politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Johnson/Cummings propose moving the House of Lords to York

NorthernPowerhouse said:

ydoethur said:

One infrastructure priority should be to complete electrification of the Midland Main Line - and preferably all other railways too.

I can’t be bothered to explain why, but I think this video does it very eloquently:

https://youtu.be/Ro0016JG2Ms

With electrification comes driver only control of trains. The unions have been successful in blocking this elsewhere.

I believe that the appropriate responses are 'Hellfire!' 'Dreadful!' and 'My Lords!'

Byronic said:

SouthamObserver said:

Byronic said:

eek said:

Byronic said:

Excellent idea. Do it. York is a good choice

Incidentally, in the middle of the Brexit horror show, won't someone think of UK universities? They are doomed to decline as foreign students shun the hostile atmos...

Oh.

"Number of international students at UK universities jumps

Chinese students help fuel surge in non-European foreigners starting courses"

https://www.ft.com/content/8f025b0e-3872-11ea-a6d3-9a26f8c3cba4

Universities had 3 years to prepare for something that only has a 12-18 month sales cycle (I did some pre-sales to universities over the past 18 months and the sales cycle is easy to work out. With UCAS forms for September 2020 admissions done things now turn to September 2021.

But... but.... but... we were explicitly told the racist and hostile attitude, expressed by Brexit, would put off all the foreign students?!

"Brexit would put one in five international students off studying in UK, study finds"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/brexit-international-students-uk-universities-a8862081.html

As it turns out, that was total bollocks. EUgemon. So it's win-win.

The same process will, I think, apply to many of the areas cited by Project Fear. eg. EU academic staff. Sure, some will go home, but others will come from further afield.

Brexit is a pivot away from Europe, and out towards the wider world, just as Brexiteers predicted.

What makes our universities great is the R&D they do. It is vital this continues. We will always be able to find students to teach undergraduate engineering, computing and science courses to. The challenge will be attracting the post-graduates and absorbing them into the wider university hinterlands that currently exist. That will depend heavily on the immigration rules we put in place. Chinese students will go home.

Boris is already relaxing immigration rules for students. He's not an idiot like TMay.

"Immigration status: Ministers tear up May-era student visa rules"

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49655719?ocid=socialflow_twitter&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter

It’s the earnings and conditions for post-grads and beyond that's the issue. Johnson does understand the importance of our tertiary sector, but we need rules that make recruitment and retention of R&D talent as easy as possible. Our universities are being shut-out of pan-EU projects and are losing the ability to recruit freely from a talent pool of 500 million. They’ll be competing directly with the Americans now. They are going to need a lot of practical help.

YBarddCwsc said:

SouthamObserver said:

Why the north of England? Why not Scotland or Wales?

The only people in Wales interested in the House of Lords are dying or dead Llafur politicians. We don't want them. York is a good choice, IMO.

The expulsion of these bodies from London is completely correct and long overdue. There is absolutely no need for these bodies to be headquartered in London. House of Lords, the BBC, the Universities, charity headquarters, cultural institutions --- they all need too be booted out of London.

If you are charity partly relying on charitable donations, then it seems to me that shifting out of expensive London property is absolutely crucial. Why is Shelter England HQ-ed in London -- why not e.g., Newcastle or Birmingham?

I get the argument with respect of charities, cultural institutions government departments and so on. I dont see how it follows with parliament or half of parliament. Yes I know many places have split capitals or parliaments not in their largest city, but the UK is hugely dominated by London and will continue to be even without parliament in it.

To me such plans look like identifying a real issue, London being dominant and the rest not getting enough attention, but coming up with an ineffective and inappropriate solution because it looks like its addressing the issue but isn't. Its political virtue signalling of proving who is the most not London supporter.

This is a smokescreen. Nero fiddling while Rome burns or just Cummings fiddling about?

Apart from anything else, imagine the cost. HS2 will be a cut priced bargain compared to moving HoL out of London. It's like we haven't got anything else to spend the money on.

I bet one could buy countless water-cannon and a hatful of garden bridges.

Mark Thompson, ex-BBC DG has just said on Marr that the LibDems, during the Coalition, blocked Osborne's attempt to transfer the costs of over 75's (my) licence fees to the Beeb.
So much for my generation voting Tory, not LD. Such blockages ween't publicised, of course.

YBarddCwsc said:

SouthamObserver said:

Why the north of England? Why not Scotland or Wales?

Why is Shelter England HQ-ed in London

And if it has to be in London why is it in EC1?

One of the reasons Northern Rock failed was the lazy feckers supervising it couldn't be arsed to spend 3 hours on the train to Newcastle....

Byronic said:

Southam:

"That depends on the immigration regime and rules."

++++

Boris' Tories have seriously relaxed the student visa rules already. They have also abandoned the commitment to net migration "in the tens of thousands". Foreign students are enrolling in UK universities in greater numbers than ever before.

Cheer up.

I thought the nub of Brexit was keeping Johnny Foreigner out. Have I been sold a pup?

Byronic said:

Southam:

"That depends on the immigration regime and rules."

++++

Boris' Tories have seriously relaxed the student visa rules already. They have also abandoned the commitment to net migration "in the tens of thousands". Foreign students are enrolling in UK universities in greater numbers than ever before.

