Just had a chance to catch up on the Syria debate.
Cannot continue to have a PLP that is so out of touch with the Membership IMO.
Think Corbyn is going to have to withdraw the whip from the worst offenders like Woodcock and Gapes. If they want to cross the floor so be it but their position in modern Labour is becoming untenable.
Mandatory dereliction is becoming inevitable after the behaviour of some in last month.
"The behaviour of some" in standing up for real Labour values against the STW SWP takeover. Corbyn's problem is that a majority of his MPs and a significant enough minority of the membership agree with John Woodcock (if not on action itself, then that Corbyn's reasoning is absurd and repulsive). The poll cited by Mike above shows Labour voters by no means share his worldview that Russia should always be given the benefit of the doubt. Hence why he equivocates by trying to sound reasonable while putting impossible obstacles in the way of even the smallest action. That position just about holds with the wider public until you subject it to scrutiny and most MPs quietly complain and find stuff about May's position to object to too - hence why many chose to criticise the lack of a vote.
However, declaring war on Woodcock and Gapes would make those who argue for a splits argument for them - be forced to support a leadership whose views you find morally repugnant or get out, well you might as well go out on your feet than on your knees. It would make them martyrs who could fill the airwaves and papers saying Jeremy withdrew the whip because they wouldn't join him in being Assad's stooge. Other MPs would be up in arms and probably see they had to take a stand or watch the left sink totally into STW conspiracism.
Most importantly, and it's what I think Corbyn and his acolytes know - is the split on the left. They know they can't win without Labour's traditional centre-left support, now a minority in the membership but not in the country. Saying explicitly you don't want people with Robin Cook's view on foreign affairs in the party is when a lot decide the party is no longer fit for purpose. Maybe not en masse, but enough to sink any election hopes.
The roblem with Britain is that while immigrants as a concept are disliked, in practice they are wanted. Cutting immigration is a popular policy, until the measures needed to make it happen are enforced.
Nick Robinson did this brilliant vox pop on the subject:
The immigration rules currently discriminate against people from Africa, Americas and Asia (mostly non white) and in favour of Europeans (mostly white).
Is that a good thing?
All immigration systems discriminate on basis of country of origin, because it is a useful heuristic.
The extent of the discrimination matters though, as does the justification for it. It's one thing for there to be discrimination requiring greater evidence for e.g. skills from countries with higher levels of fraud. It is another for a convicted murderer to be allowed in from Latvia but an exemplary doctor from Iran to be barred.
Summary: the referendum campaign was won with a conscious policy of pandering to xenophobia. As I have been known to say on the odd occasion.
At some point Leave advocates are going to have to start thinking about what this means for the future of this country.
Firstly, we are talking about an unofficial minority group involved in the campaign, equivalent to someone like Operation Black Vote on the other side.
Secondly, the actual quotes don't justify your summary at all. All the quotes say is they were provocative and used immigration as an issue. I know you think all campaigning against immigration is "pandering to xenophobia" but it isn't true.
Damian Collins seems to take a similar view to me. Here's how he summarises it:
“Dr Emma Briant's research gives us a unique insight into the private thoughts of key people at Leave.EU and SCL. The references made by Nigel Oakes from SCL and Andy Wigmore from Leave.EU regarding the propaganda techniques developed by the Nazis are particularly concerning. As Nigel Oakes points out in his conversation with Dr Briant, the Nazis 'leveraged an artificial enemy' to make people scared, and through this to incite hatred of Jewish people.
Andy Wigmore states that he believes that the propaganda techniques of the Nazi's were 'very clever'. He also confirms that exploiting voters concerns about immigration was central to their campaign during the Brexit referendum. Given the extreme messaging around immigration that was used during the referendum campaign, these statements will raise concerns that data analytics was used to target voters who were concerned about this issue, and to frighten them with messaging designed to create 'an artificial enemy' for them to act against."
Talking of immigration, I see that the trainee gp from Singapore has been allowed to stay, however the guardian report was yet again very misleading.
