Shameful from Mrs May, as nasty as Gordon Brown's BNP policy of British jobs for British Workers.
Citizen of the World = Meaningless bollocks.
"The World" does not provide the rights and responsibilities that are inherent with the concept of citizenship.
May was absolutely right to say what she said. "Citizen of the World" is a meaningless concept in practice except for the ultra rich who can, to a large extent, afford to ignore the existence of states.
The Corbyn lustre fades gradually. Brexit goes through and the UK economy begins to bounce. The deficit is dealt with (if not removed) and, most importantly of all, the May camp learn from the awful mistakes of this last election campaign.
Worth betting on a Conservative victory in 2022?
Better than evens on Tories getting most seats would be the bet I'd go for. Doubt May will be leader though in 2022.
As an aside - I doubt the economy will bounce from Brexit. The short term risk is downside. A transitional deal would avoid that but it won't cause a bounce.
Just came from a really really downbeat economic briefing...
Why should one be surprised at Lord Foulkes' barmy idea? There is no aspect of human activity that Labour figures don't want to impose state regulation on.
It's a harbinger of things to come once Labour regain office.
The Tories may be many things, but they don't try and order you what to do.
Theresa May's internet regulations? David Cameron and pornography? Thatcher and gay rights/Section 28?
Isolated examples, and I disagree with all three.
David Cameron scrapped ID cards, control orders and legalised gay marriage too.
I don't doubt you oppose all 3 - but to suggest the Tories don't order people what to do is wrong. Would you like more 'isolated' examples?
Banning khat, general drugs policy, extremist disruption orders, ripping up human rights, European arrest warrant, abortion limits, assisted suicide...
I agree on drugs, where restriction is currently the policy of both main parties, but plenty of Tories (including myself) are libertarians on that.
The Tories haven't done anything to abortion limits or human rights, and parliament as a whole voted to keep the law on assisted suicide as the status quo.
Why should one be surprised at Lord Foulkes' barmy idea? There is no aspect of human activity that Labour figures don't want to impose state regulation on.
It's a harbinger of things to come once Labour regain office.
The Tories may be many things, but they don't try and order you what to do.
Except give up your rights as an EU citizen.
If it matters to you so much why not go and live in the EU?
After Brexit he may not be able to!
He will be able to within the boundaries of the immigration law of the countries concerned, he just won't have an absolute right to do so.
I expect it to be as simple as moving to live in the US, Canada, Australia or NZ, or non-EU European states, and possibly even more so.
I can assure you that moving to live in the US is in no way "simple".
It is up to each nation to decide its immigration policy. All of these countries allow visiting for 90 days, and usually working for 80-180 days, and generally a job offer in an industry that requires temporary foreign workers is sufficient to live and work there for a period, and start to qualify for more permanent residence.
Or, if you have sufficient funds and money to support yourself, you can retire to many too.
What problem is State regulation of polling companies intended to solve?
Perhaps they influence voters voting intentions too much. Would Tories have got a majority in 2015 without all the polls showing it TCTC for example.
Equally, would Labour have got that close in 2017 if people hadn't thought the Tories had it in the bag?
IMHO, it would have made a difference but only at the margins.
For instance, the turnout of the over 55s would have been higher, and this probably would have been enough to save several seats and grant May a small overall majority, broadly equivalent to Cameron's.
Shameful from Mrs May, as nasty as Gordon Brown's BNP policy of British jobs for British Workers.
Identities can be complex, but I think it's legitimate to raise an eyebrow at those who loudly profess no loyalty or affinity to the nation whose citizenship they hold, but enjoy all its benefits and privileges. Yet alone those who actively sneer at and deride it.
A politician could quite reasonably point out that such behaviour can be both selfish and hypocritical.
A politician can do as they please. They won't get many votes from those who think that "citizens of the world" are people quite like them. It was an insult to the Easyjet Generation.
The Corbyn lustre fades gradually. Brexit goes through and the UK economy begins to bounce. The deficit is dealt with (if not removed) and, most importantly of all, the May camp learn from the awful mistakes of this last election campaign.
Worth betting on a Conservative victory in 2022?
Better than evens on Tories getting most seats would be the bet I'd go for. Doubt May will be leader though in 2022.
As an aside - I doubt the economy will bounce from Brexit. The short term risk is downside. A transitional deal would avoid that but it won't cause a bounce.
Just came from a really really downbeat economic briefing...
There is a public aspect to opinion polling. Rightly or wrongly, they influence the dynamics of politics both during an election campaign and at other times. Yet they do not have a particularly distinguished track record. It's reasonable enough for politicians to ask searching questions of a highly influential yet not very accurate industry.
You could say the same about economic forecasting.
Economists regularly have their work tossed and gored in Parliament.
Over the next few months and years, I think a lot of economists are going to have great big fuck off I told you so looks on their faces. This guy helped to put together the £4,300 figure used in the Brexit debate.
The interesting paradox he describes is that a worse trading position post-Brexit is supposed to be a price worth paying for Brexiters, and yet the whole point about the many and various trade agreements we will apparently be free to make (which of course require a surrender of sovereigny, almost by definition), is, so the very same Brexiters tell us, to make us better off.
Yes, and I am an advocate of re-joining EFTA.
The problem is free movement of workers, but if this could be qualified (and it does already possess an emergency brake, and entitlements to welfare are also different) then it should wash.
Knee jerk response: state regulation can't make them much worse, so the only way is up.
On further thought: nothing is so useless that state interference cannot make it worse.
Conclusion: clip their wings - have French type rules about publication in the last week of campaigning.
No, that would mean the great unwashed have no access to polling data while the banks, hedge funds etc can commission their own private polls.
You'd have thought that market forces would drive political pollsters out of business, given the worthlessness of what they are selling. As with university fees, though (where it was thought only Russell Group would get away with asking for £9,000, free market theory works absolutely beautifully in theory, but not at all in any practical situation where it might do some actual good.
Except for setting remuneration for ftse100 CEOs, of course, where it clearly works a treat.
What problem is State regulation of polling companies intended to solve?
Perhaps they influence voters voting intentions too much. Would Tories have got a majority in 2015 without all the polls showing it TCTC for example.
Equally, would Labour have got that close in 2017 if people hadn't thought the Tories had it in the bag?
Everyone would still have thought the Tories had it in the bag because that was the story being briefed by all sides, whether based on social media or canvassing.
Ironically, it was only opinion polls that pointed to the actual result, and even then only if you squinted hard at the right ones.
Why should one be surprised at Lord Foulkes' barmy idea? There is no aspect of human activity that Labour figures don't want to impose state regulation on.
It's a harbinger of things to come once Labour regain office.
The Tories may be many things, but they don't try and order you what to do.
Theresa May's internet regulations? David Cameron and pornography? Thatcher and gay rights/Section 28?
Isolated examples, and I disagree with all three.
David Cameron scrapped ID cards, control orders and legalised gay marriage too.
I don't doubt you oppose all 3 - but to suggest the Tories don't order people what to do is wrong. Would you like more 'isolated' examples?
Banning khat, general drugs policy, extremist disruption orders, ripping up human rights, European arrest warrant, abortion limits, assisted suicide...
I agree on drugs, where restriction is currently the policy of both main parties, but plenty of Tories (including myself) are libertarians on that.
The Tories haven't done anything to abortion limits or human rights, and parliament as a whole voted to keep the law on assisted suicide as the status quo.
TM voted to lower abortion limits and against assisted suicide. She's frequently talked about getting rid of human rights legislation. She's the least liberal Tory for some time I think.
Knee jerk response: state regulation can't make them much worse, so the only way is up.
On further thought: nothing is so useless that state interference cannot make it worse.
Conclusion: clip their wings - have French type rules about publication in the last week of campaigning.
No, that would mean the great unwashed have no access to polling data while the banks, hedge funds etc can commission their own private polls.
You'd have thought that market forces would drive political pollsters out of business, given the worthlessness of what they are selling. As with university fees, though (where it was thought only Russell Group would get away with asking for £9,000, free market theory works absolutely beautifully in theory, but not at all in any practical situation where it might do some actual good.
Except for setting remuneration for ftse100 CEOs, of course, where it clearly works a treat.
I'm not entirely sure it matters to journalism whether the polls are accurate. They still get a story ("Labour to be wiped out" etc etc) and then next day there's another one. Newspapers are driven by the need to get stories. If the polls turn out to be rubbish in the end it doesn't matter that much. Indeed, they get another story - "polls are rubbish".
Shameful from Mrs May, as nasty as Gordon Brown's BNP policy of British jobs for British Workers.
Identities can be complex, but I think it's legitimate to raise an eyebrow at those who loudly profess no loyalty or affinity to the nation whose citizenship they hold, but enjoy all its benefits and privileges. Yet alone those who actively sneer at and deride it.
A politician could quite reasonably point out that such behaviour can be both selfish and hypocritical.
A politician can do as they please. They won't get many votes from those who think that "citizens of the world" are people quite like them. It was an insult to the Easyjet Generation.
A brilliant tag line and idea which works everywhere. I just thought the idea deserved a more imaginative execution.
There is a public aspect to opinion polling. Rightly or wrongly, they influence the dynamics of politics both during an election campaign and at other times. Yet they do not have a particularly distinguished track record. It's reasonable enough for politicians to ask searching questions of a highly influential yet not very accurate industry.