Cheer up.

I think Johnson is far more flexible on these things than May. My point is more that the real issue is about post-graduates and beyond, and the ability to recruit and retain talent. Up to now, we’ve had the huge advantage of freedom of movement and, therefore, a talent pool of 500 million to tap into. That is going, so we are now competing directly with the Americans in a way we haven’t been previously. We need an immigration regime that recognises that.

Mexicanpete said:

Byronic said:

Southam:

"That depends on the immigration regime and rules."

++++

Boris' Tories have seriously relaxed the student visa rules already. They have also abandoned the commitment to net migration "in the tens of thousands". Foreign students are enrolling in UK universities in greater numbers than ever before.

Cheer up.

I thought the nub of Brexit was keeping Johnny Foreigner out. Have I been sold a pup?

Johnny Foreigner has always been able to come here - as long as he pays royally for the privilege.

Byronic said:

Mexicanpete said:

This is a smokescreen. Nero fiddling while Rome burns or just Cummings fiddling about?

Apart from anything else, imagine the cost. HS2 will be a cut priced bargain compared to moving HoL out of London. It's like we haven't got anything else to spend the money on.

I bet one could buy countless water-cannon and a hatful of garden bridges.

Moving the HoL to York would probably save us money after about three years. Lower accommodation costs, fewer deadbeat Lords turning up just to get their daily bung. Etc etc

The idea it would cost us more than HS2 - ie more than £80bn - is "interesting". Is Boris proposing to build their new home out of moonrock?

It isn't just the cost of turning the Rowntrees factory into the HoL.

Imagine all the public enquiry costs, civil service costs to shuffle papers, agreeing planning permissions. It will have cost billions, before Lord Bercow takes his seat on the Labour benches for the first time.

MikeSmithson said:

NorthernPowerhouse said:

ydoethur said:

One infrastructure priority should be to complete electrification of the Midland Main Line - and preferably all other railways too.

I can’t be bothered to explain why, but I think this video does it very eloquently:

https://youtu.be/Ro0016JG2Ms

With electrification comes driver only control of trains. The unions have been successful in blocking this elsewhere.

Except on Thameslink which which has been driver only since 1987 without any negative consequences.

[rant mode on]

Which carries nice posh people to nice posh destinations whilst whistling the tune to Blade Runner past the gleaming skyscrapers.

Try doing it in a carriage at 11pm in the company of loud rough kids, the high and the drunk, the menacingly violent, the near rapists, the drunken footy fans, the hen nights, and then do it whilst the train is travelling slow due to a failure in the signalling and a suicide near the station, and it's pissing down and if you miss your connection you you will be stranded in Lower CrapTownOnShit trying to find the taxi rank to find a PremierInn that has a room free.

[rant mode off]

Not a bad idea to move the Lords to York, but hardly a priority. Another gimmicky idea really.

matt said:

Mexicanpete said:

Byronic said:

Mexicanpete said:

This is a smokescreen. Nero fiddling while Rome burns or just Cummings fiddling about?

Apart from anything else, imagine the cost. HS2 will be a cut priced bargain compared to moving HoL out of London. It's like we haven't got anything else to spend the money on.

I bet one could buy countless water-cannon and a hatful of garden bridges.

Moving the HoL to York would probably save us money after about three years. Lower accommodation costs, fewer deadbeat Lords turning up just to get their daily bung. Etc etc

The idea it would cost us more than HS2 - ie more than £80bn - is "interesting". Is Boris proposing to build their new home out of moonrock?

It isn't just the cost of turning the Rowntrees factory into the HoL.

Imagine all the public enquiry costs, civil service costs to shuffle papers, agreeing planning permissions. It will have cost billions, before Lord Bercow takes his seat on the Labour benches for the first time.

Your argument is one for making no change ever.

No it isn't, it's an argument about whether the cost would be worth the benefits. If the benefits are higher then such costs would not be prohibitive. It would't cost HS2 levels but there would be signicant costs and lots of other constituional procedural adjustments as part of it, and for what? That people will be super happy that the Lords meet in some other city, as if that solves issues of economic and political focus in the UK?

Byronic said:

Mexicanpete said:

Byronic said:

Southam:

"That depends on the immigration regime and rules."

++++

Boris' Tories have seriously relaxed the student visa rules already. They have also abandoned the commitment to net migration "in the tens of thousands". Foreign students are enrolling in UK universities in greater numbers than ever before.

Cheer up.

I thought the nub of Brexit was keeping Johnny Foreigner out. Have I been sold a pup?

No, the point of Brexit was Taking Back Control. We have done that. We will control our borders by the end of the year.

Then we can let in millions of nice, quiet, hard working Chinese students with loads of money. Fine by me.

Boris previously indicated that the shortfall from EU nationals returning to Eastern Europe could be offset by inviting our friends from the Indian subcontinent to replace them.

It will be interesting to see how the points system will work.

IshmaelZ said:

kle4 said:

DavidL said:

I think we have better things to spend money on right now tbh but getting more government out of London and more of the government spend up north is clearly a good idea.

Why is the Supreme Court in London, for example?

Why wouldnt it be? You say clearly moving things out is a good idea - why? It isn't clear to me at all.