They inferred he was being deported because he filed his visa paperwork a few weeks late, when in fact it was because the rules stated he needed 10 years of being legally resident here and he did not meet that criteria. And the guardian just happened to forget to mention that rather crucial factor.
He had though won at Tribunal and the Home Office appealed. It’s a bit difficult to see how a student who, for whatever reason, decides to stay, to clock up 10 years residence.
The roblem with Britain is that while immigrants as a concept are disliked, in practice they are wanted. Cutting immigration is a popular policy, until the measures needed to make it happen are enforced.
Nick Robinson did this brilliant vox pop on the subject:
It should be noted he didn't go into non-work categories like spousal visas. I imagine people would be less keen on arranged brides or mail order brides, for instance.
The fair way to do it would be to show the total number of 600k divided into different groups and ask them which they would like to reduce.
Talking of immigration, I see that the trainee gp from Singapore has been allowed to stay, however the guardian report was yet again very misleading.
They inferred he was being deported because he filed his visa paperwork a few weeks late, when in fact it was because the rules stated he needed 10 years of being legally resident here and he did not meet that criteria. And the guardian just happened to forget to mention that rather crucial factor.
He had though won at Tribunal and the Home Office appealed. It’s a bit difficult to see how a student who, for whatever reason, decides to stay, to clock up 10 years residence.
As I said at the time I thought it was the wrong decision, my point was the guardian again played fast and loose with the facts of these stories. They keep doing it. It isn't an accident. It was only when I read the bbc article that I learned the actual reason.
Summary: the referendum campaign was won with a conscious policy of pandering to xenophobia. As I have been known to say on the odd occasion.
At some point Leave advocates are going to have to start thinking about what this means for the future of this country.
Firstly, we are talking about an unofficial minority group involved in the campaign, equivalent to someone like Operation Black Vote on the other side.
Secondly, the actual quotes don't justify your summary at all. All the quotes say is they were provocative and used immigration as an issue. I know you think all campaigning against immigration is "pandering to xenophobia" but it isn't true.
Damian Collins seems to take a similar view to me. Here's how he summarises it:
“Dr Emma Briant's research gives us a unique insight into the private thoughts of key people at Leave.EU and SCL. The references made by Nigel Oakes from SCL and Andy Wigmore from Leave.EU regarding the propaganda techniques developed by the Nazis are particularly concerning. As Nigel Oakes points out in his conversation with Dr Briant, the Nazis 'leveraged an artificial enemy' to make people scared, and through this to incite hatred of Jewish people.
Andy Wigmore states that he believes that the propaganda techniques of the Nazi's were 'very clever'. He also confirms that exploiting voters concerns about immigration was central to their campaign during the Brexit referendum. Given the extreme messaging around immigration that was used during the referendum campaign, these statements will raise concerns that data analytics was used to target voters who were concerned about this issue, and to frighten them with messaging designed to create 'an artificial enemy' for them to act against."
Again, you are using biased summaries of other Remain supporters to come to a conclusion you already support. The taking out of context of the Nazi remarks shows the dishonesty here. They were actually in a part of the conversation about the cleverness of the Remain campaign's techniques. You and Collins are deliberately placing them next to a separate conversation on using immigration as an issue to create a false impression.
Mr. Elliot, indeed. He could as easily have gone to Islington, got a crowd or pro-immigration types, then asked if false asylum claimants wanted on criminal charges overseas should be allowed to stay.
Damian Collins seems to take a similar view to me. Here's how he summarises it:
“Dr Emma Briant's research gives us a unique insight into the private thoughts of key people at Leave.EU and SCL. The references made by Nigel Oakes from SCL and Andy Wigmore from Leave.EU regarding the propaganda techniques developed by the Nazis are particularly concerning. As Nigel Oakes points out in his conversation with Dr Briant, the Nazis 'leveraged an artificial enemy' to make people scared, and through this to incite hatred of Jewish people.