You could say the same about economic forecasting.
Economists regularly have their work tossed and gored in Parliament.
Over the next few months and years, I think a lot of economists are going to have great big fuck off I told you so looks on their faces. This guy helped to put together the £4,300 figure used in the Brexit debate.
The interesting paradox he describes is that a worse trading position post-Brexit is supposed to be a price worth paying for Brexiters, and yet the whole point about the many and various trade agreements we will apparently be free to make (which of course require a surrender of sovereigny, almost by definition), is, so the very same Brexiters tell us, to make us better off.
Yes, and I am an advocate of re-joining EFTA.
The problem is free movement of workers, but if this could be qualified (and it does already possess an emergency brake, and entitlements to welfare are also different) then it should wash.
That seems to be politically unacceptable to both Cons & Lab alike.
Why should one be surprised at Lord Foulkes' barmy idea? There is no aspect of human activity that Labour figures don't want to impose state regulation on.
It's a harbinger of things to come once Labour regain office.
The Tories may be many things, but they don't try and order you what to do.
Except give up your rights as an EU citizen.
I never asked for it, nor do I even accept it as a concept. And I am fully satisfied with British citizenship and always have been.
People are citizens of nation states (and nation states alone) in my eyes.
Come on; are you really telling me you wouldn't pay £200 to be an EU citizen in perpetuity and skip the queues at Rome airport post Brexit. I'm certainly going to pay - for any reasonably well off person, who travels a lot, you'd be mad not to.
Shameful from Mrs May, as nasty as Gordon Brown's BNP policy of British jobs for British Workers.
Identities can be complex, but I think it's legitimate to raise an eyebrow at those who loudly profess no loyalty or affinity to the nation whose citizenship they hold, but enjoy all its benefits and privileges. Yet alone those who actively sneer at and deride it.
A politician could quite reasonably point out that such behaviour can be both selfish and hypocritical.
A politician can do as they please. They won't get many votes from those who think that "citizens of the world" are people quite like them. It was an insult to the Easyjet Generation.
The Corbyn lustre fades gradually. Brexit goes through and the UK economy begins to bounce. The deficit is dealt with (if not removed) and, most importantly of all, the May camp learn from the awful mistakes of this last election campaign.
Worth betting on a Conservative victory in 2022?
Better than evens on Tories getting most seats would be the bet I'd go for. Doubt May will be leader though in 2022.
As an aside - I doubt the economy will bounce from Brexit. The short term risk is downside. A transitional deal would avoid that but it won't cause a bounce.
Just came from a really really downbeat economic briefing...
Do you share their assessment?
I feel gloomy about UK economy. Rising inflation, mediocre growth, Brexit challenges and uncertainty, and rates as low as they can go and a potential rise looming...
Shameful from Mrs May, as nasty as Gordon Brown's BNP policy of British jobs for British Workers.
Identities can be complex, but I think it's legitimate to raise an eyebrow at those who loudly profess no loyalty or affinity to the nation whose citizenship they hold, but enjoy all its benefits and privileges. Yet alone those who actively sneer at and deride it.
A politician could quite reasonably point out that such behaviour can be both selfish and hypocritical.
A politician can do as they please. They won't get many votes from those who think that "citizens of the world" are people quite like them. It was an insult to the Easyjet Generation.
I am of that generation.
I wasn't insulted.
As you can see by the results in London, lots of people felt very differently about this from you.
Shameful from Mrs May, as nasty as Gordon Brown's BNP policy of British jobs for British Workers.
Identities can be complex, but I think it's legitimate to raise an eyebrow at those who loudly profess no loyalty or affinity to the nation whose citizenship they hold, but enjoy all its benefits and privileges. Yet alone those who actively sneer at and deride it.
A politician could quite reasonably point out that such behaviour can be both selfish and hypocritical.
A politician can do as they please. They won't get many votes from those who think that "citizens of the world" are people quite like them. It was an insult to the Easyjet Generation.
I am of that generation.
I wasn't insulted.
As you can see by the results in London, lots of people felt very differently about this from you.
Why should one be surprised at Lord Foulkes' barmy idea? There is no aspect of human activity that Labour figures don't want to impose state regulation on.
It's a harbinger of things to come once Labour regain office.
The Tories may be many things, but they don't try and order you what to do.
Except give up your rights as an EU citizen.
I never asked for it, nor do I even accept it as a concept. And I am fully satisfied with British citizenship and always have been.
People are citizens of nation states (and nation states alone) in my eyes.
Come on; are you really telling me you wouldn't pay £200 to be an EU citizen in perpetuity and skip the queues at Rome airport post Brexit. I'm certainly going to pay - for any reasonably well off person, who travels a lot, you'd be mad not to.
I wouldn't pay to be an EU citizen on principle.
I might consider paying for an accelerated regular visa or passport clearance. But, I am already happy to queue for proper non-Schengen passport checks at the UK Border.
Come on; are you really telling me you wouldn't pay £200 to be an EU citizen in perpetuity and skip the queues at Rome airport post Brexit. I'm certainly going to pay - for any reasonably well off person, who travels a lot, you'd be mad not to.
I think I've finally understood the psychological appeal of the Swiss or Norwegian option for someone who nevertheless regards the EU as a 'good thing'. If you're Swiss, for example, it's much easier to adopt an arch, detached attitude to the world around you, sitting above the fray from a privileged position. People will neither look down on you nor expect you to be able to justify the actions of your country.
Shameful from Mrs May, as nasty as Gordon Brown's BNP policy of British jobs for British Workers.
Identities can be complex, but I think it's legitimate to raise an eyebrow at those who loudly profess no loyalty or affinity to the nation whose citizenship they hold, but enjoy all its benefits and privileges. Yet alone those who actively sneer at and deride it.
A politician could quite reasonably point out that such behaviour can be both selfish and hypocritical.
A politician can do as they please. They won't get many votes from those who think that "citizens of the world" are people quite like them. It was an insult to the Easyjet Generation.
I am of that generation.
I wasn't insulted.
As you can see by the results in London, lots of people felt very differently about this from you.
Anyway she was talking about tax avoiding companies.
Her mistake was using the term citizen instead of company.
There is a public aspect to opinion polling. Rightly or wrongly, they influence the dynamics of politics both during an election campaign and at other times. Yet they do not have a particularly distinguished track record. It's reasonable enough for politicians to ask searching questions of a highly influential yet not very accurate industry.
You could say the same about economic forecasting.
Economists regularly have their work tossed and gored in Parliament.
Over the next few months and years, I think a lot of economists are going to have great big fuck off I told you so looks on their faces. This guy helped to put together the £4,300 figure used in the Brexit debate.
The interesting paradox he describes is that a worse trading position post-Brexit is supposed to be a price worth paying for Brexiters, and yet the whole point about the many and various trade agreements we will apparently be free to make (which of course require a surrender of sovereigny, almost by definition), is, so the very same Brexiters tell us, to make us better off.
Yes, and I am an advocate of re-joining EFTA.
The problem is free movement of workers, but if this could be qualified (and it does already possess an emergency brake, and entitlements to welfare are also different) then it should wash.
That seems to be politically unacceptable to both Cons & Lab alike.
I would prefer full independence, but the key thing for me is that Brexit is politically sustainable. Building up a new trading web outside the customs union, whilst maintaining close economic links with EFTA/EU, seems safe and sensible to me.
GE2017 changed the map (much to my frustration) and a bigger risk for me now is that Brexit is so rough and hard that there's a backlash that takes us right back into the EU again, but this time with all the federalist bells and whistles.
Shameful from Mrs May, as nasty as Gordon Brown's BNP policy of British jobs for British Workers.
Identities can be complex, but I think it's legitimate to raise an eyebrow at those who loudly profess no loyalty or affinity to the nation whose citizenship they hold, but enjoy all its benefits and privileges. Yet alone those who actively sneer at and deride it.
A politician could quite reasonably point out that such behaviour can be both selfish and hypocritical.
A politician can do as they please. They won't get many votes from those who think that "citizens of the world" are people quite like them. It was an insult to the Easyjet Generation.
I am of that generation.
I wasn't insulted.
As you can see by the results in London, lots of people felt very differently about this from you.
Anyway she was talking about tax avoiding companies.
Her mistake was using the term citizen instead of company.
It wasn't a mistake. It was a conscious and calculated affront to one group in order to signal to another group of voters that she was one of them.
There is a public aspect to opinion polling. Rightly or wrongly, they influence the dynamics of politics both during an election campaign and at other times. Yet they do not have a particularly distinguished track record. It's reasonable enough for politicians to ask searching questions of a highly influential yet not very accurate industry.
You could say the same about economic forecasting.
The biggest part of the 'Easyjet generation' are the people in their fifties and beyond who've retired on DB pension schemes that have benefited from endless top-up payments.
They are the ones who can afford to go on endless European city breaks.
Why should one be surprised at Lord Foulkes' barmy idea? There is no aspect of human activity that Labour figures don't want to impose state regulation on.
It's a harbinger of things to come once Labour regain office.
The Tories may be many things, but they don't try and order you what to do.
Theresa May's internet regulations? David Cameron and pornography? Thatcher and gay rights/Section 28?
Isolated examples, and I disagree with all three.
David Cameron scrapped ID cards, control orders and legalised gay marriage too.
I don't doubt you oppose all 3 - but to suggest the Tories don't order people what to do is wrong. Would you like more 'isolated' examples?