I must be the only non londoner who doesnt have a problem with major national institutions being centred in our capital and largest city.

Government departments? Sure. But parliament? The supposed benefits look iffy, and definitely so if it's only half.

Quite so. Joined up government sounds better to me than wilfully disjointed.

Not ifthe aim is to set up a dictatorship.

matt said:

Mexicanpete said:

Byronic said:

Mexicanpete said:

This is a smokescreen. Nero fiddling while Rome burns or just Cummings fiddling about?

Apart from anything else, imagine the cost. HS2 will be a cut priced bargain compared to moving HoL out of London. It's like we haven't got anything else to spend the money on.

I bet one could buy countless water-cannon and a hatful of garden bridges.

Moving the HoL to York would probably save us money after about three years. Lower accommodation costs, fewer deadbeat Lords turning up just to get their daily bung. Etc etc

The idea it would cost us more than HS2 - ie more than £80bn - is "interesting". Is Boris proposing to build their new home out of moonrock?

It isn't just the cost of turning the Rowntrees factory into the HoL.

Imagine all the public enquiry costs, civil service costs to shuffle papers, agreeing planning permissions. It will have cost billions, before Lord Bercow takes his seat on the Labour benches for the first time.

Your argument is one for making no change ever.

Not really. My argument is that all wasteful vanity projects are always best left in the box.

I suspect this one will remain in its box.

Byronic said:

SouthamObserver said:

Byronic said:

Southam:

"That depends on the immigration regime and rules."

++++

Boris' Tories have seriously relaxed the student visa rules already. They have also abandoned the commitment to net migration "in the tens of thousands". Foreign students are enrolling in UK universities in greater numbers than ever before.

Cheer up.

I think Johnson is far more flexible on these things than May. My point is more that the real issue is about post-graduates and beyond, and the ability to recruit and retain talent. Up to now, we’ve had the huge advantage of freedom of movement and, therefore, a talent pool of 500 million to tap into. That is going, so we are now competing directly with the Americans in a way we haven’t been previously. We need an immigration regime that recognises that.

SouthamObserver said:

Byronic said:

Southam:

"That depends on the immigration regime and rules."

++++

Boris' Tories have seriously relaxed the student visa rules already. They have also abandoned the commitment to net migration "in the tens of thousands". Foreign students are enrolling in UK universities in greater numbers than ever before.

Cheer up.

I think Johnson is far more flexible on these things than May. My point is more that the real issue is about post-graduates and beyond, and the ability to recruit and retain talent. Up to now, we’ve had the huge advantage of freedom of movement and, therefore, a talent pool of 500 million to tap into. That is going, so we are now competing directly with the Americans in a way we haven’t been previously. We need an immigration regime that recognises that.

The UK university sector is booming. See the figures. And as far as I know, the government is not going to stop them recruiting French maths professors or expert Greek physicists. At the same time, these Frogs and Greeks will still be pretty keen to work in the UK, because we have many of Europe's best universities, and we teach in English.

Brexit is a change, a bump in the road - but it is not the apocalypse.

It doesn’t have to be, that is for sure. And for many of us, it definitely won’t be.

FF43 said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/scotonsunday/status/1218826711846064128?s=20

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to refuse the Scottish Government the right to call another independence referendum starts to look a lot less like the outrage described by nationalists and more like an example of him defending the wishes of a majority of Scots.

Having gone through five years and counting of non-stop constitutional wrangling, most Scots are not gagging for another referendum (although some are).

If there is one, I expect independence to win. No-one much will speak for the Union. The Tories have comprehensively poisoned the unionism well.

The Tories have just won a majority on a manifesto commitment to no indyref2 for their full 5 year term and that is what they will do and block it regardless of what Sturgeon says.

Though of course 54% of Scots voted for Unionist parties at the general election last month anyway

From Johnson's point of view, facing down calls for a second independence referendum makes complete sense because it represents a clear danger to him.

So we have Sturgeon representing Scotland saying we want a referendum and Johnson representing England* saying, no you can't. That doesn't sit very well with me and I don't even want another referendum.

* Technically Johnson is the prime minister of the United Kingdom but his party's brand of English nationalism doesn't play well in Scotland, beyond a hard core. Johnson has no interest in supporting the Union beyond rejecting a second referendum.

Well that is up to you but any indyref2 needs the consent of the UK government and this Tory government has made clear it will refuse indyref2 whatever the circumstances.

2014 was said by the SNP to be a 'once in a generation referendum' and they must be held to that. Quebec for example was only allowed a second independence referendum by the Canadian government in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980. 2014 was only 6 years ago.

The SNP should count themselves lucky they are not yet in Catalonia with the Spanish government sending in armed police to arrest nationalist leaders and stop any referendum taking place

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

The state opening of parliament is going to be a nightmare for HM. I am not sure the Gold State Coach can stand up to the potholes on the A1. They will have to divert via the Starbucks drive thru at South Mimms.

There are all sorts of practical issues with this idea that make it an absurdity.

Parliament works as one.

I had to stop at S Mimms yesterday for minimum fuel fill up 1.519 for derv I put a gallon in because I had to (4.5litres approx. to non imperial folk).. its almost akin to theft at that price.. S Mimms is a bastard to get into and a bastard to get out of, especially in the dark.