Andy Wigmore states that he believes that the propaganda techniques of the Nazi's were 'very clever'. He also confirms that exploiting voters concerns about immigration was central to their campaign during the Brexit referendum. Given the extreme messaging around immigration that was used during the referendum campaign, these statements will raise concerns that data analytics was used to target voters who were concerned about this issue, and to frighten them with messaging designed to create 'an artificial enemy' for them to act against."
Again, you are using biased summaries of other Remain supporters to come to a conclusion you already support. The taking out of context of the Nazi remarks shows the dishonesty here. They were actually in a part of the conversation about the cleverness of the Remain campaign's techniques. You and Collins are deliberately placing them next to a separate conversation on using immigration as an issue to create a false impression.
What you call "biased summaries of other Remain supporters" I call the precis by the chair of the select committee releasing the report.
All I have done is give links to other reports. If you can't handle the disgusting way in which Leave campaigned being accurately reported, I suggest you find yourself a safe space.
Damian Collins seems to take a similar view to me. Here's how he summarises it:
against."
Again, you are using biased summaries of other Remain supporters to come to a conclusion you already support. The taking out of context of the Nazi remarks shows the dishonesty here. They were actually in a part of the conversation about the cleverness of the Remain campaign's techniques. You and Collins are deliberately placing them next to a separate conversation on using immigration as an issue to create a false impression.
What you call "biased summaries of other Remain supporters" I call the precis by the chair of the select committee releasing the report.
All I have done is give links to other reports. If you can't handle the disgusting way in which Leave campaigned being accurately reported, I suggest you find yourself a safe space.
Yes, we are aware there are plenty of people in the political establishmemt with your approach to smearing all and everything to do with Brexit, using their official positions to do so. This was the modus operandi of the Remain campaign after all.
However, as I pointed out, the actual evidence beneath the skewed summary does not justify it at all. The extremely limited extracts of 1-2 minutes show the lack of context of the comments, but even these limited pieces still show one of the discussions about the Nazis was regarding the Trump campaign and the other was about the Remain campaign.
Your latest whinge has been shown up again and then you call a dismantling of your point as needing a "safe space". It is rather pathetic and juvenile, but that is nothing new from you.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
That’s precisely the issue.
All the cases we’ve seen reported they don’t have a passport (“I used my brother’s” or “my mother took it back to Jamaica when she left”). And the Home Office has no record of them.
It is entirely possible they are telling the truth. But it is also possible they are not. The Home Office has handled this insensitively but fundamentally all they are doing is asking fir documentary evidence of their right to be here.
What were the rules about Commonwealth citizens coming here before about 1979 or so. It seems that dependent children didn’t seem to be listed. I may well be wrong, but I can’t recall my children having passports when we went on holiday to Portugal in the early 70’s.
When I was a child dependent children did not have their own passports but were on their parent's passport, usually the mother. So if the mother of these children returned home or simply replaced her passport after the children were of an age with a passport they were not on then there is a risk that there is no record of a passport that allows the child to have come here.
From friends who do this kind of work the biggest problem seems to be proving 20 years continuous residence. The problem seems to be that the government is very particular about what evidence it will accept and what it will not and very keen to focus on gaps. So if you have worked for most but not all of the 20 years you have a problem.
Damian Collins seems to take a similar view to me. Here's how he summarises it:
against."
Again, you are using biased summaries of other Remain supporters to come to a conclusion you already support. The taking out of context of the Nazi remarks shows the dishonesty here. They were actually in a part of the conversation about the cleverness of the Remain campaign's techniques. You and Collins are deliberately placing them next to a separate conversation on using immigration as an issue to create a false impression.
What you call "biased summaries of other Remain supporters" I call the precis by the chair of the select committee releasing the report.
All I have done is give links to other reports. If you can't handle the disgusting way in which Leave campaigned being accurately reported, I suggest you find yourself a safe space.
Yes, we are aware there are plenty of people in the political establishmemt with your approach to smearing all and everything to do with Brexit, using their official positions to do so. This was the modus operandi of the Remain campaign after all.