Banning khat, general drugs policy, extremist disruption orders, ripping up human rights, European arrest warrant, abortion limits, assisted suicide...
I agree on drugs, where restriction is currently the policy of both main parties, but plenty of Tories (including myself) are libertarians on that.
The Tories haven't done anything to abortion limits or human rights, and parliament as a whole voted to keep the law on assisted suicide as the status quo.
TM voted to lower abortion limits and against assisted suicide. She's frequently talked about getting rid of human rights legislation. She's the least liberal Tory for some time I think.
I don't agree with her on everything. But that should be the case for any supporter of a political party.
Shameful from Mrs May, as nasty as Gordon Brown's BNP policy of British jobs for British Workers.
Identities can be complex, but I think it's legitimate to raise an eyebrow at those who loudly profess no loyalty or affinity to the nation whose citizenship they hold, but enjoy all its benefits and privileges. Yet alone those who actively sneer at and deride it.
A politician could quite reasonably point out that such behaviour can be both selfish and hypocritical.
A politician can do as they please. They won't get many votes from those who think that "citizens of the world" are people quite like them. It was an insult to the Easyjet Generation.
I am of that generation.
I wasn't insulted.
Quite... you can be a regular traveller and still be a patriotic citizen of somewhere.
It wasn't a mistake. It was a conscious and calculated affront to one group in order to signal to another group of voters that she was one of them.
If someone describes themselves as a 'global citizen' it's usually taken to mean they feel a sense of responsibility for the planet as a whole, or towards the developing world but there is no implication of rootlessness or disloyalty to their own country. May chose the phrase 'citizens of the world' to as a foil for her nationalistic rhetoric designed to divide and demonise.
Shameful from Mrs May, as nasty as Gordon Brown's BNP policy of British jobs for British Workers.
Identities can be complex, but I think it's legitimate to raise an eyebrow at those who loudly profess no loyalty or affinity to the nation whose citizenship they hold, but enjoy all its benefits and privileges. Yet alone those who actively sneer at and deride it.
A politician could quite reasonably point out that such behaviour can be both selfish and hypocritical.
A politician can do as they please. They won't get many votes from those who think that "citizens of the world" are people quite like them. It was an insult to the Easyjet Generation.
I am of that generation.
I wasn't insulted.
As you can see by the results in London, lots of people felt very differently about this from you.
Anyway she was talking about tax avoiding companies.
Her mistake was using the term citizen instead of company.
It wasn't a mistake. It was a conscious and calculated affront to one group in order to signal to another group of voters that she was one of them.
What's your theory as to why the group she was targeting didn't go wholesale to her?
Why should one be surprised at Lord Foulkes' barmy idea? There is no aspect of human activity that Labour figures don't want to impose state regulation on.
It's a harbinger of things to come once Labour regain office.
The Tories may be many things, but they don't try and order you what to do.
Except give up your rights as an EU citizen.
I never asked for it, nor do I even accept it as a concept. And I am fully satisfied with British citizenship and always have been.
People are citizens of nation states (and nation states alone) in my eyes.
Your particular brand of chauvinism has nothing to do with your original point that the Tories don't tell people what to do. They do.
A marvellous non sequitur there.
If you view British citizenship as chauvinistic you are more than welcome to live somewhere else.
Some leavers appear terrified of admitting there is any downside to Brexit.
Just be honest and accept that leaving does affect some of the rights people have had for years. You might think they are worthless, others don't.
It wasn't a mistake. It was a conscious and calculated affront to one group in order to signal to another group of voters that she was one of them.
If someone describes themselves as a 'global citizen' it's usually taken to mean they feel a sense of responsibility for the planet as a whole, or towards the developing world but there is no implication of rootlessness or disloyalty to their own country. May chose the phrase 'citizens of the world' to as a foil for her nationalistic rhetoric designed to divide and demonise.
I agree. That is what her remarks meant to me, a turning away from the world. She has a very narrow and parochial view of Britain and not one that I share.
Shameful from Mrs May, as nasty as Gordon Brown's BNP policy of British jobs for British Workers.
Identities can be complex, but I think it's legitimate to raise an eyebrow at those who loudly profess no loyalty or affinity to the nation whose citizenship they hold, but enjoy all its benefits and privileges. Yet alone those who actively sneer at and deride it.
A politician could quite reasonably point out that such behaviour can be both selfish and hypocritical.
A politician can do as they please. They won't get many votes from those who think that "citizens of the world" are people quite like them. It was an insult to the Easyjet Generation.
I am of that generation.
I wasn't insulted.
As you can see by the results in London, lots of people felt very differently about this from you.
Anyway she was talking about tax avoiding companies.
Her mistake was using the term citizen instead of company.
It wasn't a mistake. It was a conscious and calculated affront to one group in order to signal to another group of voters that she was one of them.
What's your theory as to why the group she was targeting didn't go wholesale to her?
Why should one be surprised at Lord Foulkes' barmy idea? There is no aspect of human activity that Labour figures don't want to impose state regulation on.
It's a harbinger of things to come once Labour regain office.
The Tories may be many things, but they don't try and order you what to do.
Except give up your rights as an EU citizen.
I never asked for it, nor do I even accept it as a concept. And I am fully satisfied with British citizenship and always have been.
People are citizens of nation states (and nation states alone) in my eyes.
Come on; are you really telling me you wouldn't pay £200 to be an EU citizen in perpetuity and skip the queues at Rome airport post Brexit. I'm certainly going to pay - for any reasonably well off person, who travels a lot, you'd be mad not to.
It seems practically difficult to implement, but the proposals for us to buy back our EU citizenship on an opt-in basis are really something the government should be leaping at from a political standpoint. What better way to take the sting out of Brexit for remainers than allowing them to keep their rights. It could even allow for cover for a harder brexit elsewhere.
There is a public aspect to opinion polling. Rightly or wrongly, they influence the dynamics of politics both during an election campaign and at other times. Yet they do not have a particularly distinguished track record. It's reasonable enough for politicians to ask searching questions of a highly influential yet not very accurate industry.
You could say the same about economic forecasting.
Economists regularly have their work tossed and gored in Parliament.
Over the next few months and years, I think a lot of economists are going to have great big fuck off I told you so looks on their faces. This guy helped to put together the £4,300 figure used in the Brexit debate.
The interesting paradox he describes is that a worse trading position post-Brexit is supposed to be a price worth paying for Brexiters, and yet the whole point about the many and various trade agreements we will apparently be free to make (which of course require a surrender of sovereigny, almost by definition), is, so the very same Brexiters tell us, to make us better off.
Yes, and I am an advocate of re-joining EFTA.
The problem is free movement of workers, but if this could be qualified (and it does already possess an emergency brake, and entitlements to welfare are also different) then it should wash.
That seems to be politically unacceptable to both Cons & Lab alike.
I would prefer full independence, but the key thing for me is that Brexit is politically sustainable. Building up a new trading web outside the customs union, whilst maintaining close economic links with EFTA/EU, seems safe and sensible to me.
GE2017 changed the map (much to my frustration) and a bigger risk for me now is that Brexit is so rough and hard that there's a backlash that takes us right back into the EU again, but this time with all the federalist bells and whistles.
In such circumstances it would clearly be better not to leave in the first place. The question is whether people will realise the idiocy of Brexit before we reach the point of no return.
Shameful from Mrs May, as nasty as Gordon Brown's BNP policy of British jobs for British Workers.
Identities can be complex, but I think it's legitimate to raise an eyebrow at those who loudly profess no loyalty or affinity to the nation whose citizenship they hold, but enjoy all its benefits and privileges. Yet alone those who actively sneer at and deride it.
A politician could quite reasonably point out that such behaviour can be both selfish and hypocritical.
A politician can do as they please. They won't get many votes from those who think that "citizens of the world" are people quite like them. It was an insult to the Easyjet Generation.
I am of that generation.
I wasn't insulted.
As you can see by the results in London, lots of people felt very differently about this from you.
Anyway she was talking about tax avoiding companies.
Her mistake was using the term citizen instead of company.
It wasn't a mistake. It was a conscious and calculated affront to one group in order to signal to another group of voters that she was one of them.
What's your theory as to why the group she was targeting didn't go wholesale to her?
I'm still thinking about that.
Maybe the promise of £350 million for the NHS was more potent then "controlling our borders" for many more LEAVE voters then we thought, I.e economic anxiety trumped cultural anxiety.
Shameful from Mrs May, as nasty as Gordon Brown's BNP policy of British jobs for British Workers.
Identities can be complex, but I think it's legitimate to raise an eyebrow at those who loudly profess no loyalty or affinity to the nation whose citizenship they hold, but enjoy all its benefits and privileges. Yet alone those who actively sneer at and deride it.
A politician could quite reasonably point out that such behaviour can be both selfish and hypocritical.
A politician can do as they please. They won't get many votes from those who think that "citizens of the world" are people quite like them. It was an insult to the Easyjet Generation.
I am of that generation.
I wasn't insulted.
As you can see by the results in London, lots of people felt very differently about this from you.
Anyway she was talking about tax avoiding companies.
Her mistake was using the term citizen instead of company.
It wasn't a mistake. It was a conscious and calculated affront to one group in order to signal to another group of voters that she was one of them.
What's your theory as to why the group she was targeting didn't go wholesale to her?