The proposal is half-baked and far too unambitious. All of Parliament should move to Middlesbrough.

Byronic said:

SouthamObserver said:

Byronic said:

Southam:

"That depends on the immigration regime and rules."

++++

Boris' Tories have seriously relaxed the student visa rules already. They have also abandoned the commitment to net migration "in the tens of thousands". Foreign students are enrolling in UK universities in greater numbers than ever before.

Cheer up.

I think Johnson is far more flexible on these things than May. My point is more that the real issue is about post-graduates and beyond, and the ability to recruit and retain talent. Up to now, we’ve had the huge advantage of freedom of movement and, therefore, a talent pool of 500 million to tap into. That is going, so we are now competing directly with the Americans in a way we haven’t been previously. We need an immigration regime that recognises that.

SouthamObserver said:

Byronic said:

Southam:

"That depends on the immigration regime and rules."

++++

Boris' Tories have seriously relaxed the student visa rules already. They have also abandoned the commitment to net migration "in the tens of thousands". Foreign students are enrolling in UK universities in greater numbers than ever before.

Cheer up.

I think Johnson is far more flexible on these things than May. My point is more that the real issue is about post-graduates and beyond, and the ability to recruit and retain talent. Up to now, we’ve had the huge advantage of freedom of movement and, therefore, a talent pool of 500 million to tap into. That is going, so we are now competing directly with the Americans in a way we haven’t been previously. We need an immigration regime that recognises that.

The UK university sector is booming. See the figures. And as far as I know, the government is not going to stop them recruiting French maths professors or expert Greek physicists. At the same time, these Frogs and Greeks will still be pretty keen to work in the UK, because we have many of Europe's best universities, and we teach in English.

Brexit is a change, a bump in the road - but it is not the apocalypse.

Probably. If Brexit really was a catastrophe we wouldn't be doing it. But that's a low bar for decision-making. Deliberately infecting myself with HIV probably isn't a catastrophe these days. You can manage it with expensive drugs

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/scotonsunday/status/1218826711846064128?s=20

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to refuse the Scottish Government the right to call another independence referendum starts to look a lot less like the outrage described by nationalists and more like an example of him defending the wishes of a majority of Scots.

Having gone through five years and counting of non-stop constitutional wrangling, most Scots are not gagging for another referendum (although some are).

If there is one, I expect independence to win. No-one much will speak for the Union. The Tories have comprehensively poisoned the unionism well.

The Tories have just won a majority on a manifesto commitment to no indyref2 for their full 5 year term and that is what they will do and block it regardless of what Sturgeon says.

Though of course 54% of Scots voted for Unionist parties at the general election last month anyway

Hi HYUFD. As I posted last time you mixed percentage of vote with a FPTP result you can't logically use both in an argument for the following 2 reasons:

a) You can not assume the percentage votes under FPTP implies the percentage of Unionist voters. Voters are voting for a plethora of reasons during a GE not just on unionism v independence.

b) And more importantly if you are an advocate of FPTP you can not put forward an argument on the basis of the percentage of the vote and also accept Boris won the election. I assume you do accept Boris did win the election which implies saying 54% voting unionist is not meaningful. If you think it is meaningful you have to accept Boris lost the election. You can't have your cake and eat it. It is one or the other.

The argument is logically flawed. Try breaking it down by replacing statements with non meaningful expressions e.g. replace each statement with a letter of the alphabet and you will see you get mathematical logical contradictions.

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/scotonsunday/status/1218826711846064128?s=20

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to refuse the Scottish Government the right to call another independence referendum starts to look a lot less like the outrage described by nationalists and more like an example of him defending the wishes of a majority of Scots.

Having gone through five years and counting of non-stop constitutional wrangling, most Scots are not gagging for another referendum (although some are).

If there is one, I expect independence to win. No-one much will speak for the Union. The Tories have comprehensively poisoned the unionism well.

The Tories have just won a majority on a manifesto commitment to no indyref2 for their full 5 year term and that is what they will do and block it regardless of what Sturgeon says.

Though of course 54% of Scots voted for Unionist parties at the general election last month anyway

Hi HYUFD. As I posted last time you mixed percentage of vote with a FPTP result you can't logically use both in an argument for the following 2 reasons:

a) You can not assume the percentage votes under FPTP implies the percentage of Unionist voters. Voters are voting for a plethora of reasons during a GE not just on unionism v independence.

b) And more importantly if you are an advocate of FPTP you can not put forward an argument on the basis of the percentage of the vote and also accept Boris won the election. I assume you do accept Boris did win the election which implies saying 54% voting unionist is not meaningful. If you think it is meaningful you have to accept Boris lost the election. You can't have your cake and eat it. It is one or the other.

The argument is logically flawed. Try breaking it down by replacing statements with non meaningful expressions e.g. replace each statement with a letter of the alphabet and you will see you get mathematical logical contradictions.

I accept it is a moral argument only.

The only thing that really matters is the Tory UK government has a majority of seats on a manifesto commitment to ban indyref2 for its full 5 year term and that is precisely what it will do.

AlastairMeeks said:

The proposal is half-baked and far too unambitious. All of Parliament should move to Middlesbrough.

If we divert the entire NHS budget for the next 25 years that might just work!