However, as I pointed out, the actual evidence beneath the skewed summary does not justify it at all. The extremely limited extracts of 1-2 minutes show the lack of context of the comments, but even these limited pieces still show one of the discussions about the Nazis was regarding the Trump campaign and the other was about the Remain campaign.
Your latest whinge has been shown up again and then you call a dismantling of your point as needing a "safe space". It is rather pathetic and juvenile, but that is nothing new from you.
You are comfortable with Leave consciously taking learning points from Nazi propaganda, Nazi propaganda that they would go on directly to echo in the Breaking Point poster. And you complain that is somehow an unfair summary? Get real.
You and the other self-deluding Leave advocates might desperately try to persuade yourselves that was somehow ok. And then you wonder why Leave is failing to convert the previously unpersuaded.
The damage that Leave has done and is doing to Britain is immense. It will not start to be repaired until Leave advocates start to acknowledge their role in that.
It would appear that confidence is re-established. Whether this is particularly helpful when we are trying to reduce a massive structural trade deficit that is impoverishing our country is another question of course.
I suspect we will have confirmation this morning that real wage growth is back, albeit at tiny levels.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
That’s precisely the issue.
All the cases we’ve seen reported they don’t have a passport (“I used my brother’s” or “my mother took it back to Jamaica when she left”). And the Home Office has no record of them.
It is entirely possible they are telling the truth. But it is also possible they are not. The Home Office has handled this insensitively but fundamentally all they are doing is asking fir documentary evidence of their right to be here.
What were the rules about Commonwealth citizens coming here before about 1979 or so. It seems that dependent children didn’t seem to be listed. I may well be wrong, but I can’t recall my children having passports when we went on holiday to Portugal in the early 70’s.
When I was a child dependent children did not have their own passports but were on their parent's passport, usually the mother. So if the mother of these children returned home or simply replaced her passport after the children were of an age with a passport they were not on then there is a risk that there is no record of a passport that allows the child to have come here.
From friends who do this kind of work the biggest problem seems to be proving 20 years continuous residence. The problem seems to be that the government is very particular about what evidence it will accept and what it will not and very keen to focus on gaps. So if you have worked for most but not all of the 20 years you have a problem.
That's all a bit Kafla-esque, isn't it? If you haven't got a passport you have to prove continuous residence, but without a passport, how could you have left and re-entered the country to break the continuous residence?
Up to 1/3 of millenials will never own their own home. The need to address the chronic failings in our housing market is genuinely urgent, both for the younger generation affected and for the political prospects of the government. I am not seeing anything like the sense of urgency and commitment required in these areas and it will cost the Tories dear.
One thing I am curious about re the Windrush story is this: wouldn’t at least some of these people have had British passports? And why wouldn’t that document have been sufficient proof of their citizenship?
That’s precisely the issue.
All the cases we’ve seen reported they don’t have a passport (“I used my brother’s” or “my mother took it back to Jamaica when she left”). And the Home Office has no record of them.
It is entirely possible they are telling the truth. But it is also possible they are not. The Home Office has handled this insensitively but fundamentally all they are doing is asking fir documentary evidence of their right to be here.
What were the rules about Commonwealth citizens coming here before about 1979 or so. It seems that dependent children didn’t seem to be listed. I may well be wrong, but I can’t recall my children having passports when we went on holiday to Portugal in the early 70’s.
When I was a child dependent children did not have their own passports but were on their parent's passport, usually the mother. So if the mother of these children returned home or simply replaced her passport after the children were of an age with a passport they were not on then there is a risk that there is no record of a passport that allows the child to have come here.
From friends who do this kind of work the biggest problem seems to be proving 20 years continuous residence. The problem seems to be that the government is very particular about what evidence it will accept and what it will not and very keen to focus on gaps. So if you have worked for most but not all of the 20 years you have a problem.
That's all a bit Kafla-esque, isn't it? If you haven't got a passport you have to prove continuous residence, but without a passport, how could you have left and re-entered the country to break the continuous residence?