I'm still thinking about that.
Maybe the promise of £350 million for the NHS was more potent then "controlling our borders" for many more LEAVE voters then we thought, I.e economic anxiety trumped cultural anxiety.
I think that's possible.
I also think the absence of policy reasons to vote for Theresa May may have been a consideration.
I also think that the experience of having pulled the fruit machine handle once with Brexit may have emboldened many voters to do so again with Jeremy Corbyn.
And I think that we're probably missing some important stuff at present.
Why should one be surprised at Lord Foulkes' barmy idea? There is no aspect of human activity that Labour figures don't want to impose state regulation on.
It's a harbinger of things to come once Labour regain office.
The Tories may be many things, but they don't try and order you what to do.
Except give up your rights as an EU citizen.
I never asked for it, nor do I even accept it as a concept. And I am fully satisfied with British citizenship and always have been.
People are citizens of nation states (and nation states alone) in my eyes.
Come on; are you really telling me you wouldn't pay £200 to be an EU citizen in perpetuity and skip the queues at Rome airport post Brexit. I'm certainly going to pay - for any reasonably well off person, who travels a lot, you'd be mad not to.
It seems practically difficult to implement, but the proposals for us to buy back our EU citizenship on an opt-in basis are really something the government should be leaping at from a political standpoint. What better way to take the sting out of Brexit for remainers than allowing them to keep their rights. It could even allow for cover for a harder brexit elsewhere.
An interesting road to go down. Only the rich can afford additional rights.
There is a public aspect to opinion polling. Rightly or wrongly, they influence the dynamics of politics both during an election campaign and at other times. Yet they do not have a particularly distinguished track record. It's reasonable enough for politicians to ask searching questions of a highly influential yet not very accurate industry.
You could say the same about economic forecasting.
Economists regularly have their work tossed and gored in Parliament.
Over the next few months and years, I think a lot of economists are going to have great big fuck off I told you so looks on their faces. This guy helped to put together the £4,300 figure used in the Brexit debate.
The interesting paradox he describes is that a worse trading position post-Brexit is supposed to be a price worth paying for Brexiters, and yet the whole point about the many and various trade agreements we will apparently be free to make (which of course require a surrender of sovereigny, almost by definition), is, so the very same Brexiters tell us, to make us better off.
Yes, and I am an advocate of re-joining EFTA.
The problem is free movement of workers, but if this could be qualified (and it does already possess an emergency brake, and entitlements to welfare are also different) then it should wash.
That seems to be politically unacceptable to both Cons & Lab alike.
I would prefer full independence, but the key thing for me is that Brexit is politically sustainable. Building up a new trading web outside the customs union, whilst maintaining close economic links with EFTA/EU, seems safe and sensible to me.
GE2017 changed the map (much to my frustration) and a bigger risk for me now is that Brexit is so rough and hard that there's a backlash that takes us right back into the EU again, but this time with all the federalist bells and whistles.
Yes but this is the paradox that Armstrong points out. There will be a price to pay which Brexiters say is worth paying. But Brexiters also said they wanted to leave in order to make us better off with new trade deals.
If the public gets a sniff of this paradox then yes they may choose to go back in.
Learning in schools and in the home should include literacy, numeracy, and skepticism. That appears to be asking a lot I know, but it's a reasonable asymptote. These tools can be used to criticize "fake news", newspaper articles, and polls. Putting a clamp on polls should be a non-issue. Next.
Shameful from Mrs May, as nasty as Gordon Brown's BNP policy of British jobs for British Workers.
Identities can be complex, but I think it's legitimate to raise an eyebrow at those who loudly profess no loyalty or affinity to the nation whose citizenship they hold, but enjoy all its benefits and privileges. Yet alone those who actively sneer at and deride it.
A politician could quite reasonably point out that such behaviour can be both selfish and hypocritical.
A politician can do as they please. They won't get many votes from those who think that "citizens of the world" are people quite like them. It was an insult to the Easyjet Generation.
I am of that generation.
I wasn't insulted.
As you can see by the results in London, lots of people felt very differently about this from you.
Anyway she was talking about tax avoiding companies.
Her mistake was using the term citizen instead of company.
It wasn't a mistake. It was a conscious and calculated affront to one group in order to signal to another group of voters that she was one of them.
What's your theory as to why the group she was targeting didn't go wholesale to her?
I'm still thinking about that.
Maybe the promise of £350 million for the NHS was more potent then "controlling our borders" for many more LEAVE voters then we thought, I.e economic anxiety trumped cultural anxiety.
I think that's possible.
I also think the absence of policy reasons to vote for Theresa May may have been a consideration.
I also think that the experience of having pulled the fruit machine handle once with Brexit may have emboldened many voters to do so again with Jeremy Corbyn.
And I think that we're probably missing some important stuff at present.
This is tough for you because you have to admit all 17 million voters weren't all won over by xenophobic lies.
Shameful from Mrs May, as nasty as Gordon Brown's BNP policy of British jobs for British Workers.
Identities can be complex, but I think it's legitimate to raise an eyebrow at those who loudly profess no loyalty or affinity to the nation whose citizenship they hold, but enjoy all its benefits and privileges. Yet alone those who actively sneer at and deride it.
A politician could quite reasonably point out that such behaviour can be both selfish and hypocritical.
A politician can do as they please. They won't get many votes from those who think that "citizens of the world" are people quite like them. It was an insult to the Easyjet Generation.
I am of that generation.
I wasn't insulted.
As you can see by the results in London, lots of people felt very differently about this from you.
Anyway she was talking about tax avoiding companies.
Her mistake was using the term citizen instead of company.
It wasn't a mistake. It was a conscious and calculated affront to one group in order to signal to another group of voters that she was one of them.
What's your theory as to why the group she was targeting didn't go wholesale to her?
I'm still thinking about that.
Maybe the promise of £350 million for the NHS was more potent then "controlling our borders" for many more LEAVE voters then we thought, I.e economic anxiety trumped cultural anxiety.
More likely they wanted both, almost 20% of 2015 UKIP voters voted for Corbyn
A welcome return for Henry Manson with a top tip on Fognini who won in 3 sets today.
Indeed. I've only had one Wimbledon bet so far. Cilic to win his quarter at 3/1. 5/2 now after his straight sets win today. He's gone out in the quarters the last 3 years but that was to federer once and djokovic twice so no shame there. The fav in his quarter is nadal but he hasn't got beyond R4 for a few years now and even if they do meet in the qtr final im not sure if have Rafa as fav.
There is a public aspect to opinion polling. Rightly or wrongly, they influence the dynamics of politics both during an election campaign and at other times. Yet they do not have a particularly distinguished track record. It's reasonable enough for politicians to ask searching questions of a highly influential yet not very accurate industry.
You could say the same about economic forecasting.
Economists regularly have their work tossed and gored in Parliament.
Over the next few months and years, I think a lot of economists are going to have great big fuck off I told you so looks on their faces. This guy helped to put together the £4,300 figure used in the Brexit debate.
The interesting paradox he describes is that a worse trading position post-Brexit is supposed to be a price worth paying for Brexiters, and yet the whole point about the many and various trade agreements we will apparently be free to make (which of course require a surrender of sovereigny, almost by definition), is, so the very same Brexiters tell us, to make us better off.
Yes, and I am an advocate of re-joining EFTA.
The problem is free movement of workers, but if this could be qualified (and it does already possess an emergency brake, and entitlements to welfare are also different) then it should wash.
That seems to be politically unacceptable to both Cons & Lab alike.
I would prefer full independence, but the key thing for me is that Brexit is politically sustainable. Building up a new trading web outside the customs union, whilst maintaining close economic links with EFTA/EU, seems safe and sensible to me.
GE2017 changed the map (much to my frustration) and a bigger risk for me now is that Brexit is so rough and hard that there's a backlash that takes us right back into the EU again, but this time with all the federalist bells and whistles.
In such circumstances it would clearly be better not to leave in the first place. The question is whether people will realise the idiocy of Brexit before we reach the point of no return.
We would get trade policy, fisheries, agriculture and regional policy back, additional migration controls and escape political union.
I also think the absence of policy reasons to vote for Theresa May may have been a consideration.
I also think that the experience of having pulled the fruit machine handle once with Brexit may have emboldened many voters to do so again with Jeremy Corbyn.
And I think that we're probably missing some important stuff at present.
This is tough for you because you have to admit all 17 million voters weren't all won over by xenophobic lies.
It's not tough for me at all. The referendum was won by xenophobic lies. Without the race-baiting that Leavers were entirely happy to indulge in, Leave would have lost.
That doesn't mean that all Leavers were motivated by xenophobia. There are plenty of batshit mental Leavers who think that Britain isn't presently an independent country. And there are undoubtedly some who thought that £350 million a year would be going to the NHS as a result.
Without all of this coalition of the doubly misled and the lunatic, Leave would have lost.
You could say the same about economic forecasting.
Economists regularly have their work tossed and gored in Parliament.
Over the next few months and years, I think a lot of economists are going to have great big fuck off I told you so looks on their faces. This guy helped to put together the £4,300 figure used in the Brexit debate.
The interesting paradox he describes is that a worse trading position post-Brexit is supposed to be a price worth paying for Brexiters, and yet the whole point about the many and various trade agreements we will apparently be free to make (which of course require a surrender of sovereigny, almost by definition), is, so the very same Brexiters tell us, to make us better off.