Byronic said:

SouthamObserver said:

Byronic said:

SouthamObserver said:

Byronic said:

Southam:

"That depends on the immigration regime and rules."

++++

Boris' To
Cheer up.

I think Jcognises that.

SouthamObserver said:

Byronic said:

Southam:

"That depends on the immigration regime and rules."

++++

Boris' Tories have seriously relaxed the student visa rules already. They have also abandoned the commitment to net migration "in the tens of thousands". Foreign students are enrolling in UK universities in greater numbers than ever before.

Cheer up.

I think Johnson is far more flexible on these things than May. My point is more that the real issue is about post-graduates and beyond, and the ability to recruit and retain talent. Up to now, we’ve had the huge advantage of freedom of movement and, therefore, a talent pool of 500 million to tap into. That is going, so we are now competing directly with the Americans in a way we haven’t been previously. We need an immigration regime that recognises that.

The UK university sector is booming. See the figures. And as far as I know, the government is not going to stop them recruiting French maths professors or expert Greek physicists. At the same time, these Frogs and Greeks will still be pretty keen to work in the UK, because we have many of Europe's best universities, and we teach in English.

Brexit is a change, a bump in the road - but it is not the apocalypse.

It doesn’t have to be, that is for sure. And for many of us, it definitely won’t be.

Already, some of the Project Fearmonger predictions about Brexit's wider impact look absolutely embarrassing. Education is one sector where this is true. See here:

"For centuries, British schools were the envy of the world. Now they’re scrambling to stay alive."

SCRAMBLING TO STAY ALIVE

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/07/the-brexit-fueled-death-of-the-british-university/

Meanwhile, back on Planet Reality:

"There is good news for the UK university sector with HESA’s first release of data for the 2018/19 academic year: international student numbers are up by 5.9% on the previous period – with a notable 42% hike in new student enrolments from India."

https://thepienews.com/news/uk-hesa-data-shows-another-year-of-growth-in-international-student-numbers/

Not really certain yer average Brexiteer is going to be that chuffed with such an increase.

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

2014 was said by the SNP to be a 'once in a generation referendum' and they must be held to that. Quebec for example was only allowed a second independence referendum by the Canadian government in 1995, 15 years after the first in 1980. 2014 was only 6 years ago.

Scotland is being stripped of the EU membership which its people overwhelmingly wish to retain. The EU membership which those same people were assured in 2014 that only a vote against independence would guarantee.

This does not constitute a "material change in circumstances" and thus grounds for another vote? C'mon. Of course it does.

No it does not and the fact a majority of Scots voted for Unionist parties at the general election despite the Brexit vote confirms that.

However regardless we have a Tory UK government elected with a clear manifesto commitment to block indyref2

felix said:

Corbyn nominates for the H/L a man who faces allegations of bullying his former staff and a woman under investigation for anti-semitism oh and the nonce finder general. Way to go JC!

But it's all OK because they have nominated the Jew Bercow.....

Byronic said:

SouthamObserver said:

Byronic said:

Southam:

"That depends on the immigration regime and rules."

++++

Boris' Tories have seriously relaxed the student visa rules already. They have also abandoned the commitment to net migration "in the tens of thousands". Foreign students are enrolling in UK universities in greater numbers than ever before.

Cheer up.

I think Johnson is far more flexible on these things than May. My point is more that the real issue is about post-graduates and beyond, and the ability to recruit and retain talent. Up to now, we’ve had the huge advantage of freedom of movement and, therefore, a talent pool of 500 million to tap into. That is going, so we are now competing directly with the Americans in a way we haven’t been previously. We need an immigration regime that recognises that.

SouthamObserver said:

Byronic said:

Southam:

"That depends on the immigration regime and rules."

++++

Boris' Tories have seriously relaxed the student visa rules already. They have also abandoned the commitment to net migration "in the tens of thousands". Foreign students are enrolling in UK universities in greater numbers than ever before.

Cheer up.

I think Johnson is far more flexible on these things than May. My point is more that the real issue is about post-graduates and beyond, and the ability to recruit and retain talent. Up to now, we’ve had the huge advantage of freedom of movement and, therefore, a talent pool of 500 million to tap into. That is going, so we are now competing directly with the Americans in a way we haven’t been previously. We need an immigration regime that recognises that.

The UK university sector is booming. See the figures. And as far as I know, the government is not going to stop them recruiting French maths professors or expert Greek physicists. At the same time, these Frogs and Greeks will still be pretty keen to work in the UK, because we have many of Europe's best universities, and we teach in English.

Brexit is a change, a bump in the road - but it is not the apocalypse.

As a parent with 3 successful Univ graduates i can tell you imo that some Universities are barely fit for purpose. Lectures are threadbare, tutors invisible and students study alone in their rooms 90% of the time. Fees are ridiculous and
the fact that you only need to be able to breathe to gain entry is a farce. And what
do you end up with? (offspring excluded naturally) - naive, ill-prepared adults
with zero common sense.

Byronic said:

OldKingCole said:

Byronic said:

SouthamObserver said:

Byronic said:

SouthamObserver said:

Byronic said:

Southam:

"That depends on the immigration regime and rules."

++++

Boris' To
Cheer up.

I think Jcognises that.