You would have thought that obvious but the government might say, well you might have a passport of a different country, you might have travelled illegally etc. Not sure that there are many people traffickers moving people out of the UK but there we are. The rules put the onus of proof on the applicant and the level of proof required is high.
Damian Collins seems to take a similar view to me. Here's how he summarises it:
against."
Again, you are using biased summaries of other Remain supporters to come to a conclusion you already support. The taking out of context of the Nazi remarks shows the dishonesty here. They were actually in a part of the conversation about the cleverness of the Remain campaign's techniques. You and Collins are deliberately placing them next to a separate conversation on using immigration as an issue to create a false impression.
What you call "biased summaries of other Remain supporters" I call the precis by the chair of the select committee releasing the report.
All I have done is give links to other reports. If you can't handle the disgusting way in which Leave campaigned being accurately reported, I suggest you find yourself a safe space.
Yes, we are aware there are plenty of people in the political establishmemt with your approach to smearing all and everything to do with Brexit, using their official positions to do so. This was the modus operandi of the Remain campaign after all.
Your latest whinge has been shown up again and then you call a dismantling of your point as needing a "safe space". It is rather pathetic and juvenile, but that is nothing new from you.
You are comfortable with Leave consciously taking learning points from Nazi propaganda, Nazi propaganda that they would go on directly to echo in the Breaking Point poster. And you complain that is somehow an unfair summary? Get real.
You and the other self-deluding Leave advocates might desperately try to persuade yourselves that was somehow ok. And then you wonder why Leave is failing to convert the previously unpersuaded.
The damage that Leave has done and is doing to Britain is immense. It will not start to be repaired until Leave advocates start to acknowledge their role in that.
To be fair, there has long been an argument about using ‘Nazi science’. We refused to accept evidenc ethat smoking was bad for you for some time because much of the initial woek was done in Gernmany after 1933. There was a furore some time ago too over work on survival rates and rtechniques in freezing water because of some particularly unpleasant experiments by the likes of Josef Mengele.
That said, I’m very anxious to see us abandon this foolish business of leaving the EU
Damian Collins seems to take a similar view to me. Here's how he summarises it:
against."
Again, you are using biased summaries of other Remain supporters to come to a conclusion you already support. The taking out of context of the Nazi remarks shows the dishonesty here. They were actually in a part of the conversation about the cleverness of the Remain campaign's techniques. You and Collins are deliberately placing them next to a separate conversation on using immigration as an issue to create a false impression.
What you call "biased summaries of other Remain supporters" I call the precis by the chair of the select committee releasing the report.
All I have done is give links to other reports. If you can't handle the disgusting way in which Leave campaigned being accurately reported, I suggest you find yourself a safe space.
Yes, we are aware there are plenty of people in the political establishmemt with your approach to smearing all and everything to do with Brexit, using their official positions to do so. This was the modus operandi of the Remain campaign after all.
Your latest whinge has been shown up again and then you call a dismantling of your point as needing a "safe space". It is rather pathetic and juvenile, but that is nothing new from you.
You are comfortable with Leave consciously taking learning points from Nazi propaganda, Nazi propaganda that they would go on directly to echo in the Breaking Point poster. And you complain that is somehow an unfair summary? Get real.
You and the other self-deluding Leave advocates might desperately try to persuade yourselves that was somehow ok. And then you wonder why Leave is failing to convert the previously unpersuaded.
The damage that Leave has done and is doing to Britain is immense. It will not start to be repaired until Leave advocates start to acknowledge their role in that.
To be fair, there has long been an argument about using ‘Nazi science’. We refused to accept evidenc ethat smoking was bad for you for some time because much of the initial woek was done in Gernmany after 1933. There was a furore some time ago too over work on survival rates and rtechniques in freezing water because of some particularly unpleasant experiments by the likes of Josef Mengele.