Yes, and I am an advocate of re-joining EFTA.
The problem is free movement of workers, but if this could be qualified (and it does already possess an emergency brake, and entitlements to welfare are also different) then it should wash.
That seems to be politically unacceptable to both Cons & Lab alike.
I would prefer full independence, but the key thing for me is that Brexit is politically sustainable. Building up a new trading web outside the customs union, whilst maintaining close economic links with EFTA/EU, seems safe and sensible to me.
GE2017 changed the map (much to my frustration) and a bigger risk for me now is that Brexit is so rough and hard that there's a backlash that takes us right back into the EU again, but this time with all the federalist bells and whistles.
In such circumstances it would clearly be better not to leave in the first place. The question is whether people will realise the idiocy of Brexit before we reach the point of no return.
We would get trade policy, fisheries, agriculture and regional policy back, additional migration controls and escape political union.
That's a significant win in my view.
In your view, perhaps. The reality is that the EU will have just as much influence over our policy with us sitting alone just on the edge, as it does now, when we at least get to participate.
Why should one be surprised at Lord Foulkes' barmy idea? There is no aspect of human activity that Labour figures don't want to impose state regulation on.
It's a harbinger of things to come once Labour regain office.
The Tories may be many things, but they don't try and order you what to do.
Except give up your rights as an EU citizen.
I never asked for it, nor do I even accept it as a concept. And I am fully satisfied with British citizenship and always have been.
People are citizens of nation states (and nation states alone) in my eyes.
Your particular brand of chauvinism has nothing to do with your original point that the Tories don't tell people what to do. They do.
A marvellous non sequitur there.
If you view British citizenship as chauvinistic you are more than welcome to live somewhere else.
Some leavers appear terrified of admitting there is any downside to Brexit.
Just be honest and accept that leaving does affect some of the rights people have had for years. You might think they are worthless, others don't.
I've been open and honest about the downsides since before the vote - I blogged about it and stand by it.
I also think the absence of policy reasons to vote for Theresa May may have been a consideration.
I also think that the experience of having pulled the fruit machine handle once with Brexit may have emboldened many voters to do so again with Jeremy Corbyn.
And I think that we're probably missing some important stuff at present.
This is tough for you because you have to admit all 17 million voters weren't all won over by xenophobic lies.
It's not tough for me at all. The referendum was won by xenophobic lies. Without the race-baiting that Leavers were entirely happy to indulge in, Leave would have lost.
That doesn't mean that all Leavers were motivated by xenophobia. There are plenty of batshit mental Leavers who think that Britain isn't presently an independent country. And there are undoubtedly some who thought that £350 million a year would be going to the NHS as a result.
Without all of this coalition of the doubly misled and the lunatic, Leave would have lost.
Maybe it put people off voting Leave, and they would have actually won by a bigger margin?
Why should one be surprised at Lord Foulkes' barmy idea? There is no aspect of human activity that Labour figures don't want to impose state regulation on.
It's a harbinger of things to come once Labour regain office.
The Tories may be many things, but they don't try and order you what to do.
Except give up your rights as an EU citizen.
I never asked for it, nor do I even accept it as a concept. And I am fully satisfied with British citizenship and always have been.
People are citizens of nation states (and nation states alone) in my eyes.
Your particular brand of chauvinism has nothing to do with your original point that the Tories don't tell people what to do. They do.
A marvellous non sequitur there.
If you view British citizenship as chauvinistic you are more than welcome to live somewhere else.
Some leavers appear terrified of admitting there is any downside to Brexit.
Just be honest and accept that leaving does affect some of the rights people have had for years. You might think they are worthless, others don't.
I've been open and honest about the downsides since before the vote - I blogged about it and stand by it.
It was a judgement call we all had to make.
Ditto. It would be nice to see some Remainers be open and honest about the upside of leaving.
You could say the same about economic forecasting.
Economists regularly have their work tossed and gored in Parliament.
Over the next few months and years, I think a lot of economists are going to have great big fuck off I told you so looks on their faces. This guy helped to put together the £4,300 figure used in the Brexit debate.
The interesting paradox he describes is that a worse trading position post-Brexit is supposed to be a price worth paying for Brexiters, and yet the whole point about the many and various trade agreements we will apparently be free to make (which of course require a surrender of sovereigny, almost by definition), is, so the very same Brexiters tell us, to make us better off.
Yes, and I am an advocate of re-joining EFTA.
The problem is free movement of workers, but if this could be qualified (and it does already possess an emergency brake, and entitlements to welfare are also different) then it should wash.
That seems to be politically unacceptable to both Cons & Lab alike.
I would prefer full independence, but the key thing for me is that Brexit is politically sustainable. Building up a new trading web outside the customs union, whilst maintaining close economic links with EFTA/EU, seems safe and sensible to me.
GE2017 changed the map (much to my frustration) and a bigger risk for me now is that Brexit is so rough and hard that there's a backlash that takes us right back into the EU again, but this time with all the federalist bells and whistles.
In such circumstances it would clearly be better not to leave in the first place. The question is whether people will realise the idiocy of Brexit before we reach the point of no return.
We would get trade policy, fisheries, agriculture and regional policy back, additional migration controls and escape political union.
That's a significant win in my view.
In your view, perhaps. The reality is that the EU will have just as much influence over our policy with us sitting alone just on the edge, as it does now, when we at least get to participate.
I don't think so. We will have less within the EU, for sure, and more domestically.
Why should one be surprised at Lord Foulkes' barmy idea? There is no aspect of human activity that Labour figures don't want to impose state regulation on.
It's a harbinger of things to come once Labour regain office.
The Tories may be many things, but they don't try and order you what to do.
Except give up your rights as an EU citizen.
I never asked for it, nor do I even accept it as a concept. And I am fully satisfied with British citizenship and always have been.
People are citizens of nation states (and nation states alone) in my eyes.
Your particular brand of chauvinism has nothing to do with your original point that the Tories don't tell people what to do. They do.
A marvellous non sequitur there.
If you view British citizenship as chauvinistic you are more than welcome to live somewhere else.
Some leavers appear terrified of admitting there is any downside to Brexit.
Just be honest and accept that leaving does affect some of the rights people have had for years. You might think they are worthless, others don't.
I've been open and honest about the downsides since before the vote - I blogged about it and stand by it.
It was a judgement call we all had to make.
Ditto. It would be nice to see some Remainers be open and honest about the upside of leaving.
Once I see one about the manner in which Britain voted to leave the EU, I'll be sure to let you know.
I also think the absence of policy reasons to vote for Theresa May may have been a consideration.
I also think that the experience of having pulled the fruit machine handle once with Brexit may have emboldened many voters to do so again with Jeremy Corbyn.
And I think that we're probably missing some important stuff at present.
This is tough for you because you have to admit all 17 million voters weren't all won over by xenophobic lies.
It's not tough for me at all. The referendum was won by xenophobic lies. Without the race-baiting that Leavers were entirely happy to indulge in, Leave would have lost.
That doesn't mean that all Leavers were motivated by xenophobia. There are plenty of batshit mental Leavers who think that Britain isn't presently an independent country. And there are undoubtedly some who thought that £350 million a year would be going to the NHS as a result.
Without all of this coalition of the doubly misled and the lunatic, Leave would have lost.
The referendum was won for Leave 12 years before in 2004 when Blair failed to impose the transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries most EU nations did, had he done so Leave would not have got 52%
Why should one be surprised at Lord Foulkes' barmy idea? There is no aspect of human activity that Labour figures don't want to impose state regulation on.
It's a harbinger of things to come once Labour regain office.
The Tories may be many things, but they don't try and order you what to do.
Except give up your rights as an EU citizen.
I never asked for it, nor do I even accept it as a concept. And I am fully satisfied with British citizenship and always have been.
People are citizens of nation states (and nation states alone) in my eyes.
Your particular brand of chauvinism has nothing to do with your original point that the Tories don't tell people what to do. They do.
A marvellous non sequitur there.
If you view British citizenship as chauvinistic you are more than welcome to live somewhere else.
Some leavers appear terrified of admitting there is any downside to Brexit.
Just be honest and accept that leaving does affect some of the rights people have had for years. You might think they are worthless, others don't.
I've been open and honest about the downsides since before the vote - I blogged about it and stand by it.
It was a judgement call we all had to make.
Ditto. It would be nice to see some Remainers be open and honest about the upside of leaving.
The only upside I can see is that the faction of Eurosceptics that has been getting stronger since the 90s are having their world view and assumptions tested against reality, so after some time we will have a resolution and will hopefully return to a healthier domestic politics. No doubt they feel the same way.
I also think the absence of policy reasons to vote for Theresa May may have been a consideration.
I also think that the experience of having pulled the fruit machine handle once with Brexit may have emboldened many voters to do so again with Jeremy Corbyn.
And I think that we're probably missing some important stuff at present.
This is tough for you because you have to admit all 17 million voters weren't all won over by xenophobic lies.
It's not tough for me at all. The referendum was won by xenophobic lies. Without the race-baiting that Leavers were entirely happy to indulge in, Leave would have lost.
That doesn't mean that all Leavers were motivated by xenophobia. There are plenty of batshit mental Leavers who think that Britain isn't presently an independent country. And there are undoubtedly some who thought that £350 million a year would be going to the NHS as a result.