SouthamObserver said:

Byronic said:

Southam:

"That depends on the immigration regime and rules."

++++

Boris' Tories have seriously relaxed the student visa rules already. They have also abandoned the commitment to net migration "in the tens of thousands". Foreign students are enrolling in UK universities in greater numbers than ever before.

Cheer up.

I think Johnson is far more flexthe Americans in a way we haven’t been previously. We need an immigration regime that recognises that.

Th
Brexit is a change, a bump in the road - but it is not the apocalypse.

It doesn’t have to be, that is for sure. And for many of us, it definitely won’t be.

Already, some of the Project Fearmonger predictions about Brexit's wider impact look absolutely embarrassing. Education is one sector where this is true. See here:

"For centuries, British schools were the envy of the world. Now they’re scrambling to stay alive."

SCRAMBLING TO STAY ALIVE

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/07/the-brexit-fueled-death-of-the-british-university/

Meanwhile, back on Planet Reality:

"There is good news for the UK university sector with HESA’s first release of data for the 2018/19 academic year: international student numbers are up by 5.9% on the previous period – with a notable 42% hike in new student enrolments from India."

https://thepienews.com/news/uk-hesa-data-shows-another-year-of-growth-in-international-student-numbers/

Not really certain yer average Brexiteer is going to be that chuffed with such an increase.

If Brits are unhappy with this increase, we should be seeing a surge in concern about immigration, in the polls.

Funnily enough, the opposite has happened.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/02/britons-more-sold-on-immigration-benefits-than-other-europeans

https://www.ft.com/content/a8007652-0b97-11ea-b2d6-9bf4d1957a67

I didn't mention the majority of Brits; I referred to Brexiteers. As you know, the polls suggest the majority of Brits now want to stay in the EU.

sirclive said:

Byronic said:

SouthamObserver said:

Byronic said:

Southam:

"That depends on the immigration regime and rules."

++++

Boris' Tories have seriously relaxed the student visa rules already. They have also abandoned the commitment to net migration "in the tens of thousands". Foreign students are enrolling in UK universities in greater numbers than ever before.

Cheer up.

I think Johnson is far more flexible on these things than May. My point is more that the real issue is about post-graduates and beyond, and the ability to recruit and retain talent. Up to now, we’ve had the huge advantage of freedom of movement and, therefore, a talent pool of 500 million to tap into. That is going, so we are now competing directly with the Americans in a way we haven’t been previously. We need an immigration regime that recognises that.

SouthamObserver said:

Byronic said:

Southam:

"That depends on the immigration regime and rules."

++++

Boris' Tories have seriously relaxed the student visa rules already. They have also abandoned the commitment to net migration "in the tens of thousands". Foreign students are enrolling in UK universities in greater numbers than ever before.

Cheer up.

I think Johnson is far more flexible on these things than May. My point is more that the real issue is about post-graduates and beyond, and the ability to recruit and retain talent. Up to now, we’ve had the huge advantage of freedom of movement and, therefore, a talent pool of 500 million to tap into. That is going, so we are now competing directly with the Americans in a way we haven’t been previously. We need an immigration regime that recognises that.

The UK university sector is booming. See the figures. And as far as I know, the government is not going to stop them recruiting French maths professors or expert Greek physicists. At the same time, these Frogs and Greeks will still be pretty keen to work in the UK, because we have many of Europe's best universities, and we teach in English.

Brexit is a change, a bump in the road - but it is not the apocalypse.

As a parent with 3 successful Univ graduates i can tell you imo that some Universities are barely fit for purpose. Lectures are threadbare, tutors invisible and students study alone in their rooms 90% of the time. Fees are ridiculous and
the fact that you only need to be able to breathe to gain entry is a farce. And what
do you end up with? (offspring excluded naturally) - naive, ill-prepared adults
with zero common sense.

naive, ill-prepared Labour-voting adults with zero common sense.

felix said:

Corbyn nominates for the H/L a man who faces allegations of bullying his former staff and a woman under investigation for anti-semitism oh and the nonce finder general. Way to go JC!

Johnson’s nominations will also be interesting.

OldKingCole said:

Byronic said:

OldKingCole said:

Byronic said:

SouthamObserver said:

Byronic said:

SouthamObserver said:

Byronic said:

Southam:

"That depends on the immigration regime and rules."

++++

Boris' To
Cheer up.

I think Jcognises that.

SouthamObserver said:

Byronic said:

Southam:

"That depends on the immigration regime and rules."

++++

Boris' Tories have seriously relaxed the student visa rules already. They have also abandoned the commitment to net migration "in the tens of thousands". Foreign students are enrolling in UK universities in greater numbers than ever before.

Cheer up.

I think Johnson is far more flexthe Americans in a way we haven’t been previously. We need an immigration regime that recognises that.

Th
Brexit is a change, a bump in the road - but it is not the apocalypse.

It doesn’t have to be, that is for sure. And for many of us, it definitely won’t be.

Already, some of the Project Fearmonger predictions about Brexit's wider impact look absolutely embarrassing. Education is one sector where this is true. See here:

"For centuries, British schools were the envy of the world. Now they’re scrambling to stay alive."