That said, I’m very anxious to see us abandon this foolish business of leaving the EU
@Kevin Schofield - @PolhomeEditor: William Hague says Jeremy Corbyn’s position on Syria amounts to “inaction on one of the great humanitarian catastrophes of our time”. #r4today
Up to 1/3 of millenials will never own their own home. The need to address the chronic failings in our housing market is genuinely urgent, both for the younger generation affected and for the political prospects of the government. I am not seeing anything like the sense of urgency and commitment required in these areas and it will cost the Tories dear.
Not being able to buy wouldn’t be such a problem if renting was not so expensive.
Summary: the referendum campaign was won with a conscious policy of pandering to xenophobia. As I have been known to say on the odd occasion.
At some point Leave advocates are going to have to start thinking about what this means for the future of this country.
Had Blair introduced transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most EU nations there would have been less for Leave to exploit on immigration and Remain would likely have narrowly won
Up to 1/3 of millenials will never own their own home. The need to address the chronic failings in our housing market is genuinely urgent, both for the younger generation affected and for the political prospects of the government. I am not seeing anything like the sense of urgency and commitment required in these areas and it will cost the Tories dear.
Up to 1/3 don't own their own home now so that is not really a problem for the Tories.
If say only a third of Millennials would ever own their own home that would be a problem for the Tories as they normally need about 40%+ at least for an overall majority but 60% owning their own home and 40% not is less of an issue
Suspect a more even debate this time? Parliamentary authorisation has been a recent trend, but I'd have though one there is some cross party backing for.
Up to 1/3 of millenials will never own their own home. The need to address the chronic failings in our housing market is genuinely urgent, both for the younger generation affected and for the political prospects of the government. I am not seeing anything like the sense of urgency and commitment required in these areas and it will cost the Tories dear.
Not being able to buy wouldn’t be such a problem if renting was not so expensive.
It is a problem on many levels. As you say renting is expensive. It drains the wealth of many of the poorer paid making it impossible to save adequately for retirement or unexpected contingencies. Our economic policies mean that ownership of your own home is most peoples’ way of saving. It is tax free and relatively painless. Together these policies are excluding too many of our society and massively increasing inequality.
Up to 1/3 of millenials will never own their own home. The need to address the chronic failings in our housing market is genuinely urgent, both for the younger generation affected and for the political prospects of the government. I am not seeing anything like the sense of urgency and commitment required in these areas and it will cost the Tories dear.
Up to 1/3 don't own their own home now so that is not really a problem for the Tories.
If say only a third of Millennials would ever own their own home that would be a problem for the Tories as they normally need about 40%+ at least for an overall majority but 60% owning their own home and 40% not is less of an issue
Home ownership is falling as a proportion of the population. Bad for the country, bad for the Tories.
Up to 1/3 of millenials will never own their own home. The need to address the chronic failings in our housing market is genuinely urgent, both for the younger generation affected and for the political prospects of the government. I am not seeing anything like the sense of urgency and commitment required in these areas and it will cost the Tories dear.
Not being able to buy wouldn’t be such a problem if renting was not so expensive.
It is a problem on many levels. As you say renting is expensive. It drains the wealth of many of the poorer paid making it impossible to save adequately for retirement or unexpected contingencies. Our economic policies mean that ownership of your own home is most peoples’ way of saving. It is tax free and relatively painless. Together these policies are excluding too many of our society and massively increasing inequality.
But fixing this requires reducing the value of tory voters' houses so I'm not sure how the greatest political philosopher and thinker of the modern age (May) can resolve that problem.
Up to 1/3 of millenials will never own their own home. The need to address the chronic failings in our housing market is genuinely urgent, both for the younger generation affected and for the political prospects of the government. I am not seeing anything like the sense of urgency and commitment required in these areas and it will cost the Tories dear.
Up to 1/3 don't own their own home now so that is not really a problem for the Tories.
If say only a third of Millennials would ever own their own home that would be a problem for the Tories as they normally need about 40%+ at least for an overall majority but 60% owning their own home and 40% not is less of an issue
Home ownership is falling as a proportion of the population. Bad for the country, bad for the Tories.