Without all of this coalition of the doubly misled and the lunatic, Leave would have lost.
Indeed. Logically, only 0.634 million of the 17.4 million need have been motivated to switch from Remain to Leave by xenophobic lies in order for it to have made a critical difference. The need for "all 17 million voters" to have had to be won over is not valid.
I also think the absence of policy reasons to vote for Theresa May may have been a consideration.
I also think that the experience of having pulled the fruit machine handle once with Brexit may have emboldened many voters to do so again with Jeremy Corbyn.
And I think that we're probably missing some important stuff at present.
This is tough for you because you have to admit all 17 million voters weren't all won over by xenophobic lies.
It's not tough for me at all. The referendum was won by xenophobic lies. Without the race-baiting that Leavers were entirely happy to indulge in, Leave would have lost.
That doesn't mean that all Leavers were motivated by xenophobia. There are plenty of batshit mental Leavers who think that Britain isn't presently an independent country. And there are undoubtedly some who thought that £350 million a year would be going to the NHS as a result.
Without all of this coalition of the doubly misled and the lunatic, Leave would have lost.
Indeed. Logically, only 0.634 million of the 17.4 million need have been motivated to switch from Remain to Leave by xenophobic lies in order for it to have made a critical difference. The need for "all 17 million voters" to have had to be won over is not valid.
Though this wordcloud is indicative of what got Leave voters voting:
Why should one be surprised at Lord Foulkes' barmy idea? There is no aspect of human activity that Labour figures don't want to impose state regulation on.
It's a harbinger of things to come once Labour regain office.
The Tories may be many things, but they don't try and order you what to do.
Except give up your rights as an EU citizen.
I never asked for it, nor do I even accept it as a concept. And I am fully satisfied with British citizenship and always have been.
People are citizens of nation states (and nation states alone) in my eyes.
Your particular brand of chauvinism has nothing to do with your original point that the Tories don't tell people what to do. They do.
A marvellous non sequitur there.
If you view British citizenship as chauvinistic you are more than welcome to live somewhere else.
Some leavers appear terrified of admitting there is any downside to Brexit.
Just be honest and accept that leaving does affect some of the rights people have had for years. You might think they are worthless, others don't.
I've been open and honest about the downsides since before the vote - I blogged about it and stand by it.
It was a judgement call we all had to make.
Ditto. It would be nice to see some Remainers be open and honest about the upside of leaving.
I filled in a Government business survey that asked that question a few months ago. I couldn't think of a single positive thing about Brexit.
Why should one be surprised at Lord Foulkes' barmy idea? There is no aspect of human activity that Labour figures don't want to impose state regulation on.
It's a harbinger of things to come once Labour regain office.
The Tories may be many things, but they don't try and order you what to do.
Except give up your rights as an EU citizen.
I never asked for it, nor do I even accept it as a concept. And I am fully satisfied with British citizenship and always have been.
People are citizens of nation states (and nation states alone) in my eyes.
Your particular brand of chauvinism has nothing to do with your original point that the Tories don't tell people what to do. They do.
A marvellous non sequitur there.
If you view British citizenship as chauvinistic you are more than welcome to live somewhere else.
Some leavers appear terrified of admitting there is any downside to Brexit.
Just be honest and accept that leaving does affect some of the rights people have had for years. You might think they are worthless, others don't.
I've been open and honest about the downsides since before the vote - I blogged about it and stand by it.
It was a judgement call we all had to make.
Ditto. It would be nice to see some Remainers be open and honest about the upside of leaving.
Once I see one about the manner in which Britain voted to leave the EU, I'll be sure to let you know.
There are benefits. Some of the EU Directives are bad and we could do a better job ourselves. This one on habitats directive stuck with me from my time at Defra:
I never asked for it, nor do I even accept it as a concept. And I am fully satisfied with British citizenship and always have been.
People are citizens of nation states (and nation states alone) in my eyes.
So do you consider yourself a citizen of England or The United Kingdom?
You do all realise that "EU citizen" is just a convenient expression? British citizens, German citizens, Polish citizens etc are all "citizens of a European Union country".
Why should one be surprised at Lord Foulkes' barmy idea? There is no aspect of human activity that Labour figures don't want to impose state regulation on.
It's a harbinger of things to come once Labour regain office.
The Tories may be many things, but they don't try and order you what to do.
Except give up your rights as an EU citizen.
I never asked for it, nor do I even accept it as a concept. And I am fully satisfied with British citizenship and always have been.
People are citizens of nation states (and nation states alone) in my eyes.
Your particular brand of chauvinism has nothing to do with your original point that the Tories don't tell people what to do. They do.
A marvellous non sequitur there.
If you view British citizenship as chauvinistic you are more than welcome to live somewhere else.
Some leavers appear terrified of admitting there is any downside to Brexit.
Just be honest and accept that leaving does affect some of the rights people have had for years. You might think they are worthless, others don't.
I've been open and honest about the downsides since before the vote - I blogged about it and stand by it.
It was a judgement call we all had to make.
Ditto. It would be nice to see some Remainers be open and honest about the upside of leaving.
Once I see one about the manner in which Britain voted to leave the EU, I'll be sure to let you know.
Britain voted to leave the EU by a coalition of different voters motivated by different issues, just as it could have voted to remain by a coalition of different voters motivated by different issues. There were despicable people on both sides. Wanting to ignore votes who were ignorant or bigoted cuts both ways, there were ignorant people and bigots on your side too.
A vote is a vote whether its cast for a good reason or a bad one.
Why should one be surprised at Lord Foulkes' barmy idea? There is no aspect of human activity that Labour figures don't want to impose state regulation on.
It's a harbinger of things to come once Labour regain office.
The Tories may be many things, but they don't try and order you what to do.
Except give up your rights as an EU citizen.
I never asked for it, nor do I even accept it as a concept. And I am fully satisfied with British citizenship and always have been.
People are citizens of nation states (and nation states alone) in my eyes.
Your particular brand of chauvinism has nothing to do with your original point that the Tories don't tell people what to do. They do.
A marvellous non sequitur there.
If you view British citizenship as chauvinistic you are more than welcome to live somewhere else.
Some leavers appear terrified of admitting there is any downside to Brexit.
Just be honest and accept that leaving does affect some of the rights people have had for years. You might think they are worthless, others don't.
I've been open and honest about the downsides since before the vote - I blogged about it and stand by it.
It was a judgement call we all had to make.
Ditto. It would be nice to see some Remainers be open and honest about the upside of leaving.
I filled in a Government business survey that asked that question a few months ago. I couldn't think of a single positive thing about Brexit.
Shows a lack of imagination and a closed mind on your side if you ask me. I could see pros and cons on both sides.
Mr. Meeks, if mainstream parties had addressed migration concerns that would not have been the case.
Labour opened the floodgates. Cameron aspired to tens of thousands net (net is a stupid metric for a target, incidentally) and didn't even come close. The society and culture of this country is changing. Most of it is neutral, some of it is good, and some is deeply disturbing. We need only look at Rotherham to see why people are sick of not multi-culturalism, but actively turning a blind eye to serious criminality because of so-called 'cultural sensitivity'.
Likewise, the Al Quds march in London went ahead. The Mayor of London bans bikinis on the tube but is happy for Hezbollah flags to fly on the streets of the capital.
This sort of thing needs to be addressed by the mainstream parties. Otherwise it might see the rise of the far right.
Why should one be surprised at Lord Foulkes' barmy idea? There is no aspect of human activity that Labour figures don't want to impose state regulation on.
It's a harbinger of things to come once Labour regain office.
The Tories may be many things, but they don't try and order you what to do.
Except give up your rights as an EU citizen.
I never asked for it, nor do I even accept it as a concept. And I am fully satisfied with British citizenship and always have been.
People are citizens of nation states (and nation states alone) in my eyes.
Your particular brand of chauvinism has nothing to do with your original point that the Tories don't tell people what to do. They do.
A marvellous non sequitur there.
If you view British citizenship as chauvinistic you are more than welcome to live somewhere else.
Some leavers appear terrified of admitting there is any downside to Brexit.
Just be honest and accept that leaving does affect some of the rights people have had for years. You might think they are worthless, others don't.
I've been open and honest about the downsides since before the vote - I blogged about it and stand by it.
It was a judgement call we all had to make.
Ditto. It would be nice to see some Remainers be open and honest about the upside of leaving.
I filled in a Government business survey that asked that question a few months ago. I couldn't think of a single positive thing about Brexit.
Not spending billions on their bloated development budget in spite of all the issues at home?
Mr. Meeks, if mainstream parties had addressed migration concerns that would not have been the case.
Labour opened the floodgates. Cameron aspired to tens of thousands net (net is a stupid metric for a target, incidentally) and didn't even come close. The society and culture of this country is changing. Most of it is neutral, some of it is good, and some is deeply disturbing. We need only look at Rotherham to see why people are sick of not multi-culturalism, but actively turning a blind eye to serious criminality because of so-called 'cultural sensitivity'.
Likewise, the Al Quds march in London went ahead. The Mayor of London bans bikinis on the tube but is happy for Hezbollah flags to fly on the streets of the capital.
This sort of thing needs to be addressed by the mainstream parties. Otherwise it might see the rise of the far right.
Remind me, was it the walrus or the carpenter who wept as he ate the oysters?
You do all realise that "EU citizen" is just a convenient expression? British citizens, German citizens, Polish citizens etc are all "citizens of a European Union country".