SCRAMBLING TO STAY ALIVE

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/07/the-brexit-fueled-death-of-the-british-university/

Meanwhile, back on Planet Reality:

"There is good news for the UK university sector with HESA’s first release of data for the 2018/19 academic year: international student numbers are up by 5.9% on the previous period – with a notable 42% hike in new student enrolments from India."

https://thepienews.com/news/uk-hesa-data-shows-another-year-of-growth-in-international-student-numbers/

Not really certain yer average Brexiteer is going to be that chuffed with such an increase.

If Brits are unhappy with this increase, we should be seeing a surge in concern about immigration, in the polls.

Funnily enough, the opposite has happened.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/02/britons-more-sold-on-immigration-benefits-than-other-europeans

https://www.ft.com/content/a8007652-0b97-11ea-b2d6-9bf4d1957a67

I didn't mention the majority of Brits; I referred to Brexiteers. As you know, the polls suggest the majority of Brits now want to stay in the EU.

Actually the poll Byronic pointed to shows that more Britons oppose immigration than support it. The difference is less than in some other countries. The headline doesn't support the article.

FF43 said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/scotonsunday/status/1218826711846064128?s=20

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to refuse the Scottish Government the right to call another independence referendum starts to look a lot less like the outrage described by nationalists and more like an example of him defending the wishes of a majority of Scots.

Having gone through five years and counting of non-stop constitutional wrangling, most Scots are not gagging for another referendum (although some are).

If there is one, I expect independence to win. No-one much will speak for the Union. The Tories have comprehensively poisoned the unionism well.

The Tories have just won a majority on a manifesto commitment to no indyref2 for their full 5 year term and that is what they will do and block it regardless of what Sturgeon says.

Though of course 54% of Scots voted for Unionist parties at the general election last month anyway

From Johnson's point of view, facing down calls for a second independence referendum makes complete sense because it represents a clear danger to him.

So we have Sturgeon representing Scotland saying we want a referendum and Johnson representing England* saying, no you can't. That doesn't sit very well with me and I don't even want another referendum.

* Technically Johnson is the prime minister of the United Kingdom but his party's brand of English nationalism doesn't play well in Scotland, beyond a hard core. Johnson has no interest in supporting the Union beyond rejecting a second referendum.

Well that is up to you but any indyref2 needs the consent of the UK government and this Tory government has made clear it will refuse indyref2 whatever the circumstances.

2014 was said by the SNP to be a 'once in a generation referendum' and they must be held alist leaders and stop any referendum taking place

You and Johnson are not making it easy for me. I'm a unionist. I want to stay in the United Kingdom. Johnson and his whole rancid crowd will eventually be swept away by the tides of history. We need to take a longer view.

But if the only thing keeping us in is the heavily implied threat of violence, it's time to get out.

The anger and aggression is coming from the SNP side.

I accept some liberal wet, pro EU, vaguely Unionist but not really bothered people might not like standing up to Sturgeon so aggressively but Boris will do it anyway and could not care less

Byronic said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/scotonsunday/status/1218826711846064128?s=20

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to refuse the Scottish Government the right to call another independence referendum starts to look a lot less like the outrage described by nationalists and more like an example of him defending the wishes of a majority of Scots.

Having gone through five years and counting of non-stop constitutional wrangling, most Scots are not gagging for another referendum (although some are).

If there is one, I expect independence to win. No-one much will speak for the Union. The Tories have comprehensively poisoned the unionism well.

The Tories have just won a majority on a manifesto commitment to no indyref2 for their full 5 year term and that is what they will do and block it regardless of what Sturgeon says.

Though of course 54% of Scots voted for Unionist parties at the general election last month anyway

From Johnson'se Union beyond rejecting a second referendum.

Well that is up to you but any indyref2 needs the consent of the UK government and this Tory government has made clear it will refuse indyref2 whatever the circumstances.

2014 was said by the SNP to be a 'once in a generation referendum' and they must be held alist leaders and stop any referendum taking place

You and Johnson are not making it easy for me. I'm a unionist. I want to stay in the United Kingdom. Johnson and his whole rancid crowd will eventually be swept away by the tides of history. We need to take a longer view.

But if the only thing keeping us in is the heavily implied threat of violence, it's time to get out.

The anger and aggression is coming from the SNP side.

I accept some liberal wet, pro EU, vaguely Unionist but not really bothered people might not like standing up to Sturgeon so aggressively but Boris will do it anyway and could not care less

Quite. Boris has nothing to lose. He has a lot to gain. Not least, the support of probably a majority of Scots who REALLY don't want another wrenching referendum.

My guess is that a few Nats are in this camp. Theoretically they want indy, but right here right now? Hmm.

Fine but morally its not your place to decide for them. The SNP and the Scottish Greens were already elected with a mandate to hold another Referendum.

Everyone likes Cummings because he hates the right people, even though he has admitted to bullying, because supporting Con is now about shitposting threats of violence to civil servants and Scots, and ironic antiSemitism from the Labour perspective.

Witless, pointless change to pretend that it makes a difference.

FF43 said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/scotonsunday/status/1218826711846064128?s=20

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to refuse the Scottish Government the right to call another independence referendum starts to look a lot less like the outrage described by nationalists and more like an example of him defending the wishes of a majority of Scots.

Having gone through five years and counting of non-stop constitutional wrangling, most Scots are not gagging for another referendum (although some are).