As I said until we get to a majority renting, which outside London we are nowhere near, that will not be a major problem for the Tories. It is only once a majority rent that an entrenched Labour majority emerges as the Capital now has. Plus of course many will inherit to enable home ownership if their parents own even if their salary is not high enough to get a deposit and buy themselves and their parents do not have enough liquid assets to assist
The roblem with Britain is that while immigrants as a concept are disliked, in practice they are wanted. Cutting immigration is a popular policy, until the measures needed to make it happen are enforced.
Nick Robinson did this brilliant vox pop on the subject:
Without the hand carwash industry we'll be doomed.
And I rather suspect we'd be better off without Amazon's sweatshops.
But if this country ever lives within its means then we say bye-bye to thousands upon thousands of migrant workers in wealth consuming service sector jobs.
You have this concept that if an immigrant cleans your car, that destroys wealth. I can't help thinking the owner of the car would disagree, as he has traded a dirty car and a coin for a clean car. Trade voluntarily entered into by both parties creates wealth, not destroys it.
Actually if that money is subsequently remitted to for example Albania it is wealth which has been transferred out of this country.
And I suggest it might be better if a few lardarses washed their own cars instead of paying people employed in an industry notorious for illegal employment and tax evasion.
If the gain from the clean car outweighs the coin, then no it doesn't matter if the coin ends up in Albania (think of it as a virtual import). You could argue that a Brit could have cleaned the car, but that Brit was off doing something else which he thought was a better use of his time. So everybody gained and wealth went up.
As for your remark about lardarses: you may well be right, but the lardarses did not agree with you, and they assessed the trade as worth the coin: their wealth went up. That's the advantage of capitalism and free trade: the use of money crystallizes many possible virtual decisions into one actual decision and simultaneously measures its value, and because both parties did so voluntarily the wealth of both increased.
Where does the coin originate ?
The UK is a country which has been living beyond its means for two decades.
And the actual coin for wash transaction is only the visible part of bigger picture - the washer will require housing, use public services, add to pressure on transport and the environment and possibly claim benefits.
Damian Collins seems to take a similar view to me. Here's how he summarises it:
against."
Again, you are using biased summaries of other Remain supporters to come to a conclusion you already support. The taking out of context of the Nazi remarks shows the dishonesty here. They were actually in a part of the conversation about the cleverness of the Remain campaign's techniques. You and Collins are deliberately placing them next to a separate conversation on using immigration as an issue to create a false impression.
What you call "biased summaries of other Remain supporters" I call the precis by the chair of the select committee releasing the report.
All I have done is give links to other reports. If you can't handle the disgusting way in which Leave campaigned being accurately reported, I suggest you find yourself a safe space.
Yes, we are aware there are plenty of people in the political establishmemt with your approach to smearing all and everything to do with Brexit, using their official positions to do so. This was the modus operandi of the Remain campaign after all.
However, as I pointed out, the actual evidence beneath the skewed summary does not justify it at all. The extremely limited extracts of 1-2 minutes show the lack of context of the comments, but even these limited pieces still show one of the discussions about the Nazis was regarding the Trump campaign and the other was about the Remain campaign.
Your latest whinge has been shown up again and then you call a dismantling of your point as needing a "safe space". It is rather pathetic and juvenile, but that is nothing new from you.
You are comfortable with Leave consciously taking learning points from Nazi propaganda, Nazi propaganda that they would go on directly to echo in the Breaking Point poster. And you complain that is somehow an unfair summary? Get real.
You and the other self-deluding Leave advocates might desperately try to persuade yourselves that was somehow ok. And then you wonder why Leave is failing to convert the previously unpersuaded.
The damage that Leave has done and is doing to Britain is immense. It will not start to be repaired until Leave advocates start to acknowledge their role in that.
Leave.EU was not “Leave”
It wasn’t even the official campaign
It was an unpleasant group of people led by unpleasant individuals.
Comments
However, declaring war on Woodcock and Gapes would make those who argue for a splits argument for them - be forced to support a leadership whose views you find morally repugnant or get out, well you might as well go out on your feet than on your knees. It would make them martyrs who could fill the airwaves and papers saying Jeremy withdrew the whip because they wouldn't join him in being Assad's stooge. Other MPs would be up in arms and probably see they had to take a stand or watch the left sink totally into STW conspiracism.