Mr. Meeks, if mainstream parties had addressed migration concerns that would not have been the case.
Labour opened the floodgates. Cameron aspired to tens of thousands net (net is a stupid metric for a target, incidentally) and didn't even come close. The society and culture of this country is changing. Most of it is neutral, some of it is good, and some is deeply disturbing. We need only look at Rotherham to see why people are sick of not multi-culturalism, but actively turning a blind eye to serious criminality because of so-called 'cultural sensitivity'.
Likewise, the Al Quds march in London went ahead. The Mayor of London bans bikinis on the tube but is happy for Hezbollah flags to fly on the streets of the capital.
This sort of thing needs to be addressed by the mainstream parties. Otherwise it might see the rise of the far right.
Not EU migrants in Rotheram, Al Quds or Hezbollah.
Why should one be surprised at Lord Foulkes' barmy idea? There is no aspect of human activity that Labour figures don't want to impose state regulation on.
It's a harbinger of things to come once Labour regain office.
The Tories may be many things, but they don't try and order you what to do.
Except give up your rights as an EU citizen.
I never asked for it, nor do I even accept it as a concept. And I am fully satisfied with British citizenship and always have been.
People are citizens of nation states (and nation states alone) in my eyes.
Your particular brand of chauvinism has nothing to do with your original point that the Tories don't tell people what to do. They do.
A marvellous non sequitur there.
If you view British citizenship as chauvinistic you are more than welcome to live somewhere else.
Some leavers appear terrified of admitting there is any downside to Brexit.
Just be honest and accept that leaving does affect some of the rights people have had for years. You might think they are worthless, others don't.
I've been open and honest about the downsides since before the vote - I blogged about it and stand by it.
It was a judgement call we all had to make.
Ditto. It would be nice to see some Remainers be open and honest about the upside of leaving.
I filled in a Government business survey that asked that question a few months ago. I couldn't think of a single positive thing about Brexit.
Why should one be surprised at Lord Foulkes' barmy idea? There is no aspect of human activity that Labour figures don't want to impose state regulation on.
It's a harbinger of things to come once Labour regain office.
The Tories may be many things, but they don't try and order you what to do.
Except give up your rights as an EU citizen.
I never asked for it, nor do I even accept it as a concept. And I am fully satisfied with British citizenship and always have been.
People are citizens of nation states (and nation states alone) in my eyes.
Your particular brand of chauvinism has nothing to do with your original point that the Tories don't tell people what to do. They do.
A marvellous non sequitur there.
If you view British citizenship as chauvinistic you are more than welcome to live somewhere else.
Some leavers appear terrified of admitting there is any downside to Brexit.
Just be honest and accept that leaving does affect some of the rights people have had for years. You might think they are worthless, others don't.
I've been open and honest about the downsides since before the vote - I blogged about it and stand by it.
It was a judgement call we all had to make.
Ditto. It would be nice to see some Remainers be open and honest about the upside of leaving.
I filled in a Government business survey that asked that question a few months ago. I couldn't think of a single positive thing about Brexit.
Shows a lack of imagination and a closed mind on your side if you ask me. I could see pros and cons on both sides.
With respect, you don't know my business. Brexit brings no benefits whatsoever.
Mass migration and changing of British culture are all wrapped up together. I agree entirely that the Rotherham perpetrators (and most, at least, of the Al Quds marchers) are/were not from the EU. However, the EU does allow for unfettered immigration *and* there is the migrant crisis [although it's not getting much coverage nowadays].
It's ironic that if the Government had successfully reduced non-EU migration, we'd perhaps still be in the EU.
These things aren't separated, I think, in the mind of the electorate. It's a loss of control, of identity, and they see greater interest being placed on new arrivals and foreign cultures than on domestic concerns. Compare the prosecution numbers for bacon hate crime and FGM. Or the treatment of https://twitter.com/SergeantFrisky who may have had a university offer withdrawn following a threat to have just that done to her by a police officer who was angered by what she said over terrorism, to the action taken when numerous victims of sexual abuse went to the police in Rotherham.
I think that, and the sentiment around it, is altogether more alarming than the situation with the EU.
Keep banging on about this, but I'm genuinely concerned the far right might rise in this country if the mainstream don't address this sort of thing. Instead, we have a self-declared friend of Hamas as Labour leader, Lammy complaining a judge is white, and the Conservatives in utter disarray.
Why should one be surprised at Lord Foulkes' barmy idea? There is no aspect of human activity that Labour figures don't want to impose state regulation on.
It's a harbinger of things to come once Labour regain office.
The Tories may be many things, but they don't try and order you what to do.
Except give up your rights as an EU citizen.
I never asked for it, nor do I even accept it as a concept. And I am fully satisfied with British citizenship and always have been.
People are citizens of nation states (and nation states alone) in my eyes.
Your particular brand of chauvinism has nothing to do with your original point that the Tories don't tell people what to do. They do.
A marvellous non sequitur there.
If you view British citizenship as chauvinistic you are more than welcome to live somewhere else.
Some leavers appear terrified of admitting there is any downside to Brexit.
Just be honest and accept that leaving does affect some of the rights people have had for years. You might think they are worthless, others don't.
I've been open and honest about the downsides since before the vote - I blogged about it and stand by it.
It was a judgement call we all had to make.
Ditto. It would be nice to see some Remainers be open and honest about the upside of leaving.
I filled in a Government business survey that asked that question a few months ago. I couldn't think of a single positive thing about Brexit.
What industry are you in?
Technical consultant to the planning and development industry.
I also think the absence of policy reasons to vote for Theresa May may have been a consideration.
I also think that the experience of having pulled the fruit machine handle once with Brexit may have emboldened many voters to do so again with Jeremy Corbyn.
And I think that we're probably missing some important stuff at present.
This is tough for you because you have to admit all 17 million voters weren't all won over by xenophobic lies.
It's not tough for me at all. The referendum was won by xenophobic lies. Without the race-baiting that Leavers were entirely happy to indulge in, Leave would have lost.
That doesn't mean that all Leavers were motivated by xenophobia. There are plenty of batshit mental Leavers who think that Britain isn't presently an independent country. And there are undoubtedly some who thought that £350 million a year would be going to the NHS as a result.
Without all of this coalition of the doubly misled and the lunatic, Leave would have lost.
If you believe all this is true, why were you ever undecided on your vote on the EU ref, as you claimed to be for several months in 2015?
And what sort of Leave case could ever have persuaded you?
I also think the absence of policy reasons to vote for Theresa May may have been a consideration.
I also think that the experience of having pulled the fruit machine handle once with Brexit may have emboldened many voters to do so again with Jeremy Corbyn.
And I think that we're probably missing some important stuff at present.
This is tough for you because you have to admit all 17 million voters weren't all won over by xenophobic lies.
It's not tough for me at all. The referendum was won by xenophobic lies. Without the race-baiting that Leavers were entirely happy to indulge in, Leave would have lost.
That doesn't mean that all Leavers were motivated by xenophobia. There are plenty of batshit mental Leavers who think that Britain isn't presently an independent country. And there are undoubtedly some who thought that £350 million a year would be going to the NHS as a result.
Without all of this coalition of the doubly misled and the lunatic, Leave would have lost.
If you believe all this is true, why were you ever undecided on your vote on the EU ref, as you claimed to be for several months in 2015?
And what sort of Leave case could ever have persuaded you?
The EU is a deeply dysfunctional organisation. A Leave campaign that was based explicitly around a conscious uncoupling from some of the deeper integration with the EU, probably around the EEA., with a clear idea of where it was headed, would probably have won me over.
When it became apparent to me that the Leave campaign was all going to be about Union Jack boxer shorts and being nasty to foreigners, with no clear idea of what it was for, I ran for the hills.
Shameful from Mrs May, as nasty as Gordon Brown's BNP policy of British jobs for British Workers.
Citizen of the World = Meaningless bollocks.
"The World" does not provide the rights and responsibilities that are inherent with the concept of citizenship.
May was absolutely right to say what she said. "Citizen of the World" is a meaningless concept in practice except for the ultra rich who can, to a large extent, afford to ignore the existence of states.
Did you ever belong to the BNP?
Of course not. Yet another stupid question from you.
As you may remember Roger I am in favour of unrestricted movement for everyone, EU or not. The question of citizenship has nothing at all to do with that.
Are you a paedophile by the way? I only ask because it is as pertinent a question as the one you asked me.
I also think the absence of policy reasons to vote for Theresa May may have been a consideration.
I also think that the experience of having pulled the fruit machine handle once with Brexit may have emboldened many voters to do so again with Jeremy Corbyn.
And I think that we're probably missing some important stuff at present.
This is tough for you because you have to admit all 17 million voters weren't all won over by xenophobic lies.
It's not tough for me at all. The referendum was won by xenophobic lies. Without the race-baiting that Leavers were entirely happy to indulge in, Leave would have lost.
That doesn't mean that all Leavers were motivated by xenophobia. There are plenty of batshit mental Leavers who think that Britain isn't presently an independent country. And there are undoubtedly some who thought that £350 million a year would be going to the NHS as a result.
Without all of this coalition of the doubly misled and the lunatic, Leave would have lost.
If you believe all this is true, why were you ever undecided on your vote on the EU ref, as you claimed to be for several months in 2015?