If there is one, I expect independence to win. No-one much will speak for the Union. The Tories have comprehensively poisoned the unionism well.

The Tories have just won a majority on a manifesto commitment to no indyref2 for their full 5 year term and that is what they will do and block it regardless of what Sturgeon says.

Though of course 54% of Scots voted for Unionist parties at the general election last month anyway

* Technically Johnson is the prime minister of the United Kingdom but his party's brand of English nationalism doesn't play well in Scotland, beyond a hard core. Johnson has no interest in supporting the Union beyond rejecting a second referendum.

Well that is up to you but any indyref2 needs the consent of the UK government and this Tory government has made clear it will refuse indyref2 whatever the circumstances.

2014 was said by the SNP to be a 'once in a generation referendum' and they must be held alist leaders and stop any referendum taking place

You and Johnson are not making it easy for me. I'm a unionist. I want to stay in the United Kingdom. Johnson and his whole rancid crowd will eventually be swept away by the tides of history. We need to take a longer view.

But if the only thing keeping us in is the heavily implied threat of violence, it's time to get out.

The anger and aggression is coming from the SNP side.

I accept some liberal wet, pro EU, vaguely Unionist but not really bothered people might not like standing up to Sturgeon so aggressively but Boris will do it anyway and could not care less

Johnson not caring less is precisely the issue.

But I guess we've taken this argument as far as we can.

Boris isn't likely to lose a wink of sleep over Scotland. If it stays, that's a win for the Union. If it goes, his majority increases by over 50% (+41 net on my reckoning).

How ever will he cope with either of these terrible outcomes?

York is too expensive and too busy as it is.

Nor does it have good road or air links.

Put it in one of the towns the Conservatives won in December.

Leak Burnley, Redcar or Grimsby to the media to really panic the Lords and then announce Crewe, Darlington or Doncaster.

Byronic said:

Gallow:

"Fine but morally its not your place to decide for them. The SNP and the Scottish Greens were already elected with a mandate to hold another Referendum."

++++

Yes it is my place, as a British citizen with a vote. As long as we are a unified country - the UK - it is the UK government, as a whole, which decides when constituent parts of it may have a referendum to secede.

This is only sensible. Otherwise the SNP Scots government could call a vote every six minutes, on any pretext, in the hope of a YES.

Similarly Wales, Yorkshire, Cornwall, Hay-on-Wye and my mad Auntie Mable in Tooting who thinks she is the nation of Andorra. No government can allow endless votes, in various bits of the country, on whether the country should break up.

I suspect that's what Lisa Nandy was trying to say in her reference to Spain/Catalunya, tho she phrased it badly.

If the Scots keep electing governments who want to hold that referendum then who are you to say no?

Mr. Gate, must be a bloody big IKEA to have its own MP!

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/scotonsunday/status/1218826711846064128?s=20

.

.

last month anyway

Hi HYUFD. As I posted last time you mixed percentage of vote with a FPTP result you can't logically use both in an argument for the following 2 reasons:

a) You can not assume the percentage votes al contradictions.

I accept it is a moral argument only.

The only thing that really matters is the Tory UK government has a majority of seats on a manifesto commitment to ban indyref2 for its full 5 year term and that is precisely what it will do.

I can't argue with that. Either argument was valid, it was a both together I had an issue with.

I actually don't have strong views re independence one way or another. However a strong argument against Independence at the time was the issue of staying in the EU. In my view (and it appears the nation's as well, regardless of whether you are a leaver or remainer) that change is a mind bogglingly fundamental change.

Consequently it can be argued that a subsequent vote is valid. The 'once in a generation' argument is irrelevant if you have changed the playing field and the argument so fundamentally.

I don't actually care what the result of such a vote would be from leafy Surrey.

You could argue that but then if it was raining tomorrow the SNP would also blame that on Westminster and demand indyref2 so you cannot win, Brexit is just the latest SNP excuse for independence. Even if Remain had won the SNP would still be campaigning for indyref2

Well that is true, but that is not where we are so they do now have a valid argument. If we voted remain you would have a more valid argument for denying a them another go.

Re earlier post I noticed you referred to it being a 'moral argument'. I accept that and would hope it always were, BUT there is no contradiction between being logical and moral.

There is a big difference between opinion and logic, hence the huge arguments on politics, religion, abortion, crime and punishment, etc. However the opinions should be argued logically. We can disagree without breaking the rules of logic.

No, I outright oppose indyref2 regardless for a generation, exactly as Salmond said the 2014 referendum was once in a generation.

Brexit is just the latest excuse of the SNP for indyref2, the fact some might agree with them is irrelevant, what matters is whether the UK government agrees with them and it does not having won a majority on a manifesto commitment to no indyref2

felix said:

Corbyn nominates for the H/L a man who faces allegations of bullying his former staff and a woman under investigation for anti-semitism oh and the nonce finder general. Way to go JC!

Resignation honours are about looking after loyal friends and allies - that's just a fact, if you look at past ones. I'd have liked to see him nominate Seumas Milne too, if only to enjoy the fuss. But anyway Boris should have nominated Bercow hiself - the breach of precedent is undesirable, becuase it implies the Speakers need to please the Government of the day in order to receive the normal honos on retirement.