Most importantly, and it's what I think Corbyn and his acolytes know - is the split on the left. They know they can't win without Labour's traditional centre-left support, now a minority in the membership but not in the country. Saying explicitly you don't want people with Robin Cook's view on foreign affairs in the party is when a lot decide the party is no longer fit for purpose. Maybe not en masse, but enough to sink any election hopes.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/digital-culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/fake-news-briant-evidence-17-19/
Damian Collins seems to take a similar view to me. Here's how he summarises it:
“Dr Emma Briant's research gives us a unique insight into the private thoughts of key people at Leave.EU and SCL. The references made by Nigel Oakes from SCL and Andy Wigmore from Leave.EU regarding the propaganda techniques developed by the Nazis are particularly concerning. As Nigel Oakes points out in his conversation with Dr Briant, the Nazis 'leveraged an artificial enemy' to make people scared, and through this to incite hatred of Jewish people.
Andy Wigmore states that he believes that the propaganda techniques of the Nazi's were 'very clever'. He also confirms that exploiting voters concerns about immigration was central to their campaign during the Brexit referendum. Given the extreme messaging around immigration that was used during the referendum campaign, these statements will raise concerns that data analytics was used to target voters who were concerned about this issue, and to frighten them with messaging designed to create 'an artificial enemy' for them to act against."
The fair way to do it would be to show the total number of 600k divided into different groups and ask them which they would like to reduce.
All I have done is give links to other reports. If you can't handle the disgusting way in which Leave campaigned being accurately reported, I suggest you find yourself a safe space.
However, as I pointed out, the actual evidence beneath the skewed summary does not justify it at all. The extremely limited extracts of 1-2 minutes show the lack of context of the comments, but even these limited pieces still show one of the discussions about the Nazis was regarding the Trump campaign and the other was about the Remain campaign.
Your latest whinge has been shown up again and then you call a dismantling of your point as needing a "safe space". It is rather pathetic and juvenile, but that is nothing new from you.
From friends who do this kind of work the biggest problem seems to be proving 20 years continuous residence. The problem seems to be that the government is very particular about what evidence it will accept and what it will not and very keen to focus on gaps. So if you have worked for most but not all of the 20 years you have a problem.
You and the other self-deluding Leave advocates might desperately try to persuade yourselves that was somehow ok. And then you wonder why Leave is failing to convert the previously unpersuaded.
The damage that Leave has done and is doing to Britain is immense. It will not start to be repaired until Leave advocates start to acknowledge their role in that.
It would appear that confidence is re-established. Whether this is particularly helpful when we are trying to reduce a massive structural trade deficit that is impoverishing our country is another question of course.
I suspect we will have confirmation this morning that real wage growth is back, albeit at tiny levels.
Up to 1/3 of millenials will never own their own home. The need to address the chronic failings in our housing market is genuinely urgent, both for the younger generation affected and for the political prospects of the government. I am not seeing anything like the sense of urgency and commitment required in these areas and it will cost the Tories dear.
That said, I’m very anxious to see us abandon this foolish business of leaving the EU
@DavidL in particular I don’t see why you’re so enraged as it seems to be the government trying to fulfill its manifesto pledge.
I suspect that you voted both for them and for Brexit, each of which was likely to have such not unintended consequences.
If say only a third of Millennials would ever own their own home that would be a problem for the Tories as they normally need about 40%+ at least for an overall majority but 60% owning their own home and 40% not is less of an issue
NEW THREAD
The UK is a country which has been living beyond its means for two decades.
And the actual coin for wash transaction is only the visible part of bigger picture - the washer will require housing, use public services, add to pressure on transport and the environment and possibly claim benefits.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43653291
Something you seem unwilling to think about.
It wasn’t even the official campaign
It was an unpleasant group of people led by unpleasant individuals.