And what sort of Leave case could ever have persuaded you?
The EU is a deeply dysfunctional organisation. A Leave campaign that was based explicitly around a conscious uncoupling from some of the deeper integration with the EU, probably around the EEA., with a clear idea of where it was headed, would probably have won me over.
When it became apparent to me that the Leave campaign was all going to be about Union Jack boxer shorts and being nasty to foreigners, with no clear idea of what it was for, I ran for the hills.
Ah, interesting!
I mean this sincerely: that's one of the most (if not the most) constructive engagement you and I have had on this subject for a long time.
I also think the absence of policy reasons to vote for Theresa May may have been a consideration.
I also think that the experience of having pulled the fruit machine handle once with Brexit may have emboldened many voters to do so again with Jeremy Corbyn.
And I think that we're probably missing some important stuff at present.
This is tough for you because you have to admit all 17 million voters weren't all won over by xenophobic lies.
It's not tough for me at all. The referendum was won by xenophobic lies. Without the race-baiting that Leavers were entirely happy to indulge in, Leave would have lost.
That doesn't mean that all Leavers were motivated by xenophobia. There are plenty of batshit mental Leavers who think that Britain isn't presently an independent country. And there are undoubtedly some who thought that £350 million a year would be going to the NHS as a result.
Without all of this coalition of the doubly misled and the lunatic, Leave would have lost.
If you believe all this is true, why were you ever undecided on your vote on the EU ref, as you claimed to be for several months in 2015?
And what sort of Leave case could ever have persuaded you?
The EU is a deeply dysfunctional organisation. A Leave campaign that was based explicitly around a conscious uncoupling from some of the deeper integration with the EU, probably around the EEA., with a clear idea of where it was headed, would probably have won me over.
When it became apparent to me that the Leave campaign was all going to be about Union Jack boxer shorts and being nasty to foreigners, with no clear idea of what it was for, I ran for the hills.
Ah, interesting!
I mean this sincerely: that's one of the most (if not the most) constructive engagement you and I have had on this subject for a long time.
Thank you.
None of that is new.
As it is, Britain is going through a disaster of epic proportions.
I also think the absence of policy reasons to vote for Theresa May may have been a consideration.
I also think that the experience of having pulled the fruit machine handle once with Brexit may have emboldened many voters to do so again with Jeremy Corbyn.
And I think that we're probably missing some important stuff at present.
This is tough for you because you have to admit all 17 million voters weren't all won over by xenophobic lies.
It's not tough for me at all. The referendum was won by xenophobic lies. Without the race-baiting that Leavers were entirely happy to indulge in, Leave would have lost.
That doesn't mean that all Leavers were motivated by xenophobia. There are plenty of batshit mental Leavers who think that Britain isn't presently an independent country. And there are undoubtedly some who thought that £350 million a year would be going to the NHS as a result.
Without all of this coalition of the doubly misled and the lunatic, Leave would have lost.
If you believe all this is true, why were you ever undecided on your vote on the EU ref, as you claimed to be for several months in 2015?
And what sort of Leave case could ever have persuaded you?
The EU is a deeply dysfunctional organisation. A Leave campaign that was based explicitly around a conscious uncoupling from some of the deeper integration with the EU, probably around the EEA., with a clear idea of where it was headed, would probably have won me over.
When it became apparent to me that the Leave campaign was all going to be about Union Jack boxer shorts and being nasty to foreigners, with no clear idea of what it was for, I ran for the hills.
When it became apparent to me that the Leave campaign was all going to be about Union Jack boxer shorts and being nasty to foreigners, with no clear idea of what it was for, I ran for the hills.
Comments
The Tories haven't done anything to abortion limits or human rights, and parliament as a whole voted to keep the law on assisted suicide as the status quo.
Or, if you have sufficient funds and money to support yourself, you can retire to many too.
For instance, the turnout of the over 55s would have been higher, and this probably would have been enough to save several seats and grant May a small overall majority, broadly equivalent to Cameron's.
http://www.londonandpartners.com/
The problem is free movement of workers, but if this could be qualified (and it does already possess an emergency brake, and entitlements to welfare are also different) then it should wash.
Except for setting remuneration for ftse100 CEOs, of course, where it clearly works a treat.
Ironically, it was only opinion polls that pointed to the actual result, and even then only if you squinted hard at the right ones.
She's frequently talked about getting rid of human rights legislation.
She's the least liberal Tory for some time I think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOydp94fBAg
I wasn't insulted.
I feel gloomy about UK economy.
Rising inflation, mediocre growth, Brexit challenges and uncertainty, and rates as low as they can go and a potential rise looming...
I might consider paying for an accelerated regular visa or passport clearance. But, I am already happy to queue for proper non-Schengen passport checks at the UK Border.
Her mistake was using the term citizen instead of company.
GE2017 changed the map (much to my frustration) and a bigger risk for me now is that Brexit is so rough and hard that there's a backlash that takes us right back into the EU again, but this time with all the federalist bells and whistles.
They are the ones who can afford to go on endless European city breaks.
Just be honest and accept that leaving does affect some of the rights people have had for years. You might think they are worthless, others don't.
I also think the absence of policy reasons to vote for Theresa May may have been a consideration.
I also think that the experience of having pulled the fruit machine handle once with Brexit may have emboldened many voters to do so again with Jeremy Corbyn.
And I think that we're probably missing some important stuff at present.
If the public gets a sniff of this paradox then yes they may choose to go back in.
That appears to be asking a lot I know, but it's a reasonable asymptote.
These tools can be used to criticize "fake news", newspaper articles, and polls.
Putting a clamp on polls should be a non-issue.
Next.
That's a significant win in my view.
That doesn't mean that all Leavers were motivated by xenophobia. There are plenty of batshit mental Leavers who think that Britain isn't presently an independent country. And there are undoubtedly some who thought that £350 million a year would be going to the NHS as a result.
Without all of this coalition of the doubly misled and the lunatic, Leave would have lost.
It was a judgement call we all had to make.
This has the smell of 2008 - went away on holiday, came back to a wailing and a gnashing of teeth.
Logically, only 0.634 million of the 17.4 million need have been motivated to switch from Remain to Leave by xenophobic lies in order for it to have made a critical difference.
The need for "all 17 million voters" to have had to be won over is not valid.
https://twitter.com/HistoryatNmpton/status/881799430445436928
Some of the EU Directives are bad and we could do a better job ourselves.
This one on habitats directive stuck with me from my time at Defra:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/04/falmouth-dredging-environment-tourism-row
You do all realise that "EU citizen" is just a convenient expression? British citizens, German citizens, Polish citizens etc are all "citizens of a European Union country".
A vote is a vote whether its cast for a good reason or a bad one.
Labour opened the floodgates. Cameron aspired to tens of thousands net (net is a stupid metric for a target, incidentally) and didn't even come close. The society and culture of this country is changing. Most of it is neutral, some of it is good, and some is deeply disturbing. We need only look at Rotherham to see why people are sick of not multi-culturalism, but actively turning a blind eye to serious criminality because of so-called 'cultural sensitivity'.
Likewise, the Al Quds march in London went ahead. The Mayor of London bans bikinis on the tube but is happy for Hezbollah flags to fly on the streets of the capital.
This sort of thing needs to be addressed by the mainstream parties. Otherwise it might see the rise of the far right.
You've picked on the wrong problem.
Mass migration and changing of British culture are all wrapped up together. I agree entirely that the Rotherham perpetrators (and most, at least, of the Al Quds marchers) are/were not from the EU. However, the EU does allow for unfettered immigration *and* there is the migrant crisis [although it's not getting much coverage nowadays].
It's ironic that if the Government had successfully reduced non-EU migration, we'd perhaps still be in the EU.
These things aren't separated, I think, in the mind of the electorate. It's a loss of control, of identity, and they see greater interest being placed on new arrivals and foreign cultures than on domestic concerns. Compare the prosecution numbers for bacon hate crime and FGM. Or the treatment of https://twitter.com/SergeantFrisky who may have had a university offer withdrawn following a threat to have just that done to her by a police officer who was angered by what she said over terrorism, to the action taken when numerous victims of sexual abuse went to the police in Rotherham.
I think that, and the sentiment around it, is altogether more alarming than the situation with the EU.
Keep banging on about this, but I'm genuinely concerned the far right might rise in this country if the mainstream don't address this sort of thing. Instead, we have a self-declared friend of Hamas as Labour leader, Lammy complaining a judge is white, and the Conservatives in utter disarray.
You've clearly never been a management consultant.
And what sort of Leave case could ever have persuaded you?
But while it might be bad for your business in this instance... Better for the UK overall?
Definition of a consultant - someone who borrows your watch to tell you the time.
When it became apparent to me that the Leave campaign was all going to be about Union Jack boxer shorts and being nasty to foreigners, with no clear idea of what it was for, I ran for the hills.
As you may remember Roger I am in favour of unrestricted movement for everyone, EU or not. The question of citizenship has nothing at all to do with that.
Are you a paedophile by the way? I only ask because it is as pertinent a question as the one you asked me.
I prefer the borrows your watch then leases it back to you at expensive day rates version, but you're clearly on the same page!
https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCNewsEnts/status/882648903715258368
I mean this sincerely: that's one of the most (if not the most) constructive engagement you and I have had on this subject for a long time.
Thank you.
As it is, Britain is going through a disaster of epic proportions.