britons never never never shall be slaves."
Internment camps for the French?
She was a remainer (in public at least)
Bojo on the other hand may have some explaining to do...
JFK at the time of his assasination had 70+% approval !
The most recent "sequence of 5" is
Reagen 15th
HW Bush 22nd
Clinton 20th
W Bush 34th
B Obama 17th
So actually the bar isn't particularly historically high for Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States Aggregate rankings.
https://countrysquire.co.uk/2016/11/30/livingstone-staff-celebrated-911/
https://youtu.be/F1MVZYtX5Zg
Oh, wait...
Stiffen your sinews, man. You'd be the one who at Waterloo would have said. "Ooh, those cannonballs look awfully hard."
It's only Europe, and they need a lesson.
That'll show 'em...
Cue the Brexiteers wailing that this is terrible news for exports...
@bbclaurak: David Davis confirms what PM has refused to.. we might keep paying into EU budget after Brexit for access to markets or other deals
I think €1.20 and $1.30 are fair long term rates for soft-Brexit Britain. Our internal devaluation won't be as tough either, even if oil goes up to $60, although I don't rate those chances because US and Canadian shale will drive prices back down to ~$50 which feels like the new equilibrium.
markiteconomics:
"“The latest PMI indicates that the UK manufacturing
sector remained in good health during November.
Although the recent growth spurt showed further
signs of slowing, the pace of expansion is still solid
and above its long-term trend. This should be
sufficient to ensure manufacturing is a positive
contributor to fourth quarter GDP."
https://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/5b8850ae3e93410d9f4e2aa782a22660
BBC reporting markiteconomics:
"UK manufacturing sector growth slowed in November, a closely-watched survey has indicated.
The Markit/CIPS purchasing managers' index (PMI) fell to 53.4 from 54.2 in October. A figure above 50 indicates expansion.
The weakening of the pound following the Brexit vote pushed up costs for manufacturers."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38167943
It really is remarkable. It is even more remarkable that the majority of the country just does not want to listen to them anymore. It must be very frustrating.
https://twitter.com/oflynnmep/status/804285098019454976